home

SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 18

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:59:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

The new world's greatest pollster, SUSA, releases its latest Pennsylvania poll:

[I]n Pennsylvania today, 04/08/08, two weeks to the vote, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama 56% to 38%, according to a SurveyUSA poll. The results are almost identical to a SurveyUSA poll released one month ago. Then, Clinton led by 19. Today, 18. . . . Summary: The complete absence of movement among whites and among women is striking. Among white voters, Clinton polled at 61% in all 3 tracking polls. Among women, Clinton was at 62% a month ago, 62% last week, and 61% today. These two unwavering core constituencies help make Clinton so formidable in the Keystone state.

This sounds right to me. NOTE - Comments are closed.

< Tuesday Open Thread | The "Gore-ing" Of Hillary Clinton >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 18 | 206 comments (206 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    That's interesting (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:01:36 PM EST
    because HIllary just started an ad blitz with Mayor Nutter and Governor Rendell. She's also playing up her Scranton roots.

    If she wins like this, game on.

    If Hillary wins PA by 18 points, (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:04:08 PM EST
    or even 15, then it's definitely difficult for Obama to spin it positively.  

    [ Parent ]
    If She Wins By More than 10 (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:33:24 PM EST
    that would be a very big accomplishment given the MSM/Blog push to suppress her vote and that Obama is outspending her 4-1.  

    [ Parent ]
    She's going to steal Bill's (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:04:19 PM EST
    come back kid identity ;)  That's okay, I don't think he deserved it as much as she does.

    [ Parent ]
    the hospital story could backfire (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:30:17 PM EST
    in Hillary's favor.

    [ Parent ]
    Go Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by STLDeb on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    Wow, I sure hope these poll numbers stay like this for Hillary.  You go girl!  Maybe, just maybe, people are FINALLY starting to wake up to all the negative media that is being thrown Hillary's way.

    How far away is the PA primary?

    [ Parent ]

    2 weeks - April 22 (none / 0) (#158)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:31:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Thx (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by STLDeb on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:19:26 PM EST
    Thanks Josey.  2 weeks is a long way to go.  Like I said, hang on there Hillary.  

    Has the news media picked up that Hillary actually got the hospital story CORRECT?

    [ Parent ]

    That's interesting (4.50 / 4) (#67)
    by delacarpa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    I am making my first post today on TalkLeft, IMO TL is one of the most unbiased blogs on the web today. Kudos to TL and what a honor to be here.

    So goes Ohio, Pa, and Indy, so goes the rest of the primaries.

    Mex

    [ Parent ]

    Watching the first round of the Petraeus (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:02:47 PM EST
    Crocker hearings and she spoke very presidentially outlining that we are there and this is not pretty.

    Just Don't Try To Be Him (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM EST
    Petraeus just called us the new Greatest Generation based on the serving military...bleh!

    [ Parent ]
    I wish (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    I have the utmost respect for the serving military, of course.

    But in no way has this war shaped a generation in the same way as WWII or Vietnam.  There are so many people whose lives simply aren't touched by this war, other than in a geopolitical sense.  How many members of the "Greatest Generation" didn't even know someone who was involved in the war effort?  The scale is just not comparable.

    But of course, you don't have points deducted for engaging in rhetorical excesses on behalf of the troops.  Still a silly thing to say.

    [ Parent ]

    I have a great deal of respect for (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:20:13 PM EST
    David Petraeus, but just as he did in his counterinsurgency manual he fails to take many social conditions and developments into account while formulating his superfied terrific optimistic successes ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Here is my take on Petraeus' "success".. (none / 0) (#139)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:07:23 PM EST
    The Iraqis are shooting at each other more than they are shooting at us. Therefore, we have success in Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    Truthfully, that isn't his idea of success (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    He's a bit deeper than that.  I think he's spent too much time in Iraq though and he has lost sight of this generation.  He needs to do some shopping malls to get a little balance going.

    [ Parent ]
    the problem with the (none / 0) (#198)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:39:05 PM EST
    "greatest generation" statement is that it brings a certain amount of nostalgia to the average American.  It seeks to romanticize in a very dangerous way an on-going battle with no clear way to win.  When we defeated the Germans and Japanese (and saved Europe's butt--haha) we had a clear path to victory.  With Iraq, not so.

    If we want to be nostalgiac about a past war in comparison to this one, Vietnam would be the better bet.  Considering the shoddy way we are treating returning vets, it is doubly-and shamelfully-so.

    [ Parent ]

    and the q-poll has it at 6 (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:04:26 PM EST
    i still see it as about 12. if it's 18, that would mean maybe 500,000 votes, and a lot of exploding heads on the pledged delegates are all that matter sites.

    SUSA (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM EST
    has proven the most adept at big contested states imo.

    I also like that they NEVER care what other polls are showing. The other polls are massaged imo.

    [ Parent ]

    I trust your polling of the polls ;) (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:07:18 PM EST
    You've been more accurate polling the polls than the polls have been.

    [ Parent ]
    clearly (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    susa has been the best, this year, but q is not arg or zogby. 18 would really surprise me. be fun to watch the fireworks, though.

    [ Parent ]
    Internal Polls (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by lisadawn82 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:30:43 PM EST
    I would love to see what the respective candidates internal polls are showing right now.  Governor Rendell is calling for a 5-10 point win while Senator Obama is spinning for a 20 point win on Senator Clinton's part.  So looking at the expectation game leads me to believe that the SUSA poll, at this moment, is a little high.

    Senator Obama has been flooding PA with TV ads so I expected the race to tighten for a few weeks while he outspends her but to open up again once she begins to run her adds.

    SUSA has proven itself to have the best polling but every once in a while even they miss it by a bit.  I guess time will tell.  It's going to be a LONG two weeks for me.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree that 10-12 is probably more (none / 0) (#16)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:07:47 PM EST
    accurate.  Having said that,  even an 18 point win for Clinton is unlikely to be enough to win the nomination.

    I'm not sure what you mean by  your remark about pledged delegates as even in such a scenario, without FL and MI even an 18 point win is not going to be enough to overturn Obama's pledged delegate lead assuming his current NC poll numbers are anywhere close to being accurate.

    [ Parent ]

    The last poll I saw had 9% undecided (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    given that undecideds have usually swung Clinton and this poll only has 2% undecided it makes sense to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:56:31 PM EST
    I was just going to look for the undecided numbers.  That has proved to be the difference in many poll results. Late undecideds have usually gone to Clinton.  

    Two weeks out though is still worrisome. Hope it holds up.

    [ Parent ]

    "Without FL and MI" (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:11:20 PM EST
    is the key here.

    Seriously, I don't think that Obama will get away with convincing SD's not to take them into account.

    IMHO, of course.

    [ Parent ]

    So the Supers are going to be forced (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by doyenne49 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    to vote for Obama b/c he has the pledged del lead even though he loses major swing states by double-digits? The implosion of the Dem party will be complete.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM EST
    When have we ever counted on the Obama fans to take logic / reason into consideration.

    Seriously, I'm used to seeing behavior like that at the winger sites; I'd like to say that Hillary folks do it too, but it's the exception, not the rule as you see in Obamaland.

    [ Parent ]

    I doubt (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:38:07 PM EST
    that will stick. If Hillary wins by these margins in Pennsylvania, she will have practically made up O's lead in actual votes. If she wins the rest of the states she polls ahead in, she'll have the popular vote even without MI and FL. Then just let the SD's try to tell her she lost! I would predict a massive backlash from her base, and I'll be one of those.


    [ Parent ]
    Let's move on from pledged (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:36:55 PM EST
    Delegate lead memo, please. If that was really the true metric this race would be over. The final "test" really is the popular vote for Obama.

    If she wins PA by 18% (I don't believe it will happen) that will be a big problem for him.

    [ Parent ]

    Tipping Point (none / 0) (#179)
    by cloudy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:08:05 PM EST
    Has anyone read Gladwell's Tipping Point?  The constant drone of pledged delegate lead has had me digging up my copy.

    The significance of an 18 point victory in PA would be the impact on the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Polls cited elsewhere in the blogosphere (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:04:52 PM EST
    and on TV claim that the race in PA is "tighening."  SUSA has been most accurate throughout this primary season, so these results are very interesting. I wonder if it will change the coverage.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:07:07 PM EST
    SUSU is a blogs phenomenon. We know it is the most accurate but the Media pretends to not know it. Heck, NBC was citing Zogby through Ohio and Texas.

    [ Parent ]
    Zogby is an utter disgrace (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Xeno on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:49:15 PM EST
    That polling outfit should be shunned by everyone. Zogby himself cannot explain why he gets it so consistently wrong. Of course, the fact that his brother is an Obama partisan never enters into the equation. </snark>

    [ Parent ]
    If I were Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:07:19 PM EST
    I'd be shopping this around to raise money.

    [ Parent ]
    if i were hillary (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:09:13 PM EST
    i'd be spending my own money, if i had to. she wins, she can quickly make it up. but she needs to be on the air in nc and in, as well as blanketing pa.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:14:51 PM EST
    She needs air and television coverage.  I keep donating and donating and that d--- number hardly moves!

    Isn't there some deep pocket out there to help her?  

    Helllllooooo?

    [ Parent ]

    SUSA has been the most accurate (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:06:54 PM EST
    and demographically it seems right.

    But sadly, those darn voters will have the final say. ;-)

    I'll say something else (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:08:24 PM EST
    this shows her winning the southeast by 9 points. If that's right, that means that Obama isn't winning whites in Philly. This could destroy his campaign.

    One Sigh of Relief in CA (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:10:28 PM EST
    Other polls were getting me DOWN.  HRC by 18! Rise Hillary! Rise!

    Thought so...!! (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    BTD can read polls.  You are the only one who does not just throw numbers around.  My mood is usually determined by your readings.  Gee, I guess some of us respect experience.  

    What Stellaaa said. (none / 0) (#186)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:25:44 PM EST
    Thanks, BTD. You are savvy in poll analysis.

    [ Parent ]
    SUSA does have the best track record... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by mike in dc on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:12:05 PM EST
    ...but their sample size for this is smaller than Ras and Q, both of which have it mid-single-digits.  There will be probably 4 more polls released this week--if none of them show this movement back to Clinton, that will be problematic in terms of accepting this poll as accurate.  It is possible every other pollster could be wrong, but it is unlikely.

    Sample size goes to MOE (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:18:06 PM EST
    L:ook, I do not trust SUSA because I like the result, I trust SUSA because of its proven track record, PARTICULARLY when bucking the trend.

    [ Parent ]
    SUSA is money. (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM EST
    This poll is very bad news for Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    Remember the Demographic breakdown (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:19:11 PM EST
    from MyDD? It looked pretty much like this.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    The issue is how much of the white vote is Obama going to get. That has always been the only issue in PA.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:26:33 PM EST
    Ed Rendell is not a complete dummy. . .

    [ Parent ]
    Rendell says (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:53:51 PM EST
    7-8 point win.

    [ Parent ]
    Either that's what her polls say (possible) (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:55:57 PM EST
    or he's playing the expectations game.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's leaked (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    poll predictions showed Hillary winning by 7 in Penn.  That sheet has been a very good predictor....

    [ Parent ]
    I think it'll be more than... (none / 0) (#120)
    by mike in dc on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    ...the 32% he apparently gets in this poll.  At least I hope so.  Unless PA wants to prove Sirota's theory...

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, Please (none / 0) (#200)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:49:19 PM EST
    Even Sirota didn't prove Sirota's theory.  

    [ Parent ]
    Sirota replied to this... (none / 0) (#213)
    by mike in dc on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:54:54 PM EST
    on Kos.  you can look it up if you like.  To say Somerby's coverage was cursory is being charitable.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama needs more than 42% (none / 0) (#207)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    of the white vote to ease some of my worries about him as the nominee, and maybe super-delegates see the same.  That is, those who know that Gore and Kerry both got about 42% of the white vote -- and, obviously, needed more.

    [ Parent ]
    Or, people don't lie to the computer (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:13:42 PM EST
    the way they will to a human.

    We shall see.

    [ Parent ]

    True (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:19:54 PM EST
    but their numbers haven't been as good as SUSA's, in my experience.

    [ Parent ]
    Ras is not a straight shooter (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    I never rely on his polls for accuracy - I look at it for trends.

    He has no change in his PA polling.

    The Q poll is a massager in my experience.

    [ Parent ]

    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    was the best pollster in 2004.  He got the overall vote correct and predicted every state he polled in correctly, getting the margins very close to the actual vote total.....Rasmussen was also very good in 2006.

    SurveyUSA has been good in the Primaries this year with the exception of Missouri which it showed Hillary winning by 11%.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:13:40 PM EST
    Ras was NOt the best pollster.

    I find the statement ludicrous.

    [ Parent ]

    You are wrong (none / 0) (#163)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:38:31 PM EST
    In 2004, Rasmussen's final poll predicted a Bush win by 50.2 to 48.5.  Bush actually won, 50.7 to 48.3.

    He also correctly predicted very single state in 2004 that he polled in.  Here is that chart.

    Here is The Real Clear Politics charts for the 2006 Senate Races.  Rasmussen did reasonably well in those.

    SurveyUSA has been good in the primaries this year but messed up in Missouri big time.  Here is the final SurveyUSA poll showing an 11 point Hillary win.

    I have documented as accurate what I said in my post above....Your assertion that my post was "ridiculous" is clearly wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    Why unlikely? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:14:09 PM EST
    Remember NH? Only some little tiny college poll got it right, everyone else was wrong.  

    [ Parent ]
    But in NH... (none / 0) (#36)
    by mike in dc on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:18:03 PM EST
    ...most of them actually got Obama's percentage of the vote correct--what they got wrong was Clinton's share.

    If you look at polling of close races, most of the time the cluster will be essentially correct.  

    [ Parent ]

    Ohhh...got it... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:19:44 PM EST
    Psych!!!

    [ Parent ]
    And don't forget California. (none / 0) (#41)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:19:39 PM EST
    Mr. Hope was suppose to win it BIG, according to Zogby...whose brother James is a Mr. Hope Super Delegate. Hillary won by double digits!

    I don't trust ANY of the large major polls touted by the MSM.

    [ Parent ]

    The reality is that (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by frankly0 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:15:06 PM EST
    the more the Obama campaign thinks it has a right to adopt an aura of inevitability, the more it ought not to lose any important contest from here on out.

    Because if it's indeed true that Obama is inevitable -- and certainly he's the more likely winner -- why can't Democrats of all sorts and backgrounds rally around him? What is his defect?

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:41:58 PM EST
    and it's particularly going to look funky if once again Hillary takes a majority of the white vote. I really don't think SD's are going to look at that as a positive for November. That's basing this on them really wanting to win in November. The actions of Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, and others have given me some doubt.


    [ Parent ]
    It seems right to me also (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by 1horseNag on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:15:34 PM EST
    However, I live in the Scranton area and Hillary's support here is incredibly strong. No Obama signs on the lawns; no McCain Signs, either. There are, however, Obama commercials 24/7. It makes it difficult for me to watch local channels because every time those commercials come on with Obama denying that he takes money from oil companies or lobbyists, I have to scream at the tv.

    Point is, even with the blanket commercial coverage, Obama isn't the candidate of choice around here. Perhaps it's the same story in many areas across Pa.

    And it looks to me (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:16:56 PM EST
    like he's about to lose his airwaves dominance.

    [ Parent ]
    Why? How much money is going behind (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:22:33 PM EST
    the 5 Clinton ads going up in PA?

    [ Parent ]
    We'll soon find out (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    But my guess is that it will be enough that everyone who needs to see them will see them.

    [ Parent ]
    Why do you say that? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    Has Clinton just started an ad blitz?

    Despite her lead in PA, she really needs to get one going.

    [ Parent ]

    They just released a bunch (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:31:04 PM EST
    of PA-centric ads. I'm guessing that they'll find the money to show them. IIRC, it costs a few million bucks a week to stay on the air in PA.

    [ Parent ]
    She was just in CA at fundraisers (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:51:01 PM EST
    and I know she has the Elton John one coming up.

    [ Parent ]
    Ben Smith @ Politico (none / 0) (#73)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:30:43 PM EST
    has posted 5 new and recycled ads that Clinton is putting on the air in PA.  link

    How much money she can actually put behind them is another matter.  There is only so long she can put off paying other campaign debts before the negative press about her campaign being a deadbeat starts to hurt.


    [ Parent ]

    Based on what? (none / 0) (#119)
    by badger on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:56:39 PM EST
    Kerry mortgaged his house to raise money and still won the nomination.

    Sounds like wishful thinking to me.


    [ Parent ]

    Gee (none / 0) (#199)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:47:25 PM EST
    all that money he threw at TX and OH didn't seem to pull in the voters, either.

    Read Freakanomics.  There comes a point where all the money in the world cannot buy an election.  Just ask poor Mittens.

    [ Parent ]

    Politico (none / 0) (#210)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:09:18 PM EST
    also reported Oprah's popularity has tanked.

    [ Parent ]
    So, let's say she wins by 15 (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by NJDem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:15:59 PM EST
    which is possible, and about 4M Dems vote--wouldn't she make a serious dent in the popular vote?  

    Is this why you think many of her SD's are making the case that the pop vote should determine (or be a significant factor) in who SD come out for?  Makes sense to me...

    Of course her supporters are going to be (none / 0) (#75)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:31:33 PM EST
    pushing a metric for the Supers to make a decision based on where she has a chance at coming out ahead.

    Whether that argument will work is another matter.

    [ Parent ]

    See response above (none / 0) (#90)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:41:37 PM EST
    If it didn't matter (popular vote) then the race would have been already over. PA results matter.

    Look at the up side: if Obama can lose very narrowly (less than 5) or pull out a win he has it wrapped up.

    [ Parent ]

    That poll is wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:16:28 PM EST
    Gallup has Hillary at only 6 points ahead. That means this SUSA poll is wrong....just ask MSHBN and ONN. Gallup is the poll to quote.

    Sarcasm

    Their chosen poll before was Zogby, but it looks like brother James being a Mr. Hope Super Delegate may have changed that? I wonder if the MSM knows the Gallup family are great friends with the BUSH family? Wanna bet they do know? They just don't know that WE know that. The Gallup's Republican connections skew their polls....just like James Zogby's connection to Mr. Hope skewed John's polls in Mr. Hope's favor. The Republicans want to run against Mr. Hope. Pay no attention to the Gallup polls. Just a suggestion.

    Gallup is not polling PA (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:21:10 PM EST
    That I know of. I have no idea what you are talking about.

    BTW, Gallup is an excellent pollster.

    [ Parent ]

    OOPS. You're right. That's the Dem (none / 0) (#91)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:41:46 PM EST
    race overall. At any rate, their polls are bogus. They favor Republicans. They are HUGE Republican donors and are good friends with the Bush family. Being friends with the Bush family tells ME all I need to know about them. I NEVER trust their polls, but that's just me. I don't trust any Republicans, especially when it comes to elections...sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    This is one of the most incoherent (none / 0) (#51)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:23:29 PM EST
    posts I have ever read.  I've no clue what you are talking about?

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry..Let me explain further. (none / 0) (#123)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    I forgot the Gallup poll was for the Democratic race overall and not just PA., but that doesn't change the fact that their polls favor Republicans because of their connections to the Republican Party. They are close friends of the Bush family. They skew their poll results to favor Republicans. Since Republicans want to run against Mr. Hope, Gallup skews their results to favor him by questioning people in areas that lean toward Mr. Hope. I read an article many years ago about the Gallup Family and the Bush Family connection and haven't trusted their polls ever since. That's all. Trust them if you wish, but I favor SUSA myself.:)

    The MSM reports the Gallup poll results every day. They USE TO quote the Zogby poll every day and I haven't seen them do that lately (though I could just be missing it). I am assuming they stopped quoting the Zogby polls because 1. They were often way off and 2. James Zogby is a Mr. Hope Super Delegate which appears to be a conflict of interest and maybe why Zogby polls leaned in Mr. Hope's favor, IMCPO.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, what if Obama wins NC in a blowout (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    as well? I know there are fewer votes there, but it won't look good for Hillary if that happens.

    By the way, I can tell from reading comments in the last few days that this blog is having a very positive impact on the Obama supporters, in terms of their impressions of Clinton.
    This is really the only meeting place I know of where an approximation of real dialogue occurs.
    Kudos.

    North Carolina Has a High African American... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    ...Population and a high proportion of academics voting in the dem primary-- and that bodes well for Obama. Obama has only won non-African Americans Democrats in two states and struggled with non academics in all states. That will hold true in North Carolina. This is going to be a big problem if he is the nominee in November -- especially in Pennsylvania and Michigan, two states that he trails McCain and two states Democrat must win. Plus he looks to be noncompetive in Florida.

    [ Parent ]
    He will (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:52:28 PM EST
    North Carolina has a large black Democratic population. White people break to Clinton by a small majority. Black people break to Obama in overwhelming numbers. North Carolina is going to be a blowout for Obama. If this election were going to be decided by African Americans, Obama would be a shoe in in the fall.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe (none / 0) (#93)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:42:43 PM EST
    Hillary has to win PA well and narrow the gap in NC. She can't win, but she can't get blown out either.

    [ Parent ]
    If Clinton were less scrupulous (none / 0) (#201)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:51:02 PM EST
    she would up the ante by bringing up Wright going into NC.  Bible folks don't cotton to the podium humping ruminations of the dear reverend.

    [ Parent ]
    WNC is for Hillary (none / 0) (#212)
    by Boo Radly on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:18:53 PM EST
    Asheville paper didn't even  print a picture of BO on Monday for their story on the presidental
    campaigns - stated Hillary seems to be the choice. They had Hillary and McCain's pictures.;O}

    [ Parent ]
    Why hasn't anyone (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:39:28 PM EST
    told the people in PA that this has been over for weeks and Hillary lost??

    Probably (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:45:54 PM EST
    Because if they support Hillary then they are too dumb, too low information, don't read DK daily and don't know any better </sarcasm>.

    I know, I know, this is getting old, but I just couldn't help myself!

    [ Parent ]

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:47:35 PM EST
    Silly people, wanting to vote!

    [ Parent ]
    Methinks (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:52:49 PM EST
    something like this poll is the very fear that drives the Hillary Must Quit NOW Drive.

    [ Parent ]
    Good question. (none / 0) (#101)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:47:05 PM EST
    Inevitability and all.
    Lets see how that works out.

    But nevertheless - we shouldnt get too excited. I think we should feel pretty good, but too much of that is not good. Well, actually, I am just trying to suppress my audacious hopefulness.

    I think she will win by more that 10 points. Lets hope that's a conservative prediction.

    [ Parent ]

    Agree. Super Delegates (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by lily15 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:44:39 PM EST
    strike me as lemming like too.  John Murtha and Ed Rendell and John Corzine are setting up the narrative.  People always need a leader.  But I also fear that the super delegates are weak and can be bullied to support Obama despite all logic.  But I'm hoping that the real men (and real women like Geraldine Ferraro) in the Democratic Party are stepping up to stop this madness that is Obama.  Why are so many super delegates crumbling under the thuggery of Obama?  What percentage of the Democratic leadership is African American and how are they split? Bottom line should be winning the GE.  Period.  Nancy Pelosi has really shown her colors and lost a lot of credibility. Has Rahm Emmanuel come out for Obama already?  We haven't heard much from him.  The one good thing about all of this is that we are finally seeing who everybody is without their masks.  Unfortunately it is rather shocking.

    Heh, I like that idea. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:49:28 PM EST
    it would also sound nice after a PA win adding to the 'Mo'  ;)

    I would prob lose it laughing if she did it at the inauguration. Too sweet. Thanks for the fun thought!

    Before That, Though... (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    I think she needs to start using the Dixie Chicks', "I'm Not Ready To Make Nice!"  Wouldn't THAT be a great ad??  With that song playing in the background as Pelosi, Leahy, Dodd, and all of those other folks call for her to get out?  Oh, yeah!  :-)

    Love that song! (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:16:37 PM EST
    Someone did a great pro-Hillary video to that, about her years of working for causes in Arkansas:

    Hillary Rodham Clinton: Not Ready To Make Nice

    [ Parent ]

    When you say this sounds right (none / 0) (#3)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:02:50 PM EST
    do you mean you think this is an accurate snapshot of the race in PA as things stand,  or that this is how it will end up?

    I'm not sure what you would base that on other than gut feelings or trust in this particular polling firm given that this is but one data point and is a bit out of line with other recent polls, including the Qpac one out today showing it as a 6 point race?

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    I think it seems to me where we are.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:16:19 PM EST
    I saw that number on CNN, Poll:Clinton fading in Penna. I am like, how can that be? I know of no one who has changed their minds that I know. Interesting, my neighbors who became Dems on the last day to vote for Hillary in primary and GE, have not gotten one call from any campaign. I, in the meantime, have gotten many. I got a thing in the mail today from Casey saying how he "Broke with the pack" for Obama. That like Casey, Obama comes from a proud working family." They don't point to what decade that happened. But it was quite a while ago. The Casey's have a lake summer home not too far from me. Not a cottage.

    [ Parent ]
    citizen big tent, i am curious. (none / 0) (#33)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    do you believe the new registered democratic voters are going to swing to hillary?  if so, this would go against past primaries and might possibly indicate a change in dynamic.

    i have a hard time imagining the obama machine getting beat on the ground and while i agree with your susa take, this poll defies the gravity of not one, but several other polls.

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:19:22 PM EST
    I expect the new registers to go 60-40 for Obama.

    But they are just a fraction of the vote.

    [ Parent ]

    I heard today (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by badger on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    that there are about 4 million Dem voters in PA, and 200,000 newly registered voters - 5% of the total, they won't all vote, and those that vote won't all vote the same way. They might be worth 1% or 2% at most in the outcome.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's smart to believe that ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Meteor Blades on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:20:32 PM EST
    ...the polling group which has the best track record so far is likely to be closer to correct in this primary than those groups that have been off the mark. But, as they say in the stock market, past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

    I can only think of one time (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:24:37 PM EST
    when they got it really wrong since 2/5: Missouri.

    [ Parent ]
    The turnout was somewhat different there (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    than they expected.

    But the interesting thing is that MO demographics in PA leads to an 8 point Clinton win.

    OH demographics lead to a 22 point win.

    WI demos lead to Obama winning PA.

    [ Parent ]

    I also think (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    that the issue remains white voters in PA. It is not just the result, it is the fact that Clinton won 70% of White Democrats in most mixed bigger states.

    [ Parent ]
    However (none / 0) (#64)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:27:11 PM EST
    If the argument is about who is more electable in the general,  rather than specifically about what Hillary's margin of victory will be in PA,  then I have seen polling data elsewhere that shows in GE matchups Obama gains a higher percentage of the white vote nationwide vs. McCain than does Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    You have seen such polling? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:29:53 PM EST
    I NEVER have seen such polling.

    I do not believe such polling.

    [ Parent ]

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#83)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:39:07 PM EST
    I remember reading analysis along those lines and that was what I had taken from it.  I haven't been able to track it down again just now though.

    The point of the blog article though was that Democrats have always in recent memory "lost" the white vote,  and that it has been a matter of keeping it as close as possible.  I believe it pointed to some GE polling along the lines I described above,  though as you say such results do seem "off".  If I can track it down I'll post it.

    [ Parent ]

    The implications of being (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:40:50 PM EST
    this weak with white Democrats are NOT GOOD. (Neither is it good for Hillary to be this weak with black democrats, but the truth is that they don't have a recent history of bolting the party.)

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    unfortunate that we make assumptions about the AA not bolting, just as I'm sure that Obama supporters make assumptions about women not bolting the Dems either.

    However, the AA bolt that many Obama fans suggest would be either inneffectual (because the highest concentrations tend to occur in Red states like the Carolinas) or damage that could be alleviated by the Latino vote.

    I'm not sure what the alternative would be for Obama, if the white women bolted. Suggestions?

    TROLL PROPHYLACTIC: I'm NOT saying the AA is unimportant, at all. Just this is what the reality is regarding some of the states that Obama has won in the primaries.

    [ Parent ]

    I think the assumption that the AA vote (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by tree on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:26:44 PM EST
    bolting is an unlikely scenario with Clinton as the nominee is built on a couple of solid points. First off, prior to Obama's surge, most AA voters were Clinton voters. With the prospect of an AA winning the nomination, and with a little help from the Obama campaign smearing the Clinton's as racist, most of that vote has now gone to Obama. But I think there is strong reason to believe that Clinton can get that vote back in the general, since it was once hers, and there's even stronger reason to believe that she'll make herculean efforts to win that vote back. She also still has some strong support among some black leaders and they will likewise make strong efforts to bring the AA vote back to her if she wins the general. She isn't going to make the mistake of assuming that she can win over former Obama voters "just because". Not sure that the same thing can be said of Obama. It certainly can't be said of many of his supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. I live and work in a heavy (none / 0) (#197)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    AA community and many of the older people are still going for Hillary because they remember the Clinton years. I believe the younger AA voters might bolt, but the older voters even those now supporting Obama still are fond of the Clintons.  They are outspoken about it too.  So how much of the AA vote is really under 40?  

    [ Parent ]
    That's convenient. (none / 0) (#94)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:43:36 PM EST
    So all Hillary's white supporters will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee,  but all Obama's black supporters will line up behind Hillary if she wins?

    [ Parent ]
    No, though they're more likely to (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:46:15 PM EST
    I admit that we have a danger either way, and agree with BTD that a unity ticket is essential.

    Frankly, I thin the rest of these contests are to determine who ends up on the top of the ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    Real Clear Politics... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:50:15 PM EST

    Average of recent polls has Clinton winning both PA and OH and Obama losing both and Clinton competive in FL and Obama getting blown out there.

    Pennsylvania McCain +1.5 Clinton +3.7
    Ohio McCain +5.0 Clinton +2.5
    Florida McCain +8.0 McCain +3.0

    [ Parent ]

    Not a Problem (none / 0) (#181)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:13:45 PM EST
    Because if Obama is the nominee, Florida won't count in November.  I don't know if you heard, but it broke the rules.  No votes for them!

    Oh, wait...

    [ Parent ]

    Can we quote you on this? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    ut, as they say in the stock market, past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

    Particularly when Obama supporters say he won all those state?  I guess she stays and we see it to the end.  

    [ Parent ]

    The number of states really isn't a very (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:32:00 PM EST
    relevant measure if many of those states have low delegate/popular vote.  Just as with the GE, you can win a nomination with fewer states.

    The fact that Clinton is running this strong in a major state, despite Obama's current lead in pledged delegates, ought to be giving Obama pause. Clinton may not win the nomination, but she can't be dismissed as a Ralph Nader or Mike Huckabee.  There are many, many people who still want to vote for her, after all this time.

    That means that it will up to Obama and his supporters, even more than Clinton and hers, to make affirmative efforts to unify the party if he secures the nomination. Obama needs her active support, as well as the active support of her voters, if he wants to win the GE.  (The reverse, of course, is also true.) There are some Obama supporters, however, who seem to dismiss the pro-Clinton vote as unnecessary in the GE, or take it for granted.

    [ Parent ]

    Errr, this is a primary contest with votes. (none / 0) (#58)