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 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 18 | 205 comments (205 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

    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)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:25:50 PM EST
    Are you arguing that we disenfranchise all the Democratic Primary voters if they come up with a result that you do not like?

    Parent
    Seems to work for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by badger on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:03:56 PM EST
    where he can get away with it.

    Parent
    Don't you think (none / 0) (#76)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:31:41 PM EST
    that comparing voter preferences to stock market performance is a little inaccurate?

    Parent
    MB isnt comparing voter preference (none / 0) (#85)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:40:08 PM EST
    he is comparing performance and accuracy of a pollster.

    Parent
    The pollster (none / 0) (#95)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:44:32 PM EST
    is using the same methodology time after time to predict the results. The methodology appears sound because the predictions are usually accurate. The voters are the control group here.

    There is no parallel that I can see to the stock market here. If you've hit on a reliable method of predicting the way people will vote, it will remain reliable, it seems to me.

    Parent

    Voter preferences ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Meteor Blades on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:44:33 PM EST
    ...become apparent when the ballots are counted is my point. Otherwise, we could just average what the pollsters come up with and assign delegates. And we could pay out dividends based on marketing brochures.

    Parent
    But... (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    The major electability argument for Obama is based on those polls, that he polls better and Hillary's negatives?  How do you reconcile that?  

    Parent
    You Just Articulated Obama's Electability... (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:04:45 PM EST
    ...Problem. Yes, he may do well in polls, but what has he really won when the votes are counted? As Barone recently pointed out, yes, he gets strong support from African Americans and academics and in states where one or both of those are the majority voting in the primary, he wins. But really, outside of Wisconsin and Vermont, has he demonstrated he can broaden his appeal when the actual voting takes place? Even in his home state of Illinois, he struggled outside of the Chicagoland area in counties not rich in African Americans or academics.

    This is going to be a problem in the general in places like Pennsylvania-- a state Dems must win.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#206)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:07:07 PM EST
    in states that had both primaries and caucuses, the difference in results was pretty shocking.

    Parent
    If I were Hillary (none / 0) (#48)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:22:30 PM EST
    I would play the underdog for a while longer.
    I think showing strength and being the underdog is good.
    I think she should let Obama outspend and out-resource her. Not that she should tame down her efforts, but I think it will just look terrible if Obama loses by 10-15 points despite the crazy effort he has put in.

    She isn't playing the underdog (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    the press and the blogs tell her everyday that she's the underdog.  Everybody now believes she is the underdog.  She doesn't have to play ;)

    Parent
    Maybe, but Hillary has tended to do (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:27:37 PM EST
    better when she has been the underdog.

    Parent
    Then they have created a perfect (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:29:55 PM EST
    environment for her then, haven't they?

    Parent
    Too bad the blogs and the media (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:30:29 PM EST
    couldn't have just stuck to the issues.

    Parent
    Unfortunately for many progressive bloggers (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:41:21 PM EST
    the war trumps all other issues. The fact that HRC voted for the AUMF will never be forgiven, although they seem to have forgiven John Kerry and John Edwards for their AUMF votes.

    Parent
    Amost all 29 of the (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    Democratic Senators who voted for the AUMF Iraq have been 'forgiven' - especially those who will endorse Obama (but not said they're 'sorry) ie. Kerry, Daschle, Dodd.

    Perhaps only Senator Clinton and those who support her will never, ever be forgiven...or understood or accepted.

    Parent

    I'm not sure where you are getting this from (none / 0) (#144)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:13:56 PM EST
    but this post by Chris Bowers on Mydd in February 2007 cites data from a poll of all senators.  It shows Hillary answering that "no" she did not regret her vote for the AUMF.  Kerry answered that he did regret his vote.

    Parent
    Edwards apology for his war vote (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:51:08 PM EST
    didn't matter to Obama supporters who continued excoriating him for his war vote while supporting a candidate who opposed the war when he couldn't vote and supported it when he could vote - then flip flopped back to "opposing" it after he became a presidential candidate.
    Whew! makes me dizzy.

    And Obama's claim he's "been against the war from the start" is a total lie since activists were contacting him in 2005 and 2006 - begging him to LEAD and vote against war funding.
    He ignored us.

    Parent

    You are right (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by abfabdem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:02:02 PM EST
    I was one of those writing him regularly begging him not to vote for funding!!!

    Parent
    OK.. (none / 0) (#204)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:02:42 PM EST
    I missed the Kerry 'apology' then....thanks for the link.

    Parent
    I don't think that's their real issue (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    with her, I do think they like to use that though in justifying their Obama love.

    Parent
    You could be right... (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    I'm just taking them at their word here. :-)

    Parent
    BTD was the only progressive blogger out (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:07:01 PM EST
    there fighting tooth and nail to end the Iraq War or at least have some accountability for it.  He ought to hate her to hell and back and he's just about the only blogger out there who has the right to, but he doesn't exactly hate her.  Go figure!

    Parent
    It's easier to forgive people (none / 0) (#98)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:45:52 PM EST
    who acknowledge their mistakes, and explain why they made them.  It makes you much more comfortable that they are not about to go out and repeat them again.

    Much of the democratic base will not be able to get beyond the fact that Hillary still cannot bring herself to say that her vote for the AUMF was a mistake.  If she had acknowledged that a year ago then Obama's attacks on the war would not have had anywhere near this amount of traction.

    Parent

    Since (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    Much of the democratic base will not be able to get beyond the fact that Hillary still cannot bring herself to say that her vote for the AUMF was a mistake.

    Clinton is carrying the Democratic base, and bringing back Dem voters who had abandoned the party, your statement is clearly inaccurate.

    Parent

    Show me how my statement is inaccurate? (none / 0) (#112)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    Even accepting your premise that Hillary is supported by more than 50% of the democratic party,  which I don't by the way.  I said that "much" of the base will not get past her vote and refusal to apologise or acknowledge the mistake.

    1. "much" could mean 25% or 30%.  Nowhere does "much" have to mean the majority.
    2. I said the democratic base.  The "base" of the democratic party is not the same as registered members of the party in my opinion.  It is more the activist parts of the party.  You could argue that they are more represented in Caucuses, where Obama has tended to do well.


    Parent
    Huh (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    The "base" of the democratic party is not the same as registered members of the party in my opinion.  It is more the activist parts of the party.

    That's an idiosyncratic way to define the Dem base.  No wonder you can arrive at the conclusions you do.

    Parent

    Maybe, do you have a better definition? (none / 0) (#137)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    I've never seen the Democratic Base conflated with being all members of the party.  Equally with the Republican Base and members of the GOP.

    Parent
    Dem Base? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:20:21 PM EST
    Blue collar/working class whites, unions, women, and African-Americans. It seems to me that that's what the majority of folks describe as the Dem base.  Three out of four go to Clinton.

    Also, based on these primary contests, I'd argue that Latino/a voters are going to become a huge part of the Dem base in the future.  If so, four out of five to Clinton.

    Parent

    But even with that definition.... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    ....Hillary has a large portion of that base, especially over the long haul. But the word base has also been used to describe blacks, latinos, women, gays...and identity groups so its a squishy term IMHO. What matters in a presidential race are the voters, right?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#169)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:49:25 PM EST
    What matters in a presidential race are the voters, right?

    I agree.

    Parent

    The internet is not the world (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    Most people don't care about Clinton's vote on Iraq. The right certainly can't use it against her in the general election. On the net, a lot of people are obsessing about the start of the war. Outside, most people are more worried about how to end the war and about the economy. Remember - most Americans supported the Iraq war when it started.

    Parent
    If I remember rightly the polls were against the (none / 0) (#140)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:07:54 PM EST
    war,  until it became obvious that it was going to happen regardless, at which point the American people went into support the troops mode and swung behind it.  I certainly don't think there was a majority of the country out there cheerleading for the war.

    Parent
    You don't remember correctly (none / 0) (#208)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:33:32 PM EST
    People were in favor of the war, although many wanted the UN involved. It wasn't always a majority, but an increasing plurality. Bush had a lot of people convinced that Hussein was ready to nuke us at any moment, and people were pretty much in "Bush can do no wrong" mode after his "heroic" performance on 9/11. After the war began, the support went from high to ridiculous. At one point, I think about 90% of Americans supported the war. It didn't drop below 50 until just after the last Presidential election, when the media decided that they didn't need to prop up Bush anymore and could now start telling people the truth.

    Here is a link showing the varied support for the war. I think it's pretty accurate overall.

    Parent

    Sorry, this sounds cocky (none / 0) (#209)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:50:16 PM EST
    It was not my intention to be so abrupt. A lot of people who get most of their news over the internet probably have a very different view of Iraq war opposition. Unfortunatly, most American's rely on more traditional sources, and those sources completely let us down in the runup to the war.

    Parent
    Well I can't get past . . . (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by abfabdem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    Obama voting to fund the war for two years.  Why didn't he speak out and use the platform of the Senate floor to make an impact?  He was from a safe blue state.  I wrote him multiple times begging him not to vote for funding but he did.  He was not a leader in the Senate so how do we know he will be a leader as President?  What has he really stood up for at personal risk?

    Parent
    I'll try to find some polls, because (none / 0) (#202)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    rarely does a populstion WANT a war.It may not be possible to find such support documented.    But the citizens were panicked over 9/11, especailly the people in the east and were easily led to believe that Saddam was a threat, especially when Colin Powell spoke in the UN.  Some parts of the country were more frightened than others, and suprisingly GOP strongholds like WY,ID, etc were particularily swayed by the Bush lies.  There wasn't a uniform belief that Bush was lying and would do what he did.  The AUMF report calls for many strategies before a military strike and was supposed to require a return to congress in that event. But it easy to frame it in black and white for partisan purposes.

    Parent
    How is Obama engaging the Dem base (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    with the Democrat for a day crusades?  You Obama maniacs pleeeeease stop drinking all that kool-aid, it shorts out your ability to deal with ALL the facts and you then you just start making them up.

    Parent
    It must absolutely kill you that Obama (none / 0) (#128)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    has been so effective at mobilising and registering new voters and the Youth.

    Parent
    I don't call Republicans watching their party (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:16:06 PM EST
    burn everything to the ground and seeking a kinder gentler commander to be accountable to "new" voters.  I do call them different voters though.  Are they the Democratic base.....no...they are opportunistic voters.  It doesn't "kill" me, how silly.  I know the truth, I accept the the truth as it is blemish and all.

    Parent
    Then why is she doing better with the (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    Dem base than him? If "much of the democratic base" can't get past her vote, he should have closed the deal long ago.

    Parent
    I find it interesting that Obama has voted (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:27:27 PM EST
    every time to fund the war he is so against. And don't roll out that old "protecting the troops" crap. It is a matter of fact that the ongoing costs of the troops are in the Pentagon budget, not the war appropriations. So if Obama is so against the war, and is so knowledgeable about how the government works, why does he keep voting to fund a war he claims to be against??

    Parent
    She did say it in the debates. (none / 0) (#113)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:53:09 PM EST
    This is another talking point that is inaccurate.

    If your argument is that she "apologized" too late, you could be right about that. But keep in mind that she is a woman, and her hawkishness is probably the only thing that makes her remotely viable in the GE.

    Parent

    I'm not 100% sure, but I think (none / 0) (#116)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:55:10 PM EST
    I remember the comment you are referencing.  I know it was certainly the closest she has come to apologising or acknowledging her vote as a mistake,  however I still don't think it was clear.  The comment could have been interpreted either way.

    Parent
    She said she would take that (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:21:23 PM EST
    vote back. How is that unclear or open to interpretation? I don't remember the exact question but something along the lines of one thing you would do differently or a mistake you would like to undo.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#156)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:28:14 PM EST
    she said she'd take it back.  Unlike Edwards, she didn't say she was wrong when she made it.

    I think that's a strength for her going into the GE.  I never thought she'd apologize for her AUMF vote, b/c to do so would weaken her too much for the GE.  I never thought she should apologize for the vote, either.  I thought, and still do think, that she should go about finding a way to resolve Iraq.  Going forward, not looking back.

    I also don't think anti-war sentiment is going to be a decisive factor in the GE.  Look at Lamont/Leiberman.  I think, more than Americans want to get out of Iraq, Americans want to win in Iraq.  The candidate that has the most convincing narrative on that point, wins the Iraq debate in the GE, regardless of anti-war sentiment.

    Parent

    Well, at least she didn't say... (none / 0) (#127)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    I was for it before I was against it! ;-)

    Sorry, just a little humor to lighten the discussion. :-)

    Parent

    Tim Russert asked each candidate (none / 0) (#183)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:15:17 PM EST
    what is the thing they regret most in their careers.  Hillary said it was her AUMF vote.  Does it really need to be any clearer than that?

    Parent
    Admitting mistakes (none / 0) (#147)
    by KD on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:17:59 PM EST
    Hillary has said repeatedly that the vote was a mistake, that she wouldn't have voted that way if she knew then what she knows now. What she didn't do was what the media requested: "Say you're sorry!" (She didn't apologize for the vote, as Edwards did.)


    Parent
    However in Feb 07 she said that she (none / 0) (#148)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:20:18 PM EST
    didn't "regret" voting for the AUMF.

    Parent
    There is some rationale for not saying it (none / 0) (#203)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    was a mistake, although you could call it parsing. To admit something was a "mistake' would say that the information given to you was accurate but you voted on it and it was your mistake.  On the other hand to repeatedly say, as she has, that given the information that she had at the time she didn't consider it a mistake.  In that way she puts the blame squarely on Bush as the person who lied us into an unnecessary war.

    Parent
    Seen this? (none / 0) (#50)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:22:47 PM EST
    "Why Hillary Clinton should be winning" is the title of an interesting article in Salon, giving perspective to another way of looking at 'the popular vote' and 'the will of the people.' (If I could successfully link, I would...sigh..)

    The article points out that there won't be any caucuses this fall in the general...just a winner-take-all state by state aggregate of electoral college votes.  It then analyzes where the race between Obama and Hillery would now stand if the Democratic Party had used a winner-take-all process for allocation of pledged delegates instead of the byzantine system we now have.

    Guess who isn't leading?

    In my opinion, such analysis (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by RickTaylor on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    don't mean a thing. If we determined the primary via a winner-take-all system, then presumably all the candidates would have taken that into account and all of them would have campaigned differently. There's no reason to expect the voting would be the same and Hillary Clinton would still be winning; there's no way to know.

    Still, it might be a good argument for changing the way we do our primaries in the future, to get candidates who would be likely to do better in the general election.

     

    Parent

    One positive thing I'd like to see come (none / 0) (#196)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:29:41 PM EST
    out of this mess is a revamping of the Dem's primary system. Caucuses really must go, unless they have a way of recreating the vote with a solid paper trail that can be audited later and a hard count of how many voters voted for each candidate. I can't figure out how they know to to allocate without some sort of hard count anyway. Best guesstimate? And states should really have to pick: caucus or primary to decide how many delegates. Having both is ridiculous, IMO, and must also be needlessly expensive.

    And we need to do winner-take-all at least in each congressional district. When no one can clearly tell you how many pledged delegates each candidate truly has until they show up to vote at the convention, we look like a bunch of incompetent morons.

    Parent

    Sounds like the Wilentz article (none / 0) (#53)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    that has been rightly ridiculed elsewhere.  If my Grandmother had balls she would be my Grandfather.

    Parent
    Laughing stock and ridicule (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:26:54 PM EST
    from elsewhere is not a reference here.  

    Parent
    I understand what (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    you are saying.  The rules can't be changed now, the winner is not based on "winner take all" delegates.  However, I think the article makes a point for SDs to consider because the "winner take all" system is how the GE works.  I know Obama supporters might not agree, but to me, since neither can reach the number of delegates to win w/o SDs, the current rules say that SDs should use their independent judgment. This means they can look at a variety of factors, including the ones Obama points to (states won, pledged delegate count) and the ones Clinton points to as well (electibility, etc).  In other words, for Obama supporters to say he has now won is also not following the rules, and asking SDs to believe that grandma does have balls now! He has not won, and you can't change the rules of how you win now.

    Parent
    the independent judgment of (none / 0) (#122)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    super delegates will be influenced by multiple factors, not least of which, is cash.  who is going to raise the most money for the party, the candidates, the hacks?

    ask any super if money matters.  i do not believe this is how supers are going to spin their decision and i do not agree this is how they should make their decision.  however, it is naive to imagine otherwise.

    big states?
    electability?
    popular vote?
    pledged...

    right.

    it is all about the money a political machine can produce.  there is no dispute who is winning this race.

    Parent

    Assumptions (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    You are assuming, of course, that if Obama is the nominee, he will continue to raise the cash he has been raising.  SD's (for the most part) are also elected officials, many of whom are up for re-election this year.  If Obama is seen as an illegitimate nominee (if he gets that far) by half the Democratic Party, do you think the money will be flowing to him and to those SD's who support him? Don't forget - he's getting also getting money from those "Democrats for a Day".

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:28:14 PM EST
    So Romney is the Republican nominee, is he?

    Money matters, to a point. With the amounts the dems are raising EITHER CANDIDATE passes the money test imo.

    Parent

    Giuliani (none / 0) (#180)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:09:22 PM EST
    paid $48,000,000 for one delegate, IIRC.

    Parent
    Very interesting. n/t (none / 0) (#86)
    by Faust on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:40:38 PM EST


    Recently the superdelegates have been.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    ...behaving like lemmings. I don't know what it will take to stop this march to the sea. I think they are too chicken to vote for Hillary even if she wins every contest from here on out. Hope I'm wrong, but so far I don't see any sign that they will, especially if Dean et al cave to Obama and don't seat MI and FLA in any meaningful way.

    I hope you're wrong (none / 0) (#141)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    but I fear you're right.

    In which case, we're all doomed.

    Parent

    Sorry to be so Debbie Downer.... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:17:26 PM EST
    ...I'm still hoping for a miracle, but I can't ignore my inner reality voice.

    Parent
    I haven't believed in (none / 0) (#205)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:04:06 PM EST
    miracles since I was about 10.  I do 'believe' in surprises, though.

    Parent
    40 regional party chairmen have sent (none / 0) (#153)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:26:48 PM EST
    a letter to our remaining uncommitted super-d's(only 6 left) urging them to get on the O train or risk destroying the party. Oh, the drama!

    Parent
    Maybe we should send a letter countering that ;) (none / 0) (#175)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:56:32 PM EST


    Parent
    AOL poll (none / 0) (#124)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    I know this are not accurate at all because there is no random sampling, but they have one up today asking people "Why Hillary will get out" - they then give several options, including one that says she won't get out, she will stay in...55% think she will stay in.  You can look at state by state voting, in PA 61% say she will stay in.  Not scientific, but I do think the voters in PA, IN, NC, etc appreciate that Clinton is staying in whether the vote for her or not.  They want to have their say, especially since there states most often vote after it has been decided.  Does anyone know of recent polls asking if Dems think Clinton should keep going?  I know a few weeks back the majority wanted her to stay in it.

    I keep hearing this big states argument (none / 0) (#135)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    but there is no evidence that winning or losing a state in a primary has any connection to winning it in the GE.  Hillary won NY and CA. Whoever is the dem nominee will win those states.  I personally think either Clinton or Obama will win in November.    The head to heads with McCain mean nothing until there is a nominee.  Its way to far out.  Like BTD I think Obama has more map changing upside, though perhaps more risk (though I think I am less convinced of the later than BTD).

    The reality is that Obama has a significant delegate lead which means he needs fewer super delegates to win.  Clinton need some huge wins to eat into that lead significantly and stop the current run of supers to Obama.  If SUSA is right and the numbers are stable she will make a step in that direction, but only a step.

    Disenfranchising two states with very large (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:11:06 PM EST
    delegate totals isn't exactly going to help the Dems in the general election either.

    Parent
    Tell me about it!! I am telling (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    people here in FL that voting for McCain to spite the Dems for tossing out our votes in the primary is basically cutting off our noses to spite our faces. The feeling here is running high about the primary, especially since it was rescheduled by the REPUBLICAN legislature and not the Democratic party leadership. So, people figure if the Dems don't care about us, why give them our votes?? If the delegates from FL are not seated, or their votes are not counted, FL will go for McCain this fall. And it will be the fault of the DNC. And Obama for backing them.

    So, Obama will lose the GE, and since he says he won't run again, he will have fractured the Democratic party much better than any Republican ever could. Of course, he won't mind that, after all, he is all about Obama, not the Democratic party.

    And here is another prediction. If he loses the GE, he will never win another election, ever.

    Parent

    He sure is all about Obama! (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:40:07 PM EST
    Democrat for a day says it all as to what he thinks about the party!  It's disposable.

    Parent
    Not just Obama (none / 0) (#167)
    by onemanrules on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:48:51 PM EST
    As much as Clinton supporters won't face the truth. The fact is that all (even HRC) signed pledges in those states not to campaign there and that the delegates wouldn't count. So everybody agreed to this. It's very unfortunate, but these states knew the rules and broke them anyways. If anything Democrats in Fl. should be mad at good old Governor Charlie for not caring about the Dems in the state. It in no way is fair to have the vote count as is. The only way these states should count is with a total revote with both candidates having the time to campaign. Who knows maybe HRC will win by more, maybe not. But get on good old Gov. Charlie and tell him to pay for it. Quit the flip flopping first she was for it, now she's against it.

    Parent
    (Sigh) (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    This has been hashed to death all over this blog.

    1. Who cares who signed what back in the fall?  The only issue that voters are going to look at is who is trying to find a solution to the problem.

    2. It's also well known that the state parties were also told that their delegates would more than likely be seated. Hence the drive by Obama supporters to get people out to vote "uncommitted".


    Parent
    yeah but (none / 0) (#162)
    by onemanrules on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:37:54 PM EST
    the two polls which are considered most accurate (the Rasmussen and the Quinnipiac) are only 5 and 6 points for Clinton. Who the heck knows which ones are closest to reality. You need it though to be the 15-20 point range though to pick up any meaningful delegate gain.

    I think you should qualifiy your post (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    with those two polls as being considered the most accurate BY YOU.

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#172)
    by onemanrules on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:51:16 PM EST
    just everybody in the media, and also history finds them most accurate also. Look it up.

    Parent
    Not according to this .... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:10:57 PM EST
    ... detailed analysis.

    This and related report cards were widely discussed among pollsters at the time. You can look it up.

    Parent

    My grandmother told me that (none / 0) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    words like always, everybody, and never are very seldom true

    Parent
    That is a great idea!! (none / 0) (#178)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:06:06 PM EST


    Oops (none / 0) (#191)
    by DodgeIND on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    I screwed up that link.  Sorry about that.

    Ick (none / 0) (#192)
    by DodgeIND on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    My head isn't in the right place.  Clinton ahead 48-43.  Damn allergy medication.

    SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 18 | 205 comments (205 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment