Dueling PA Polls

Big Tent Democrat wrote earlier about today's SUSA PA poll showing Hillary with an 18 point lead over Barack Obama.

Why is it that the 3 MSNBC shows I caught a few minutes of tonight only mentioned the Quinnipiac poll showing her winning with a lesser margin, going with the meme that Obama is closing the gap big-time? None of the shows even mentioned the Survey USA poll.

From Survey USA: [more]

In a Democratic Primary in Pennsylvania today, 04/08/08, two weeks to the vote, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama 56% to 38%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WCAU-TV Philadelphia, KDKA-TV Pittsburgh, WHP-TV Harrisburg, and WNEP-TV Wilkes-Barre. The results are almost identical to a SurveyUSA poll released one month ago. Then, Clinton led by 19. Today, 18. In between, however, in a SurveyUSA tracking poll released last week, Obama had closed to within 12 points. What happened in the past 7 days?

1st: Some of the men who flirted with Obama at the end of March have returned to Clinton. Other men have moved to the sidelines. Last week, Obama led by 7 among men. Men were 46% of likely voters. Today, Clinton leads among men. Men are 42% of likely voters.

2nd: Obama lost ground among voters age 35 to 49. A week ago, he had caught Clinton in this age group. Today, he's down 18. By contrast, there is no movement among voters age 50+. Clinton's lead among voters 50+ is stable across all 3 tracking polls.

3rd: In Southeast PA, which includes Philadelphia and which makes up 42% of likely Democratic voters, Clinton had a good week, Obama a bad week. Clinton is above 50% for the first time and Obama is now down by 9 in a region he must win to carry the state. In Southwest PA, which includes Pittsburgh, Clinton polls at 60% for the first time, 25 points atop Obama. Only in West Central PA, which includes Johnstown, has there been consistent movement toward Obama.

4th: Among moderates, Obama lost key ground while Clinton gained ground. Clinton now leads by 24 points, 60% to 36%. Obama also lost ground among Liberals. And while Obama's support fell among Conservatives, so did Clinton's.

5th: Interviewing for SurveyUSA's 04/01/08 release, one week ago, occurred in the middle of Obama's 6-day bus tour through Pennsylvania, which began on 03/28/08. Obama may have benefited a week ago from the media spotlight.

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.

< Michelle Obama Event: Seating Re-Arranged to Showcase Whites | Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's because they believe (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:49:38 PM EST
    that the SUSA is an outlier. It may well be.

    As expectations go, it's better for Hillary that the big boys not talk too many polls showing her doing really well. If she pulls a 15 point victory--not far from what I expect--she'll make them all eat crow. Not so much if they're expecting it.  

    You're right. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:52:46 PM EST
    Saying Obama is closing in makes the expectations a lot better for Hillary.

    Or it could keep Hillary voters at home (none / 0) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:53:44 PM EST
    because they think she has no chance.

    That seems unlikely (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:00:36 PM EST
    even the worst polls for her show a tight race.  I think she probably is better off if expectations are lower.  The SUSA poll sets the bar pretty high, and it may well be an outlier.  However, none of that excuses the failure of the MSN to properly cover the issue.

    New Hampshire, Ohio and Texas (none / 0) (#12)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:00:12 PM EST
    should remind all of us that, when the pundits kick her, the voters kick back.

    Nah (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:00:49 PM EST
    She'd have to be LOSING substantially in a PA poll for that effect to take hold.

    All of the advertising for OBAMA makes it unlikely, actually.


    But if the message is that (none / 0) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:40:46 PM EST
    she needs to win by double digits and she's only winning by single digits....

    Maybe (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:50:25 PM EST
    I think a close election is a close election, and a win is a win.

    Let's watch to see if Hillary actually does some TV time.


    PA TV (none / 0) (#46)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:06:17 PM EST
    Clinton has five ads out in PA as of today.  I don't know how big the buy is, but five ads is a good start.

    Since Feb 5th (none / 0) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:52:47 PM EST
    I have not watched tv news.  I watched today for the Petraus hearings and heard the exact same poll being reported, no mention of the poll BTD was talking about.  Man, did it annoy me.  Needles to say, off they went again.  

    "Needles" is how it feels sometimes (none / 0) (#53)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:31:18 AM EST
    Needles to say ...

    Well Stellaaa, that may have been a typo, but you hit the needle on the head. Most of the time, watching the TV news is as much fun as sticking needles into yourself!


    typical politics (none / 0) (#7)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:55:22 PM EST
    if you can demoralize a candidate's support, with the "she can't win" meme, fewer people will come out to vote.  some will even vote for the perceived winner, instead of their own choice.

    however, i agree that if she still spanks him it will be better for her.


    Smart (none / 0) (#11)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:57:48 PM EST
    I, as a BO supporter, was happy to see this 18 point poll.  I was also disappointed to read that the media is pushing the smaller deficit polls.

    I totally agree with your thinking.  And, I will add that if HRC seems to be in trouble, I think she could do better with late deciders--pure conjecture, but that's been my opinion since New Hampshire.


    Q'Pac doesn't really have a resume... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:28:22 PM EST
    ...to point to. They occasionally do polling and their last poll was on the eve of Ohio and had the race 49-44.

    so? (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:30:53 PM EST
    I'm saying that the odds are that (none / 0) (#39)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:44:21 PM EST
    SUSA is closer to being right that Q'Pac and in any case, you're right, it's better that a bad Q'Pac forecast lower expectations for a Hillary blow out.

    We'll see (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:49:19 PM EST
    SUSA and the media (none / 0) (#45)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:04:02 PM EST
    I don't think it's because they think SUSA is an outlier.  They've been pushing the "When Obama arrives in your state, the polls narrow" meme since before February, so they're only going to show the polls that back them up.  There is anecdotal evidence that the meme may be true, but there is a lot of evidence that it's bunk, too, and that is especially true in the large states.

    The results in CA, MA, OH (remember how Clinton was going to lose there, and big?) etc. have done nothing to dissuade them; in fact, I remember that they didn't mention SUSA's OH polls, either, and then they were shocked, shocked! that Clinton won by 10 points.

    They pull the same crap with Gallup's daily tracking poll, actually; when it shows a spike for Obama, they talk about it all day long; when the poll goes back to a dead heat, they barely mention it.

    They have a narrative, and the facts they tell are used to back it up.


    I agree, (none / 0) (#48)
    by IKE on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:23:07 PM EST
    this poll is consider an outlier, however, don't forget that only the suffolk university poll had Clinton winning in New Hempshire, and that too was dismissed as an outlier. This may actually be good for the senator.

    Blog at pollster.com has some ideas, (none / 0) (#50)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:49:57 PM EST
    Pollster.com is the best source ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:45:22 AM EST
    .. for authoritative commentary on opinion polls and polling in general. They track all the major polls, and their analysis is always professional, insightful, and (imo) untainted by any bias. These days I find myself checking their site almost daily to see what's really going on with the polls.

    I think its called ... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by dwmorris on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:53:02 PM EST
    manufacturing consent.  Not unlike what they did to sell the Iraq invasion.

    view from the ground (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Kensdad on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:25:08 PM EST
    i spent the last 2 weekends in the suburbs of Philly canvassing for Hillary.  i covered over 400 houses (100+ per day) and made a few hundred phone calls when my feet hurt too much to go door-to-door.

    i'd say that the SUSA poll pretty much confirms what i'm hearing and seeing.  i'd just add that about 10 pct of people still seem to be undecided (and those are the ones that i like to find so that i can explain why i'm supporting Hillary.)

    roughly, in my (limited) experience with several hundred voters (in 3 different suburbs), i'd say that i found 60 pct for Hillary, 30 pct for Obama, and 10 pct undecided.

    i'm not suggesting that Hillary has a 30 pt lead, because i understand that the city is a different story.

    Glad (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by nell on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:58:27 PM EST
    to see this report from on the ground. I did some phone banking this past weekend and I got many more undecideds than I expected.

    And Hillary supporters, make no mistake, the "race is over" narrative is having an impact on voters. I spoke to one elderly woman who was solidly for Hillary but figured since she had no chance of winning, what was the point? I spoke to another man who felt strongly that Hillary would make a better president, but he felt like the race just needed to end because he was afraid McCain was gaining too much ground and since she can't win anyways, he should just vote for Barack...

    Also, I think that while voters tend to run to her side when the media bashes her, there are also voters who feel really bad when they watch it and they almost just want her out of the race so they can stop feeling guilty when they watch it...I have a friend like this who almost wishes she would just drop out because he doesn't know if he can sit through an entire general election, 4 years of her presidency, or even 8 years of her presidency watching the media bash her day in and day out. It makes him feel bad and ugly, though he is not directly responsible, and people want to avoid that feeling...


    thanks for the work (none / 0) (#73)
    by nycvoter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:52:15 PM EST
    I did an hour and a half of calls last night and was surprised by the numbers of undecideds.  We need to stay on the phones and knock on the doors for Hillary if we want PA to be a good primary for her.  One day at a time.

    Tonight I have the Elton John concert, so....


    OT but good news from Eliz Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:01:15 PM EST
    No endorsement, but she prefers Sen. Clinton's healthcare plan to Sen. Obama's.

    And a quote I like:

    I don't actually think it's a bad idea to have an open convention, where we actually got to hash out what the differences [between the candidates] were and how important they are...

    Good night, all.

    What else can you expect the Obama News Networks (none / 0) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:52:26 PM EST
    I am glad they did not harp on the one that shows Obama +2 ..

    Are you surprised (none / 0) (#8)
    by Coldblue on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:55:41 PM EST
    that MSNBC would choose to focus on a poll that shows Hillary losing ground?

    I seem to remember a few months ago when a Mason-Dixon poll that was co-sponsored by MSNBC was ignored because it had Hillary in a statistical lead; they touted a different poll that had Obama within the margin of error.

    Freedom of the press, I guess.

    Survey USA seems credible (none / 0) (#9)
    by barryluda on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:57:19 PM EST
    Several of the comments posted to the Survey USA blog say it's an outlier, but SUSA does seem to paint a reasonable story as to why this happened.  I especially think that Obama's 6-day PA bus tour may have temporarily moved the needle.  If Clinton wins by 18 and wins or keeps it close elsewhere, she's still on her plan to win this.  I still hope and think that Obama will be our nominee, but it does seem that time is on her side.  And if she can pull this out, she'll have unbelievable momentum going into November (if the party doesn't self-destruct under Howard Dean's "leadership").

    CNN also (none / 0) (#10)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:57:25 PM EST
    is sticking with the polls that show Hillary and Barack in a dead heat.  No mention of SUSA.  My opinion, based on their biased coverage (including the loathsome Jack Cafferty still harping on the discredited Hillary "lie" about the hospital story) is that it drives their narrative.  Barack is "likable".  When people "get to know him", his support increases.  That's the story they're pushing, IMO.  If voters in PA, NC and other states that have not yet voted in the primaries keep hearing that Obama is closing in on her lead, it may discourage them from going to the polls.

    I think she's gonna win in PA by double digits.

    The SurveyUSA poll (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:00:42 PM EST
    shows declining black support for Obama....That seems very suspect.

    Today's SurveyUSA poll shows a 74-24 breakdown in favor of Obama for the African American vote.

    The SurveyUSA poll from a week ago showed a split of 83-17, which is more like the actual results from other states.  If today's SurveyUSA's poll is to believed, Obama's support in the African American community dropped 9 points last week.


    No (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:06:48 PM EST
    TNR thought this, but then updated

    I misread your post, never mind (none / 0) (#25)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:11:19 PM EST
    Although, the updates on the link are still interesting.

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:13:06 PM EST
    It is a good discussion.

    I think it's hilarious ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:00:43 AM EST
    ... that commenters in that discussion dismiss the idea that "Obama's lead is slipping" as spin promoted by the Clinton campaign, while at the same time they do not recognize that the idea that "Clinton's campaign is as good as over" is just spin promoted by the Obama campaign.

    They are going to be in for a surprise when the votes are counted.


    Chuck Todd (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:26:39 AM EST
    said on Tweety today that he talked to both campaigns and their internals show Hillary's lead in single digits....

    If SurveyUSA is right, the entire rest of the world is wrong......


    recognizing that it is just a poll (none / 0) (#60)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:51:58 AM EST
    Survey USA has been the most accurate thus far.

    The campaigns can and will say anything to play expectations game.

    Seems pretty clear that the result will be between 8 and 15% victory for Clinton (probably in the middle) and that really hasn't changed in quite some time.

    The battleground is really Indiana, perhaps NC which Survey USA has a 10 point lead for Obama and seems doubtful that Clinton will be able to beat him there.


    You may believe what Chuck Todd said, but... (none / 0) (#61)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:56:06 AM EST
    ... I don't think that data point is worth a hill of beans, frankly. I am not saying that Chuck is necessarily an unreliable reporter, in fact he seems to be one of the better ones, as talking heads go. But just ask yourself:

    (1) What are Chuck's personal biases?
    (2) Who, within each campaign, actually has the full picture of what they are seeing?
    (3) Who did Chuck actually talk to in "both campaigns"?
    (4) What was their motivation when they answered his question?

    If -- after you have carefully considered all the possible answers to those four questions -- you still believe that Chuck Todd's comment is more reliable than the results of the SUSA poll, then you are certainly a very trusting person, at least where Chuck Todd is concerned. But not necessarily a wise one, IMO.


    Expectations game (none / 0) (#65)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:05:52 AM EST
    Unless Todd actually saw numbers, there's little reason to believe that either camp gave him accurate info.  Obama's people need to make it look like he's closing the gap so they can push the idea that she should just get out.  Clinton's people want to lower expectations so the media doesn't say that a 15 point win is a "disappointment."

    I suspect Pennsylvania will see a more (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:07:54 PM EST
    divided black vote than in any previous state: several prominent black leaders in Philadelphia have endorsed and actively campaigned for Hillary. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the potential in this. There are also public figures like Ed Rendell, who took the black vote in huge margins during his run for Governor.

    I doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:11:13 PM EST
    Prominent black pols have strongly supported Hillary in other states.

    What I think that actually does is to make whites who are on the fence feel comfortable voting for Hillary. That's the point of the Nutter ad, IMO.


    I hadn't thought of that. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:19:51 PM EST
    Cynical though it is, I don't doubt its possibility.

    Even if you change that (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:03:22 PM EST
    Hillary comes out well ahead of the other polls here.

    True (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:07:32 PM EST
    but it does call in to question the overall sample....

    I do agree that this poll can help Obama by setting Hillary expectations at a large, double digit win.   Hillary does better the more she is perceived to be at the precipice.....


    Yup (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:10:02 PM EST
    And frankly, SUSA is showing what we've seen before: when the leaners are pushed, they pick Hillary.

    That really ought to concern Axelrod et al.


    Ever wondered? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Suma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:27:52 PM EST
    Why a woman can say I want a woman for a president, just not this woman, and no one will fault her for saying it? But if an african american says I want an african american as a president, just not this one, what do you think will be the result?

    Race baiting (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:31:40 PM EST
    isn't allowed here. Stop.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#35)
    by Suma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:40:35 PM EST
    Got me messed up

    You can't cherry-pick polls... (none / 0) (#16)
    by rdandrea on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:03:17 PM EST
    ...to look for ones that tell you want you want to hear.

    Similarly, you can't really average polls together as the networks like to do.  Different polling houses sample in different ways; you have to be careful to look for trends only within the same polling house.

    In other words, it's more important to look at "motion" within one house rather than house-to-house variation.

    There's a discussion of the seemingly discordant Pennsylvania polls at Pollster.com

    It's worth reading.

    WE may not be able to (none / 0) (#18)
    by Lena on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:05:51 PM EST
    cherry-pick polls, but apparently MSNBC can.

    I believe it's called selective reporting. And it seems to favor their candidate.


    Well, almost nobody believes the polls, but ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:05:55 AM EST
    ... even fewer people trust the guys on MSNBC, so who really cares what they say?

    I wouldnt be surprised at Obama losing a bit (none / 0) (#23)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:10:03 PM EST
    of Black support now...After all he did skip the MLK function etc and that might have angered many of them...

    Not just MSNBC (none / 0) (#27)
    by Suma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:19:19 PM EST
    It was the same in CNN and PBS. I wondered about it too.

    Both MSNBC and DailyKos (none / 0) (#30)
    by joc on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:26:51 PM EST
    Did anyone notice DailyKos hasn't front paged the poll yet either?

    SUSA Oregon poll showing Obama up by 10 was front paged within an hour of the release of the results. Pennsylvania, not so much.

    Nope (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dave B on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:42:21 PM EST
    I don't  notice anything that Daily Kos does any more.  I can't type that url into my address bar...

    Why are you guys so surprise (none / 0) (#38)
    by IKE on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:43:59 PM EST
    Are you surprise that MSNBC is trying to demoralize Clinton supporters, are you surprise that Jack the idiot is still stuck on bashing Clinton, are you surprise that the daily KOs is only showing polls that favor Obama. Well I'm not, these guys have been bashing Clinton from day one. Nothing that is happening now surprises me. The only thing that will surprise me now will be if pundits and commentors actually start reporting the news without bashing Clinton. Maybe I am aiming to high.

    polls andf horse race coverage (none / 0) (#44)
    by dem08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:01:21 PM EST
    are the most important thing.

    We do not have enough polls. I would like to see a poll that talks about how we need more polls.

    The election is very interesting. It has been two full years and I wish the election had two more years to go before we actually vote.

    I just wish the polls and media favored Hillary more so Talk Left readers would be happier.

    You might have actually (none / 0) (#63)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:23:47 AM EST
    made some witty points but then, as always, you just could not resist taking a potshot at Hillary supporters.

    POLLING NUMBERS (none / 0) (#47)
    by Scott on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:08:55 PM EST
    I have done a little checking and it looks (if you go back through the polls of past States right before the day) that the USA Survey has been the closest to the actual end result then most any of the other polls.    

    It's hard to say about PA because I bet it's difficult to get a good grip on the actual number outside of guessing she is ahead at least a little percentage.  

    Remember Mr. Rendell won the Governorship against Casey there with just a few densely populated counties in Philly and Pittsburgh.   It's also hard to say what effect Casey has had on giving Obama a bump in the race. In any case, Hillary has to give a lot of thanks to Mr. Rendell... he has been really working hard to deliver the State for her... I've seen him on talk show after talk show and he's really impressive no matter what questions get thrown at him.    

    I also think that some of the major polling companies are not being totally honest at how they arrive at their numbers.  It's very easy to weight a poll with certain demographic numbers.

    In any case, Hillary needs to keep the pressure on with a string of visits across the State leading up to the Primary.   She needs to carry the State with, at least, a 10+ point margin to give her any major momentum going forward...

    Just heard a Hillary commercial that was good (none / 0) (#49)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:24:28 PM EST
    I say heard because I was in the den on my PC and did not see it. But, she talks about her childhood spending time in the house on Lake Winola (near Scranton)and having a outdoor shower. She talks of the family warmness and the love for Pinochle. People in Penna understand the fun of playing cards and Pinochle was a family card game. It was a warm fuzzy type.

    Oh, it was so lovely! Just delightful. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:54:59 PM EST
    And Dan Abrams thought it was a waste of money!!

    He also thought an ad w/ Mayor Nutter was ruined by Nutter opening with something like "I know you're wondering why I'm sticking with Hillary." Tried to say Nutter was insulting black voters by implying they were all for Obama.

    Well, in interviews Nutter has said that he gets asked all the time by some of his black constituents why he isn't backing Obama.

    Dan? Get a grip!

    Obama vastly outspending Clinton in PA. I say she should use some of the money to make inroads in Indiana.

    Sure hope SUSA is correct!


    I know what it was. (none / 0) (#66)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:09:14 AM EST
    It was personal. Like she was sitting in our LR and talking to the neighborhood and was one of us. BHO was in front of a steel plant and unless you are in Pittsburgh, it makes a connection but it does not make a personal connection. Talking about summers on the lake & playing cards with the family brings back a lot of wonderful memories to people in the area. Talking about creating jobs and standing in front of a steel plant is not the good time feeling we are looking for.

    As (none / 0) (#52)
    by sas on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:44:12 PM EST
    we say here in PA, she is going to kick his a** up one side of the street and down the other.

    These pols and pundits that are calling her to withdraw are totally out of it.  Or else they know he is going to limp into the convention badly bruised after PA, W Va, Ky, Indiana, and Puerto Rico deliver strong showings for her.

    Here in PA we have a closed primary.  Last month I gave 5 Republicans voter registration forms so they could register as Democrats.  They do not like McCain and Obama, but they really like Hillary and want to vote for her.

    More bad news for Obama - they will vote for McCain in the fall however.

    This convinces me that she can deliver PA for the Democrats but he cannot.

    Thanks for that news ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:10:39 AM EST
    ... it's encouraging.

    And it is true (none / 0) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:19:02 AM EST
    Same here. I have 4 Republican friends who changed to vote for Hillary in the primary and the GE. And I have more who did not change but want her for the GE. And this is a state where people do not do that for a one time fluke just to skew up the votes. They take their voting seriously, speaking for NE PA and most of the state. They are not caught up in a frenzy and their minds are made up already. When talking to people, one of the first things they note is how the media is beating up so much on Hillary. So I would love a nice trounce to BHO just to show what the media is doing for her. I think it can happen but a win is a win.  

    Well then come election day (none / 0) (#59)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:45:15 AM EST
    it might be rather amusing to see Olbermann et al explaining how Obama lost by double digits. They are setting themselves up for their own demise.

    But don't you understand? (none / 0) (#64)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:27:05 AM EST
    Olberman, being on MSNBC ala the Obama Network means that you can say any cockamamie thing you want to say and no one will ever call you on it. So long as they praise the "one" and chastise the "fem" they'll do just fine with their demographic.

    SurveyUSA in California and after (none / 0) (#62)
    by andrys on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:17:16 AM EST
     I first paid attention when Zogby had Obama winning California by double digits the day before.  SUSA had Clinton winning by about 10.  She did ultimately win there by about that much.  

      So, that was similar to PA's situation.  SUSA has been said to be the most accurate during these primaries.  I just really doubt that ALL the other polls are off while just SUSA is right, though.  So, I go with those who guess between 7-15.

      Quinnipiac had one out a day or so earlier?  At any rate, Wall Street Journal highlighted the portion showing a couple of days ago that Clinton was leading McCain in 3 of 4 big states, whereas Obama was losing to him.

      The oddest report was Rasmussen's when he was 50-41 the other day over Clinton -- BUT they also reported that about 56% of Clinton supporters said it was possible they'd not vote for Obama in Nov.
    Rasmussen said that was a troubling number.  I guess so.

    Quinnipiac... (none / 0) (#67)
    by mike in dc on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:10:28 AM EST
    ...actually has a pretty good feel for PA, based on their previous polling of state contests there.
    In addition to Q and Ras showing it as a 5-6 point race, Strategic Vision has it at 5 points today, and of course as mentioned before, Chuck Todd is saying both campaigns' internal polling has it at single digits.  
    I think there will be more polls out tomorrow--if they all show tightening or stability, SUSA will look more like an outlier.  
    Next week we'll have debates, and of course if there's any negative story thrown at either candidate it may move the needle a bit.

    Here in Pittsburgh (none / 0) (#69)
    by smott on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:52:00 AM EST
    The polls are a front page story. They led with Quinn of course. A few grafs in they mention SUSA has Clinton up by 18.
    The headline?

    "Polls differ but Obama seems to gain"

    Does it really matter (none / 0) (#74)
    by onemanrules on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:47:56 PM EST
    what the polls say, they are all over the place. Look at New Hampshire. The media basically reports on the polls that over time have the most credibility. There was very little to no coverage of the poll that had Obama up by 2 points. But does it really matter, all that counts is when the voters vote. I think the expectation game is in the past now, HRC has to win and win big to make any meaningful delegate pickups. If she wins by 0-10 points it isn't good, but if she wins by the 15-18 point margin this poll suggests then there's hope. No need to get to riled over the meaningless polls.