Worst Pollsters On PA: Clinton Comfortably Ahead

By Big Tent Democrat

The worst pollsters, ARG and Zogby (PDF), have new PA numbers. ARG has Clinton by 13, 54-41 (down from a 20 point lead) and Zogby has Clinton up 6, 48-42 (up from a 3 point lead). Watch Zogby hedge his bet:

“A big one-day of polling for Clinton. If a 10-point victory is the pundit-driven threshold she needs on Tuesday, it looks like she can do it. This does not look like a one-day anomaly – undecideds dropped to only 5% in this latest single day of polling, and they are breaking Clinton’s way. As I suggested yesterday, if white and Catholic voters, who still are the biggest portion of undecideds, actually vote, Clinton will have her double-digit victory. Just today alone, she polled 53% to Obama’s 38%.

Sure, Zogby, whatever you say. ARG's internals make sense to me:

Clinton leads 63% to 32% among white voters (81% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 86% to 12% among African American voters (15% of likely Democratic primary voters).

That adds up to 57-43 Clinton I think.

< Courage | Hillary Responds to Obama Saying McCain Would Be Better Than Bush >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    57/43. . . (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:29:55 PM EST
    All that trouble, and they could have just asked MyDD a month ago. ;-)

    (I actually happen to think that projection tad high. I'm looking for 56/44.)

    I so hope you are right. I have such an uneasy (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:34:16 PM EST
    feeling. It may be because I watched cable TV this weekend and fell for the spin. The talking heads sure are expecting a close one. If you are right, wonder how long they'll justify waiting to call it?

    'Too close to call' (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Coldblue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    get used to hearing that on Tuesday...

    I don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:51:01 PM EST
    I am thinking they call it within 10 minutes of poll closing.

    It took almost 1 hour (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Coldblue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:01:31 PM EST
    for them to call Ohio. Don't see much difference this time.

    If I recall correctly... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:06:18 PM EST
    they had a judge order some polls to stay open longer because of some problems with machines

    Yeah, was there ever a follow-up? (none / 0) (#33)
    by ineedalife on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:16:38 PM EST
    That night I said that the Obama lawyer that lied to the judge to keep polls open in AA neighborhoods should be disbarred. I wonder if anything ever happened?

    Obama's lawyer lied to judge (none / 0) (#71)
    by Faye67 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:38:48 PM EST
    Probably never know. Media will not tell. Someone should be disbarred.

    I believe (none / 0) (#18)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:03:29 PM EST
    The reason was cities were very slow coming in, and they waiting to correlate early returns with exit polls. I read somewhere major cities come in first in PA.

    Philly always comes in first in PA (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:04:52 PM EST
    so the actual results will take some time to come in.

    You think that will be bad for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by TalkRight on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:15:52 PM EST
    because of Philly Oberman, Mathews and CNN's "neutral" analysts will keep on showing the pie chart with Obama winning 60-40 till other cities report.

    Pie Chart (none / 0) (#72)
    by Faye67 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:44:01 PM EST
    They should not be allowed to do that either. I lived in California for 35 years. They always had the winner or saying they were the winner. So I'd just stay home. My 1 vote wouldn't help. Already voted for Hillary....

    Maybe you're right (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Coldblue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:07:23 PM EST
    but I would think that Obama will be stronger in the cities. Shoot, I guess we'll see on Tuesday.

    That's right (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:12:33 PM EST
    much stronger in the cities. Watch for some less-informed Obama supporters to proclaim a landslide win for him.

    Just vote (none / 0) (#73)
    by Faye67 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:46:43 PM EST
    Don't stay home no matter what they say. I did that for years. They are not always right. You know the media is for Obama GO VOTE EVERYBODY PLESE!!!

    Think New Hampshire, Look Into My Eyes....lol (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:13:13 PM EST
    If America expects to survive, it has to be Clinton.

    ARG (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Coldblue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:32:38 PM EST
    seems to have bet the farm on this one.

    I hope they are correct.

    Uh oh (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:34:39 PM EST
    if they think it's good, it must be bad!  Or, maybe they're low-balling to manage expectations?  Or high-balling to make Clinton look bad?

    No, no--I'm keeping to my credo: any poll that shows good for my girl is a good poll.

    ARG Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:39:29 PM EST
    Let's see, a swing of from +13 to 0 to +20 in a couple of weeks and somehow they seem not very reliable. I wonder why.

    I think the name ARG is a pretty good exclamation about their results....


    How come there is no new SUSA poll? (none / 0) (#38)
    by derridog on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:20:41 PM EST
    I think its due Monday N/T (none / 0) (#40)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:22:59 PM EST
    Or Zogy thinks it's going to be 30 pts. (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:01:03 PM EST
    and wants to make sure he's within his usual margin of error.

    always... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:36:33 PM EST
    the late breakers that make some of these pollsters look so dumb...


    just ask them...

    He will lose (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:57:16 PM EST
    and the bitter comments will certainly have something to do with it, IMO.  What are people expecting?  The first primary after a long stretch of negative media coverage for Obama, immediately after his worst debate performance, a week after his bitter comments, in a state where the demographics favor Clinton and where she has been endorsed by the Governor and the mayor of Philadelphia...that spells Clinton win.  And if she doesn't win, I will happily concede that Obama is the better candidate.  

    Also, I think the absurd handicapping of the PA primary (Clinton needs X, no, Y, to really win!) is no different from the "these states don't count" comments that Obama supporters decried so recently.  They need to get a grip.

    Efffect of Comments (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by chrisvee on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:05:58 PM EST
    I spoke with some of my friends in central PA this weekend who don't spend time obsessing following politics online and the first thing they mentioned was the 'cling to God and guns' comment.  The media may not think it's a big deal but voters may.  I guess we'll find out in a couple of days. :-)

    I honestly think (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:24:12 PM EST
    it's exactly the kind of thing that can stick in PA.  I'm from a rural part of PA.  If I still lived there I'm sure I'd have done a ton of chewing on those comments with my friends.  One of the basic problems with those comments is that they fell awry of that classic rule - I may talk bad about my family, but you can't.  PA people may be bitter, but I'll be d@mned if you get to call us that.  Pretty basic.  

    Handicapping (none / 0) (#24)
    by Spike on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:10:09 PM EST
    There's no doubt Clinton will get a double digit victory on PA popular vote. But will her margin be large enough for more than a 50-50 split of delegates? She needs a sizable delegate win in PA to secure a victory that is more than ephemeral PR. If she has another "victory" like Texas -- where she actually lost in the delegate count -- her days will be numbered.

    Impossible to lose the delegate count in PA (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    if she wins.  This isn't a caucus/primary.  Andgarden explained the district delegate breakdown earlier somewhere.  To summarize that, she will probably pick up more delegates than you expect, as PA has been gerrymandered by Republicans in such a way that would favor and focus her demographics' influence.

    Talking Head on Dobbs (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:09:16 PM EST
    It's a repeat... the TH said Obama is saying he expects to have this wrapped up May 6....  So they will lose PA and must be expecting to take IN?  The original projection by camp Obama was NC/IN 8/7.  She needs 10 pts to keep them from starting the 'why won't she drop out' song again.

    And the date keeps moving back (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:12:26 PM EST
    Eventually he will have it wrapped up by 2016.... :)

    Obama Has Never Been Above 45 In Any PA Poll (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:20:17 PM EST
    At least that's what the polling history I found shows - see here.

    Zogby predicting a Hillary win is worrisome (heh), but Obama would have to have support that has not shown up in any poll to  win on Tuesday.  What's more, he'd have to best his highest number (45) to lose by single digits.

    They Obama news media is, however, doing a great job of lowering expectations for Hillary and scaring the bejeebus out of me.  

    That 45% number is key (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:24:33 PM EST
    because I speculate that it's Obama's ceiling.

    I Suspect The Same Thing (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:30:54 PM EST
    It hasn't been that they've been trading leads back and forth because they're each hovering around 50%, the gap appears to be due to how much of the vote ends up in Clinton's column.

    Ohio looked almost the same way, although Obama did hit 46 and 47 there in a couple of polls.

    So long as Hillary can get her voters to the polls, she should be fine.  Knock wood.


    Turnout Assumptions (none / 0) (#61)
    by Spike on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:29:16 PM EST
    A 45%+ showing by Obama is unlikely but possible depending on the ultimate accuracy of the assumptions the pollsters have been using to estimate turn out.

    Hillary's HUGE Push? BOOTS on the ground!! (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Mrwirez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:16:56 PM EST
    Hillary must have had A HUGE turn out for volunteers today. I saw Hillary supporters on corners of busy roads, and packed shopping malls, and plazas in the Pittsburgh area. Phone calls, signs, and gatherings are going on everywhere. This must be the major push I have been hearing about. I was in Monroeville PA today on a VERY busy US Rt. 22 east of Pittsburgh, but still in Allegheny county. My GF saw the same things in Greensburg even farther east in Westmoreland county on US rt. 30. These are VERY busy suburbs with middle class white people, east of the city. Huge signs, honking of horns, etc. I have NEVER seen anything like this for a primary in my 42 years......... It is simply amazing. Barack Obama has been spending money for months here on advertising while Hillary has not been as visible. It seems she has been waiting to pounce. Bill, Hill, Governor Ed Rendell, Jack Murtha, Dan Onorato (chief executive of Allegheny county) and the 100 mayors that have come out to endorse Hillary are criss crossing this area and the whole state. What is even more bizzare is The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which is owned by Richard Mellon-Scaife endorsed Hillary today. That is the man and newspaper that pushed VERY hard against the Clintons in the 1990's......I would assume all this is going on in Philly, Harrisburg, and Erie too. Is this part of the Clinton machine people talk about? I really don't know but, it is very uplifting as a Clinton supporter I must say.

    Thanks for that comment (none / 0) (#63)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:04:34 PM EST
    that's better news than good poll numbers.  People underestimated her boots on the ground in TX to I believe.

    The news media has played up the virtual (none / 0) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:29:35 PM EST
    tie/margin of error all day. How can Obama's people be so foolish to play that expectations game if these polls are anywhere near right?

    Some aren't (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:30:48 PM EST
    Geekesque was more realistic about this earlier at Orange.

    Now your gonna (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Coldblue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:42:16 PM EST
    make me look.



    Undecideds and Garin The Village Idiot (none / 0) (#10)
    by JoeCHI on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    Let's just hope the remaining undecideds didn't watch Garin on MTP this morning.  He was inept and reflected poorly on both Hillary and her campaign.

    It may take a village, but it's best to keep the village idiot off of Sunday morning talk shows two days before the most important primary of the campaign.

    Where the hell was Wolfson?

    it may have been just me... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:11:56 PM EST
    but I thought Garin did pretty well this morning on meet the press. He didn't want to deal with the foreign policy question and punted it but he clearly was more calm, polite, rational, and a more effective surrogate than Axelrod though that is not necessarily a high hurdle.

    Howard Wolfson, like Penn and Axelrod tends not to score for likability...which is probably one of the more important things in an extended interview like that.

    One of the things that struck me was Obama's claim of not running a negative campaign was destroyed this morning on MTP - Axelrod can't sell that and Russert wasn't going to allow him to claim it. Axelrod actually completely repudiated his news conference yesterday...it was amusing.


    He seemed nice enough (none / 0) (#52)
    by nashville on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:56:00 PM EST
    but oh my goodness, he was not up to the task IMO.  I was really hoping it was just me.  I'm glad he didn't seem despicable (like A) but wished he had been a little more forceful with less stammering.

    Will SUSA come out with a poll before Tuesday?? (none / 0) (#13)
    by athyrio on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:53:02 PM EST

    I only pay attention to SUSA (none / 0) (#15)
    by Xeno on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:58:47 PM EST
    That is the only polling organization with a track record of getting the numbers right this year. The others engage in various forms of hackery, which renders their conclusions unreliable.

    Zogby, in particular, has been shameful this primary season. He had plenty of excuses ready for previous failures but none of them rang true. It would be shocking if he was within ten percentage points of the real results this time.

    a Creative Class Blogger speaks (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:11:30 PM EST
    . . Overall, the heaviest registration has come from college towns/areas, black neighborhoods, and the Creative Class neighborhoods of Philadelphia.

    This portends a very high differential turnout of Obama voters to Clinton voters in the five county area. It also portends an historically unprecedented differential turnout of the black/creative class vote over the white ethnic vote.

    drop the "cl" off that third word (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:20:18 PM EST
    and it makes more sense.

    ahahaha....good one Kathy (none / 0) (#65)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:26:22 PM EST
    but I wouldn't be so kind. dingbats the lot of them.

    Think Many Of Obama's Creative Class Supporters (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:40:08 PM EST
    are fiction writers. Poor fiction writers but fiction writers none the less.

    Creative writing class n/t (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:41:11 PM EST
    The same creative class blogger (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:22:25 PM EST
    who thinks it's wise to compare this to South Carolina?

    Heh, ok.

    He might have a point, but it's almost certainly by accident.


    PA isn't SC (none / 0) (#44)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:27:08 PM EST
    it's Kansas.  Duhhhhhhhhhhh.

    I'm pretty sure no one in my part of PA identifies with SC or Kansas, but you know, let the Brooklynites, or whomever, make their asnine connections.

    Of course, resentment of NYC is also typical of my part of PA...


    Heh (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:39:06 PM EST
    The funny thing is South Carolina does have SOME possible relevance of course. But the problem with the South Carolina polling was different than he thinks.

    Let me explain. SUSA's S.CA poll predicted Obama 43, Clinton 30, Edwards 24.

    The breakouts were expected turnout 55% white, 41% A-A, 4% Other.

    SUSA predicted whites splitting 38-38-21, A-A - 73-18-6.

    What happened? Obama got 55, Clinton 27, Edwards 18.

    How? Mostly A-As were 55% of the vote. Clinton actually got 19% of the A-A vote (to Obama's 78) so SUSA actually pegged the A-A vote in S.Ca. But it totally missed on turnout.

    Which was a shocking miss. Why Because A-As have made up half of the S.CA primary vote in the past. It was up certainly but not by enormous amounts.

    SUSA blew the turnout model, but because it did not respect prior Dem primaries consider 2004, with Sharpton. The turnout was 50% A-A.

    It was crazy of SUSA to project a 9% drop in A-A turnout when Obama was in the race with a real chance to win the nomination.

    Here we have PA with a limited upside because A-A turnout is simply very high already in PA. Could it go to say 19%? Possibly. But that still only gets Obama to 44, with the SUSA model.

    So it really does not do the trick.

    Of course, we are supposed to believe that Obama did something different in PA than in the previous states? Like what attract new voters etc? I really do not understand the theory frankly. Obama's argument has been that he has been doing this throughout. I do not get the hteory. But that seems to be PP's assumption. Maybe they will be right.


    When people have to make up (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM EST
    silly theories to explain why they'll win, there's a very good chance that they won't win. All of those new voters should be picked up in the polls. I suspect that they ARE being picked up, but that there just aren't enough of them.

    I actually think that black turnout will be about 17%, and so if we plug the final SUSA demo numbers into that (whatever they come out with tomorrow or tuesday morning), that will be my prediction.

    If Obama breaks 45%, I'll be surprised.


    That gets him 44 (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:00:25 PM EST
    The demographics and turnout driven (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:03:21 PM EST
    campaign continues.

    I guess the solace for Obama will be that he had the resources to pretty much reach his ceiling. But as usual, this portends nothing good for November.


    BTW (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:46:56 PM EST
    I think AA turnout will be exactly as it was in the 2004 general election, give or take, but that it represents considerably more of the Democratic electorate than the general electorate. If Philly turnout breaks 450,000, Obama will be in good shape (he still wouldn't win, though).

    What about street money? (none / 0) (#56)
    by tnjen on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:03:44 PM EST
    There was a big deal made in a few articles that Obama wasn't handing out street money in Philly and that it could suppress black turnout a little bit. Does anyone know if he ever came around? Does street money matter that much in Philly?

    It matters a little (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:04:56 PM EST
    and I think he will pay. Chaka Fattah will insist.

    with all his money (none / 0) (#58)
    by tnjen on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:11:04 PM EST
    It seemed crazy that he would refuse even a little insulting. Street money is used where I'm from although it's called walking around money or politicking money (lot's of arcane names, really) because we have so many poor people that need it. They get paid for helping but really it's more like charity. Everybody gets to eat on election day and that's always been important.

    In Philly it's WAM too (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:14:06 PM EST
    the only problem i have with (none / 0) (#66)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:05:33 PM EST
    this model is that the bulk of the AA population in PA is concentrated in one city, philly. the total AA population of the entire state is only 10%. given the fact that PA is historically a dem stronghold, that 10%, however many of them show up at the polls, is still small potatoes, by comparison to the white %.

    obama still needs a pretty hefty chunk of the white vote, regardless of how high a % of the AA vote he gets, have a snowball's chance of even coming close. since the bulk of that AA vote is in philly, he's cooked. clinton will thrash him by 20 points across the board.


    10% of the population (none / 0) (#67)
    by RTwilight on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:24:35 PM EST
    much higher % of the dem vote, given that about half of the pop is registered as dem, and 90% of AA voters are dems...it skews the ratios

    agreed, except, (none / 0) (#69)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:18:38 AM EST
    90% of 10% is still peanuts. even if he got 100% of the AA vote, he'd still lose in a landslide, unless he got a significant slice of the white vote. i don't think he will.

    BTD - please explain the calculation (none / 0) (#30)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:14:00 PM EST
    >>>>Clinton leads 63% to 32% among white voters (81% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 86% to 12% among African American voters (15% of likely Democratic primary voters).
    That adds up to 57-43 Clinton I think.

    I project the undecided voters (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:14:58 PM EST
    OK - got that. Now please continue.... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:18:51 PM EST
    I've seen similar calculation from other diarists for previous primaries - but never understood how they arrived at the results.

    Continue what? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:24:23 PM EST
    Clinton wins whites 2-1. that is 67-33. 81% of the turnout = 54.3 +

    13% of the A-A vote. 15% of the turnout. Obama  gets 86. I give him the last point. Make it 87. 0.13 X 0.15 = 1.95% + 54.3 = 56.25.

    Split the other 4% = 2% - 58 -42. I round down 1 to 57-43.


    Genius! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:53:37 PM EST
    You made that make sense to a guy (me) who got a 1.2 on his last go-around at Stats in college (granted, I missed the final, but even if I'd passed it would have been mostly out of luck)...

    Please don't feed the BTD :-) (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:58:30 PM EST
    71 degrees and SUNNY (none / 0) (#62)
    by Mrwirez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:43:53 PM EST
    on Tuesday in PA !!   Good for the elderly!!

    Light a candle for Hillary (none / 0) (#64)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:12:08 PM EST
    With a prayer of thanks, knowing that the heavens always makes lemonade from the lemons humans grow.

    true, but the majority (none / 0) (#70)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:25:11 AM EST
    (somewhere in the neighborhood of 500k) is from IL, sen. obama's home state. the rest of the country, not so much. that makes a huge difference in how those figures are perceived, or should.

    right now, sen. clinton can clean sen. obama's clock, in both pledged delegates and popular vote, going into the convention.

    by the end of the next round of primaries, they'll be calling for sen. obama to concede defeat.

    The Obama camp did that in Ohio also (none / 0) (#74)
    by Faye67 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:36:52 PM EST
    When they were getting ready to vote in Ohio they said Hillary didn't have a chance. Guess Ohio showed them... I think all the lies Obama has told and his camp knifing Hillary in the back every chance they get. I think after his last foot in the mouth there is going to be a lot of A A not voting for him either. Showing how immature in the last debate and wasn't handled with kidd gloves. Or his arrogance. He is as phoney as a $3 bill. Vote Hillary. Please!!