New PA Poll: Hillary Ahead by 11 Points

A new PA poll by Muhlenberg College and the Morning Call show Hillary ahead by 11 points. Full poll results are here.

Key findings:

1. With the Pennsylvania Presidential Primary under three weeks away, Senator Hillary Clinton maintains a double digit lead over Senator Obama in the Democratic race.

2. Democratic voters in the Keystone State were most likely to rank the economy as the key issue in terms of their vote in the Democratic Primary, with the Iraq War and health care also prominently mentioned.

3. Pennsylvania Democrats have generally favorable views of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. However, Obama receives a larger percentage of unfavorable ratings than Clinton among likely voters in the state.

4. Keystone State Democrats are evenly divided on which of their candidates is more likely to beat John McCain in the general election.

5. Democratic voters in the Commonwealth are more likely to want Hillary Clinton to choose Barack Obama as her running mate than they are to support Obama choosing Clinton as his Vice President.

6. A majority of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania do not believe Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race if she loses the Pennsylvania Primary.


Media bias? The poll states:

Clinton’s lead in Pennsylvania is statistically equal to our last statewide poll in February, and provides evidence that the former First Lady remains the frontrunner in the Commonwealth’s April 22nd primary.

Check out the article in the Morning Call, co-sponsor of the poll, Second Poll Shows Clinton's Lead Shrinking. At least it acknowledges

The survey coincided with Obama's six-day swing through the state.

''After a barnstorming tour, all kinds of media attention throughout the state, plus his ad buy, you'd really start to see some questions raised if he wasn't having some traction in the polls,'' said Borick, director of Muhlenberg College's Institute of Public Opinion in Allentown.

On another poll note, Hillary's favorability rating is higher than Obama's.

Seven in 10 Democratic voters say they have a favorable impression of Obama, with only 3 percent not familiar enough with him to form an opinion. A quarter said they have an unfavorable impression.

Clinton gets better ratings. Seventy-seven percent view her favorably; 21 percent unfavorably.

< My View: Mark Penn Must Go | One Reporter Finally Notices Obama Is A Pol, Not a Saint >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:50:05 AM EST
    Hillary's numbers are falling rapidly in PA.  Why, she lost 2 points between the title of this post and the first sentence alone.

    Hee hee (none / 0) (#4)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    I figured it was a typo by Jeralyn, but I noticed it too. :-)

    it was a typo (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM EST
    fixed now, thanks much.

    Heh (none / 0) (#62)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:36:18 PM EST
    Yeah, I'm sure the world changed between March 29 and April 1.  

    The fact that you feel compelled to keep posting, over and over again, how the April polls supposedly tell a different story suggests that I'm not the one who has a "need to believe" anything.  I am perfectly content to wait until the votes are counted and see how it turns out.


    On the contrary (none / 0) (#65)
    by sas on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    in polls just released, she is up by 5 in Indiana and up by 9 in North Dakota.

    Link this to other polls showing her beating him by double digits in Ky, W Va, and PA, she is doing very well.

    This morning polls came out from Strategic Vision, showing her beating McCain in PA and Ohio, while Barack loses both states to McCain.

    Further, it looks like he may take only Oregon and North Carolina.
    She'll most  likely take Puerto Rico.

    Things are definitely looking good.



    Thanks for the reality check. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:51:15 AM EST
    Here's something interesting from the poll:

    This number of completions results in a margin of error of +/- 5% at the 95% confidence interval. However the margin of error for all sub groups (i.e. women, Catholics) is larger due to smaller sample size.

    Considering that women make up 51% of the population, and that they go very strongly for HRC in general, that poll could even be undersampled.

    My neck hurts (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:05:53 PM EST
    I swear, these polls are giving me whiplash.

    Does anyone else think (none / 0) (#21)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:17:49 PM EST
    that some of these pollsters are being lied to?  And I don't mean specifically this one, because as a Clinton supporter I am inclined to believe it is wholly accurate (!) but, in general, as factions become more divided, and the cult of personality becomes more pronounced, I wonder if any poll can be accurate.  

    I am sure someone will bring up the Bradley Effect--which I have never believed was a factor in this particular race--but because Obama is so clearly seen as the "cool" one that the intelligent and educated voters will go for, I can easily imagine a scenario where someone who is called out of the blue might instinctively want to glom onto this wave and say they will vote Obama.  Then, when they get into the voting booth and no one is watching, they vote Clinton.  It's like all those people who say they only watch PBS...someone is watching American Idol.  Same with folks who say they only read "Serious" literature.  Doesn't exactly jibe with the bestseller list.  

    Instead of identity politics, it's identity polling.


    The desire to keep your vote secret, (none / 0) (#35)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:32:27 PM EST
    for one reason or another, seems to have a place in this primary season. You might like this piece written by Rebecca Traister. I usually adore her writing, but this piece has some spectacular points matched with some disappointing ones. It may be of interest, though!

    Whose "Coolest" (none / 0) (#37)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:35:47 PM EST
    but because Obama is so clearly seen as the "cool" one that the intelligent and educated voters will go for...

    I don't get this. HRC oozes intellectuality and intelligence - she is at heart a policy wonk, and I've long thought supporting Woman's advancement was way cool.

    I don't know why blue collars are clinging to HRC other than racism, and I don't know why the self-infatuated cling to Obama other than hype and mindless follower worship.


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:41:01 PM EST
    I don't know why blue collars are clinging to HRC other than racism,

    Did you really mean that the way it sounded?


    maybe it was snark (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    on David Sirota's 'race chasm' theory, which pretty much says exactly that.

    As it would be expected to (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    Working people losing ground who want government to work for them again? Wanting a candidate who sees them as people? Preferring policy wonkery to anaphoric rhetorical structures?

    Nah. Couldn't be. Crazy talk.

    If you don't believe in the Unity Pony, you're a racist. Heck, they told me that all the time over at DK, so it's got to be true!


    and yet - people wonder (none / 0) (#77)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:51:24 PM EST
    why Edwards hasn't endorsed - after the Obama supporters (ahem: Matt Stoller) called the Edwardses racists and sexists.



    Depends on what you think it sounds like (none / 0) (#52)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:11:22 PM EST
    What it means is why are non-black blue collar voters mostly not supporting Obama? And likewise, why are so-called intellectuals mostly not supporting for HRC?

    voting blocks going overwhelming one way or other is not explained by what small policy differences exist between HRC and Obama, or by both of their fundamentally, establishment positions and orientations.

    The similarity of the candidates explains the overall 50-50 split of support, but not the non-homogeneous distribution of support among the voter pool.


    x (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:30:06 PM EST
    You may not see huge policy differences between the candidates, but I see huge chasms. Just their health plans alone mean the difference between paying an extra $2-3,000 for health insurance and the difference of 15 million people getting insured. I don't consider that a slight difference.

    Nor do I consider it a slight difference as to whether we have nuclear power plants all over the country, or safer, cleaner forms of energy. I don't consider it a small difference as to whether subprime homeowners actually get help keeping their homes or not. I could go on and on for dozens of pages. If you really want to know the differences between their economic policies, read some Krugman. I grow weary of hearing this myth that there are only small policy differences. If you're well off and don't really care how quickly the economy gets back on its feet, or how competently our foreign policy is managed, or whether people get healthcare, economic help, affordable college, and on and on - then go ahead and believe that. But it doesn't make it any truer.


    Seek and yee shall find (none / 0) (#70)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:15:05 PM EST
    You could go on and on, as could anyone that follows closely and puts in the effort to look into the  differences of the candidates. But do you really think most of the voters are seeing what you're seeing?

    So (none / 0) (#66)
    by sas on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:05:41 PM EST
    Is it your theory that the blue collar Dems are racist, while the inellectuals are sexist?



    Drivers (none / 0) (#74)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    I think racism, sexism, identity politics, and perceived "coolness" appear to be bigger drivers in the Democratic primary than the usual differentiators of policy and electability.

    Those are always drivers (none / 0) (#85)
    by spit on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:06:15 AM EST
    but there are others you're not considering, too -- while I find the two candidates very similar on actual policy, their presentations are different and point to somewhat different governing styles. It makes sense to me that Obama's unity thing and his focus on the way government works (things like transparency, bottom-up vs. top-down approaches, etc) would appeal to the more financially stable and educated folks he's tending to get. On the other hand, those philosophical underpinnings of governance seem a little bit less vital when you're wondering how you're going to pay this month's rent and still be able to feed your kids -- from that perspective, people seem more often to be after somebody directly addressing specific issues that will make a real-world difference for them, and Clinton tends to get their votes.

    I think racism and sexism both play a role in this election, but I also think there are plenty of other factors to consider before declaring any large demographic group motivated primarily by either.


    Fatigue and replenishment (none / 0) (#75)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:39:27 PM EST
    I think the reason why so many people are excited over our Dem candidates is because they both represent what was missing from George Bush.  They each are so contradictory to his bumbling idiot persona.  

    Young people and the wealthy "latte liberals" who definitely found a lot of humor in Bush's goofy ways.  They laugh at him a lot, but I think over time it got tiring and worrying that our President is such a dullard.  So Obama appeals to them because you can laugh WITH him and not AT him.  Finally there's a presidential hopeful that we can like and trust and that seems aware that the way the country has been run is the wrong way to go about things.  It's a nice change.

    Older and working class people were so disappointed in Bush's utter lack of concern of the plight of the little people that Hillary's policy wonkishness is incredibly refreshing.  The way she speaks in detail gives them more confidence that she is aware that things are bad and that she has the knowledge to make it better.

    That's why I think it's so 50/50.  Because each candidate fills up the same void left by Bush but in two different ways.  Appealing to two different types of people.


    Very interesting (none / 0) (#84)
    by nemo52 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:35:20 PM EST
    analysis.  On first glance, it makes sense to me.

    Is it possible (none / 0) (#61)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:32:55 PM EST
    that some of it is gendered?  Clinton won NH on the women's vote. She won MA on the women's vote. I think I'm correct in stating that.

    IME in this election, women who support Clinton have been pretty publicly reviled, including long time public feminists.  Is it possible that women are simply saying one thing in public, or not saying anything at all, for fear of harassment and then going into the voting booth and pulling the lever for Clinton?  Sort of a "Clinton effect" which is the reverse of the "Bradley effect"?


    Women vote more (none / 0) (#68)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:08:26 PM EST
    in all elections.  I think statistically, they've been 54-59% of all voters this year.

    I think people who desperately need a new president are voting Clinton.  People who are doing fine on their own trend Obama.  These are blanket statements, of course, but a lot of the exit polling supports it, in my opinion.


    exit polling supports that arguement (none / 0) (#76)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:48:57 PM EST
    and what little anecdotal evidence i have also supports it.  this race is coming down to a basic long term division in the party due to class.  it's been papered over for a long time and i'm glad it is bursting into the open.

    Thanks for the belly laugh (none / 0) (#78)
    by Lil on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:48:52 PM EST
    Im totally with you on this

    In general election matchups, Obama has (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:29:19 PM EST
    lost Pennsylvania in 8 of the last 10 polls. Today's Strategic vision has him trailing McCain by 5, while Clinton wins by 6.

    The PPP survey troubles me.. (none / 0) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    Just two weeks ago it had Hillary up 26

    but the one that came a day ago has Obama up 2

    Both of those numbers are ridiculous (none / 0) (#19)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:12:11 PM EST
    Most polls have had Clinton ahead by about 12, at most. 26 is ridiculous. Anything that far from the norm has to be polling error or an outlier.

    When they say +/- 5%, they generally are referring to a 95% confidence level. That means that 95% of the time the actual data will be within 5% of the poll results. That means that 1 in 20 times the poll will be an "outlier" that is more than 5% from the truth. If they use a 90% confidence level (which requires less sampling) then 1 in 10  poll results will be outliers. Given the number of polls currently coming out, it is likely that a lot of them are flat out wrong.

    And if 1 in 20 seems like pretty good odds to you, then imagine that 1 in 20 times that you turned on a particular light switch you got an electric jolt. You'd get it fixed pretty fast, wouldn't you?  Most scientific studies try to get to a 99% confidence level. That requires more samples, which costs more. The only times that 95% is acceptable are when data is so expensive or hard to get that you just can't do the research properly. 90% is almost never used. That would mean that there is a 10% chance that your results are flat out wrong.


    If she loses PA (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:52:30 AM EST
    She will of course rightly drop out.

    Yup (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:56:23 AM EST
    I think we're likely to see an Ohio result again.

    As do I. (none / 0) (#17)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:07:00 PM EST
    Mifflin County (my home county) has their own phone bank operators. When I received a call from one operator over spring break, I was stunned. MiffCo is remarkably small and out of the way. Yet, there is a dedicated panel of callers. Bill Clinton recently stopped by a local high school to speak, and Hillary has been criss-crossing the state, from small rural areas to Philadelphia.

    She has been utilizing a massive grassroots campaign in Pennsylvania, and I think the wildly fluctuating polls (from 26% Hillary to 2% Obama) do not tell the real story. I suspect when the votes are tallied, Hillary will accomplish another Ohio.

    And, with 2 weeks remaining, I find myself returning to a phrase I read somewhere: "The more people get to know Hillary, the more they like her."


    Mifflin County is the middle of nowhere (none / 0) (#58)
    by scribe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:28:55 PM EST
     on the road from Harrisburg to State College - pop. 46,000 or so and all hogback ridges and narrow valleys (that's all a good thing, BTW) - and if they have a phone bank - that's impressive.  Looks like HRC is doing the same as she did in Ohio, which is the same as she did to win the Repug strongholds of upstate NY state in 2000, and bring so many of them to the Dem fold - street level, retail, one-on-one politics.

    Which, regardless of who wins and who loses Pa., is the way the Dems can win the election.


    I can't say what she'd do (none / 0) (#20)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:17:10 PM EST
    but I probably would if I were HRC.

    It's central to her argument that she can win big swing states.


    If Obama loses PA (none / 0) (#47)
    by Prabhata on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    Should he drop out because he has lost PA and OH and FL and all polls say that he'll probably lose those states in a GE?

    Right. I'm sure he'll look at the (none / 0) (#80)
    by derridog on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:04:33 PM EST
    "math" and realize that there's no way he can win and graciously drop out for the good of the party in November.

    Kinda get the impression... (none / 0) (#7)
    by mike in dc on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:54:10 AM EST
    ...that Team Obama is downplaying expectations while working their butts off to try to pull off an upset in PA and knock Clinton out of the race, since the overwhelming media/pundit/superdelegate/donor consensus is that if she loses there, she is toast.  So long as he doesn't pull into a slight lead until the last week, I think he can ride those lower expectations to either a narrow win or a close loss, and follow that with wins in IN and NC to close this thing out.  

    For once its a strategy I approve of.... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    ...it's his job to knock her out of the race instead of whining for her to step aside.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#45)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    not much of an "insurgent" candidate if he can't pull off the insurgency.

    Glad to see this (none / 0) (#8)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:55:51 AM EST
    I expected him to catch up some, but polls are just all over the place. I live in a county that just had a 11% increase in Dems. About 1k, but that is pretty amazing I think. And there was about 700 who changed from GOP to Dem. Considering the demographics of this NE Penna county, I would say they will be Hillary voters and not just playing Dem for the Day. They like her. I keep getting calls every night and interesting that you mention the economy. His first ads were dark and his current ads are about jobs and job losses, etc. I suspect also that we would have to look where the sample of polling was from.  

    His first ads were dark? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    Expect a FP about this on certain blogs!

    I love the overwhelming likability statistic.  We hear so often on the news and in other areas that she's basically reviled by all free-thinking people.  It's nice to have a reality check.  Thanks for posting this poll, y'all.  Good news indeed.


    I probably should say (none / 0) (#29)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:28:20 PM EST
    They were in black and white and dreary looking. No upbeat. So no FPers on this one. It is hard to see the happy. So those have changed. Now I will have to watch another one as my hand tends to hit the click on the remote. I think in the next couple of weeks I will be click, click, click if someone has THAT much money.

    Speaking of money. Is everyone sending (none / 0) (#81)
    by derridog on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:07:35 PM EST
    Hillary some?

    They need to improve polling (none / 0) (#10)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:59:25 AM EST
    The polls should not be this variable. They sample as few people as possible so that they can release more frequent polls and make more money. What ends up happening is that the public gets mixed messages (Clinton up 11, Clinton down to 3, Clinton down 2) and loses faith in polls entirely.

    It's not as if there aren't scientific standards for statistical analysis that can be used to increase the accuracy of polls. For starters, just interview more people. It's not brain surgery. A higher number of people means more accurate results. Of course, it also means less profit.

    Polls are variable (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Prabhata on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    when the race is fluid.  I agree with you that PA does not appear to be all that fluid and hence the poll should be consistent showing only a direction.

    The robo-pollsters can do that (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:02:46 PM EST
    more easily. (Survey USA for example)

    Robo-surveys bring up other issues (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    I suspect that, overall, the robo-surveys are more accurate because they call a lot more people, but there are issues. A lot of people routinely hang up on robo-calls (I am one of them). Others screen calls so that they only answer the phone when there is a live human on the other end. Either way, you have a selection bias. Of course, even if the call is made by a person, there is a chance that people will screen it or refuse to answer. Robo-calls will probably reach a lot more people, simply because it's possible to make many, many more calls. Even if the response rate is lower, you end up with more responses and better data. That still won't get you past the confidence level issue, though. There will be outliers. This is not explained well in most polls. They give the confidence interval (+/- X%), but rarely provide the confidence level.

    Well, the proof is in the pudding (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    SUSA tends to do a good job, so I think their methods are sound.

    They aren't 100% right 100% of the time, but then, nobody can be.


    "The proof is in the pudding"... (none / 0) (#39)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:37:09 PM EST
    ...is a very unstatistical way of looking at things. ;-)

    dammit dianem, I'm a historian, (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:41:33 PM EST
    not a statistician!

    I sort of enjoy the idea of combining (none / 0) (#82)
    by derridog on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:09:03 PM EST
    statistics with pudding proofs.

    FWIW - Muhlenberg is one of the more (none / 0) (#16)
    by scribe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    reliable pollers of Pa. politics - they have a long history of being very careful, doing it right and getting it right.

    Kind of like Quinnipiac's history re NYC area polls.

    So, when they come out with this number, I'm inclined to give them more credence than the out-of-state pollsters swooping in for a single campaign.


    Always be suspicious of polls (none / 0) (#32)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:30:37 PM EST
    Even reliable pollsters are wrong a certain percentage of the time. Statistics is all about how to most accurately represent the truth AND how to quantify the errors in your results. The expectation is that there will be error, and it is just as important to recognize that and quantify it as it is to reduce it. Whenever a number is dramatically different form other polls, it is likely to be an outlier. The outfit may have made a mistake, or they may have done everything right and still ended up outside the margin of error. Sometimes the number is not an outlier but actually reflects a change in the data. If so, then future polling will show that.

    Oh... and it has nothing to do with being out-of-state or local or who the pollster works for. It is all about polling methodology. Smaller, in-state pollsters should get the same results as larger out-of-state outfits, if they both sample enough people and don't bias the questions.


    Your points are valid, but (none / 0) (#60)
    by scribe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:31:41 PM EST
    I'm telling you - Muhlenberg has a well-earned, long-time reputation for getting things right.

    More than any other outfit doing local Pa. polling, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.


    I don't think I was clear enough (none / 0) (#63)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:41:31 PM EST
    I'll try one more time, then leave it alone.

    Muhlenberg's statisticians would be the first to tell you that no matter how careful they are, no matter how responsible they are, sometimes their polls will be inaccurate. Inaccuracy is built into the system, they can't avoid it, all they can do is describe it and minimize it.  It would be irresponsible if they simply didn't report a particular poll because they thought it was an outlier. That would be withholding data. You don't report only the data you like - that's very bad business in a scientific polling firm. Numbers that are far outside of the norms have to be questioned unless they are backed up by future polls. The 26% was not backed up by future polls, so it must be assumed that it was an outlier. At a 95% confidence level, about 1 in 20 polls will report numbers that are outliers. Given that a dozen polls seem to come out every day, that means that we will have a lot of outliers out there.


    Clinton calls for poverty czar (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:05:53 PM EST
    aka a job for John Edwards.  Great idea! (And I don't just say that because I suggested it myself. - ha)


    Excellent idea (none / 0) (#22)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:20:01 PM EST
    no matter who the czar is (I'd love it to be John Edwards, though).

    The number of people in poverty in America is an absolute disgrace. And many of them have jobs - more than one.


    reading my mind.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Arcadianwind on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    I've been thinking about that a lot.
    It makes perfect sense.

    If Clinton lost Pennsylvania, I'd say she would (none / 0) (#18)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:11:38 PM EST
    pretty much have to drop out.

    Ok,, I agree her chances would be slim (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    But, does that mean if BHO loses Penna, he will just pack it in too? Works for me.

    OT but per Lambert (none / 0) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:21:48 PM EST
    Sorry, open thread was closed....

    Lambert has a small piece linking to Obama's front page.  He suggested a screen dump before it is scrubbed.


    Screen dump at No Quarter (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:24:42 PM EST
    in case Obama site pulls it.



    Agreed (none / 0) (#24)
    by smott on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:23:45 PM EST
    ...but I doubt she will lose. I think it's pretty much OH Redux...BO should take the Philly area but that is about it. Mid-state and Western is too much white working class and substantial elderly at least in Pgh....

    And count me among those who likes her more the more I see/hear her. She's extremely quick. Not the greatest speaker it's true. But very sharp hence her good performance in debates.

    And sadly the more I've seen from BO the more I just think there's not much There there....

    I've heard this from more than one person. (none / 0) (#34)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    Both of them are white men, by the way, who are more conservative than I am.

    I find it funny how... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Marco21 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:24:27 PM EST
     the race tightening was big shocking news for the pro-Obama media.  When she wins Pennsylvania by a  wide-margin like she did in California and Ohio, they'll chock it up as no big deal and move on.

    I do often wonder (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    at what point folks will call for Obama to drop out.  First, it was if he didn't win X big states on Super Tuesday, then it was all about TX and OH...what will it be next?  Amazing how the goal posts keep moving.

    Americans are being quite fickle about this one.  I think we see that reflected in these disparate polls.  Apparently, we learned nothing after NH.  I really think that people are lying to pollsters.  PA will tell us, I guess.  Not that anyone will listen!


    at the point... (none / 0) (#31)
    by smott on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:30:34 PM EST
    ...where he is significantly behind in both delegates and pop vote. WHich is not going to happen.

    HRC's only chance is big wins in PA, WV, win IN, and somehow not get clobbered in NC.

    I secretly hope Edwards endorses her on the eve of the NC primary!

    But I dream....


    The problem is (none / 0) (#42)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:43:10 PM EST
    that Michigan and Florida are not being counted.

    So to me, and probably to many others, he is not really ahead in any way.

    He can go ahead and drop out any time. ;-)


    Well yes.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by smott on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    Certainly MI and FL represent a goat f-ck of major proportions...but there it is. The way they have handled it I do not think BO can have the legitimacy he needs.

    So let's hope HRC can find a way to win what she needs to in the remaining contests.


    With this announcement of a poverty czar, (none / 0) (#43)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    Edwards may very well endorse her. I think, in any case, it is far more likely an occurrence now than it was yesterday.

    I also want Edwards... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Marco21 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    to endorse her before NC. What does he have to lose? Of course if he endorses Barack he'll lose my respect.

    Just kidding. John is a good egg. But that endorsement is gold.


    Elizabeth Edwards (none / 0) (#53)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    would be a great endorsement.  She is not bound by John Edwards' statement that he will not endorse. And she is very passionate about health care and likes Hillary's healthcare proposal.

    She make like the proposal (none / 0) (#56)
    by smott on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:17:27 PM EST
    ...but unfortunately she doesn't much like Hillary. We'll see if that stops her...

    How do we know (none / 0) (#79)
    by Lil on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:57:08 PM EST
    she doesn't like Hillary?

    to be really blunt, (none / 0) (#48)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:04:47 PM EST
    the only "poll" that really counts is the one on election day, everything else is just a (more or less) educated guess.

    of course, those wins would be due to racism.

    HRC's only chance is big wins in PA, WV, win IN, and somehow not get clobbered in NC.

    as i look at the NC demos, i'm still pretty sure sen. clinton will lose there, but not by all that much. the AA population in NC (the source of sen. obama's wins in the rest of the deep south) isn't as large a % of the state's population as it is in SC. no doubt sen. obama will take 85-90% of it, but i'm not convinced he'll fare that well among the rest of the population.

    in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter which of them wins in NC now, neither will in nov.

    Thanks for the pep talk (none / 0) (#50)
    by smott on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    Why no one talks about this POLL anymore (none / 0) (#57)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:28:45 PM EST
    The general election match-ups show that Barack Obama still has a lot of ground to make up here, though, should he ultimately win the Democratic nomination:

       McCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 42%
        Clinton (D) 47%, McCain (R) 41%

    I remember Obama used to tout his numbers against McCain when he was up by just 2 points

    Indeed (none / 0) (#69)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:13:00 PM EST
    during one of the debates, O cited two arguments for his electability over Clinton, both based on polling: (1) that he beat McCain and (2) that his negatives are lower than Clinton's.

    Well, what a difference a couple of months make!  And his current electability argument is..."She did it first!"


    Patience (none / 0) (#67)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:07:53 PM EST

    I'm (none / 0) (#71)
    by sas on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    from PA and I have live both in the Pittsburgh  area (Washington County) and the Philadelphia area (Bucs County).

    I feel pretty certain from knowing the state and talking to people that the 11 points is probably pretty accurate.

    Do you (none / 0) (#73)
    by nell on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    think she will be able to build on this lead? While 11 points would be great, and enough to more than prove that Obama has been unable to eat into her core groups, I think she would be better off with a bigger lead...she needs to show that he is not just maintaining Ohio levels, but that he has been damaged since then...

    Yes. That would be nice. Can't you Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#83)
    by derridog on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:13:25 PM EST
    people do that for us?  We need a massive blowout.   Please work on it, okay?