SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 19

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:54:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

The new World's Greatest Pollster has its latest from PA:

In a Democratic Primary in Pennsylvania today, 03/11/08, six weeks to the vote, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama 55% to 36% . . .

Obama can not afford to lose Pennsylvania by 19. The internals are interesting. Clinton wins whites (80% of the vote) 61-29, Obama wins A-As by 76-22 (15% of the vote), Clinton wins Latinos (3% of the vote) 56-39. Women go for Clinton by 62-32. Clinton also wins men by 47-42. Clinton wins every age group and every ideology by double digits.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Obama Camp Resisting Revotes >

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

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 19 | 118 comments (118 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I really (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by rooge04 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:59:29 AM EST

don't see Obama even making a dent in this. I'd like to see how they spin this to the superdelegates when he loses all the critical swing states. OH, PA, FL, MI....all states that easily turn red depending on the choices.

15 percentage points (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by tree on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:27:42 PM EST

Clinton beat Uncomitted by 15% points. If you think that's being "nearly beaten", then you're obviously right. In fact, the polls in Pennsylvanis show her "nearly beaten" by Obama, cuz she's only ahead by 19 points.

Parent

Ohio didn't disappear (none / 0) (#57)
by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:22:13 PM EST

The last-second flurry of Rove tactics kept her lead up. Obama may be ready this time around.

Parent

Or maybe (none / 0) (#67)
by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:39:35 PM EST

She just won, you know, just won. It does happen you know. I don't go around saying every time Obama won he pulled a routine or something.

A win is a win. A loss is a loss. Why not just leave it at that.

Clinton will most likely lose Mississippi tonight. There is no "tactics" or "nearly won."

Parent

C'mon now (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by Decal on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:10:12 PM EST

Surely we've all learned from the Obama supporters that when Hillary wins it's only through "The Politics of Fear", but when Obama wins it's because of "The Audacity of Hope".

Parent

What's his name (none / 0) (#83)
by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:10:58 PM EST

What is that guys name on MSNBC? He keeps wondering why people keep spinning everything against Clinton. He says the same thing, maybe she just won. Dan Abrams.

Parent

You're right (none / 0) (#97)
by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:04:09 PM EST

campaigning and ads don't matter. Wins just appear out of the ether. Kinda like foreign policy experience.

Parent

: Ads matter (none / 0) (#99)
by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:16:10 PM EST

And both sides ran them. In fact one side massively outspent the other. What is your point?

Parent
: If ads don't matter, why isn't Obama (none / 0) (#106)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:10:56 PM EST

just donating the multimillions to charity? That would be audacious -- maybe as good a vote-getter, too.

Parent

I agree (none / 0) (#81)
by Daryl24 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:06:53 PM EST

His biggest worry maybe whether the very popular Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter who is supporting Hillary cuts into his AA base. Word out of Philly is the Clintons are thought of very highly even among a large percentage of Obama supporters. If Nutter even gets a small portion of those votes 19% might be overly generous.

Parent

What about being hornswoggled then? (none / 0) (#95)
by Ellie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:58:10 PM EST

I heard that after a rapid succession of being

hoodwinked, bamboozled, and okie-dokied

cooling down with a slow steady hornswoggling is fantastic; just be careful not to overdo it or you'll find yourself totally flummoxed!

(Surely even people in the most intense thrall of the movement have more brains than that sales pitch suggests.)

Parent

: A swig of latte apparently helps (none / 0) (#105)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:08:34 PM EST

to revive the fervor, if you hornswoggle too far.
What's in that latte, anyway?

Parent

I fail to see how 60% 'for'... (none / 0) (#102)
by K Lynne on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:18:45 PM EST

translates to 'nearly beaten by uncommitted'.

At the time there were what, 5 contenders in the race, including Edwards. By that measure, I would contend that winning 60% in a 5-way race (or even 3-way, if you limit it to the major contenders at the time) is pretty impressive.

Parent

do you realize (none / 0) (#107)
by TheRefugee on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:12:11 PM EST

how much money Obama is going to throw into PA? Hillary will win but I'd see it ending up about like Ohio. Although a twenty pt win would be awesome.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama dumped upwards of 10 million a week into PA.

Parent

As I commented in the open thread (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:59:37 AM EST

I think Obama will pick up a few points when blacks coalesce around him.

OTOH, this is a very good first result for Hillary. I don't think she'll let herself be outspent this time, either.

Um, (none / 0) (#3)
by rooge04 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:00:06 PM EST

they HAVE coalesced around him. In every single contest.

Parent

In Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:01:48 PM EST

I expect him to when AAs by 80-90%. That's more than what SUSA is showing now.

Parent

That seems wrong to me (none / 0) (#8)
by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:04:33 PM EST

Not in that it's inaccurate.

And I'd say the same thing if 90% of women coalesced around Clinton.

I'd say there's something more going on there than just a bunch of people deciding who would be a better president.

Parent

It honestly bugs me not at all (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by spit on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:15:16 PM EST

I would expect Black voters to be very excited about the first Black candidate with a solid shot. I don't see what's so wrong with that, particularly as most people see the policy differences between the two candidates as very minor.

What's going on, IMO, is that identity matters to some degree in American politics. You can wish it weren't so all you'd like, but at the end of the day, identity matters in politics because it matters in personal experience, which always guides political decisions to some degree.

Parent

Identity does matter and.... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:35:41 PM EST

...is particularly significant when you are talking about for the first time having a president that is of your gender or ethnic origin. I think it's perfectly fine for African Americans to support Barack Obama in large numbers; there really is no reason why they shouldn't. It is not against their interests to do so. It's not like he's a Republican or anything, lol. But I also feel it is equally appropriate for women to favor Hillary Clinton for the same reasons, but apparently this view is not as widely accepted, for some reason.

Parent

I rather doubt (none / 0) (#41)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:37:45 PM EST

that anyone thought it was a horrible affront to democracy when all the Irish Catholics voted for JFK.

Parent

I think there is a problem with it... (none / 0) (#59)
by CentristDemocrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:24:27 PM EST

... It's pretty funny that people don't have a problem with a whole group of people voting for another person based on something so irrelevent as race (appropros to his potential efficacy as C-in-C etc.)

And to bring up the JFK thing, that is also a stupid reason, but let's be fair, comparing social "race" to religion is totally differnt. That's like saying mathematicians voting for a mathematicain in office cause he's a mathematicain is just as equivlenet to whites voting for whites cause he's white.

I'd say religion, requires a much more cerebral and "substantive" (even if the corpus is mostly not real and highly contrived) ratoinale then race. Cause there are suppodly common intrest with people of the same religion, what will African Americans benefit from a African American presidnet? Has he promised one constituency somethign that he hasn't let on? Is there any other reason to vote for him if your African American other then "ethnic pride" (which is just a euphimisim to liberal societaly sanctioned ethno-nationalism/racism)?

And if "there is nothing wrong with that?" Why does Obaama initally hesitate to denounce the Farrakhan connection? Why do his followers cry foul when one mentions his church?

BTW: If you have no problem with group A voting for person A cause person A belongs to group A, then what is wrong with person B inciting group B,C, and D to vote against person A to "balance" the situation out?

I think we all know that answer... and this is a manifestation of the double-standard that exits in orthodox race-relations.

Parent

apparently the obvious escapes you, (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by cpinva on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:42:28 PM EST

so i'll kindly help you out:

.....what will African Americans benefit from a African American presidnet?

you ask? well, how about having the first president they can directly relate to? much as irish catholics had their's in john kennedy, and women would have their's in hillary clinton. this is not inherently a bad thing.

i would argue to the contrary, it's a good thing. those groups, possibly feeling alienated and not wholly part of the citizenry, will have "arrived". they now have a vested personal interest in this country's fortunes.

assimilation takes many forms. having people like you, that you can relate to, in elective office, is one of them.

one huge problem i do see, with regards to sen. obama's overwhelming support by the AA community in PA: winning 100% of 20 is still only 20.

Parent

laughable (none / 0) (#74)
by CentristDemocrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:46:06 PM EST

What a bunch of a nonsense. So you must have high public officals to feel "part" of a country. When do Asian Ameriacns ge thier president then? What about Jews? What about Latino Americans?

When is it our "turn?" Electing the msot powerful person in the world for 4 years based on something non-sensical like "race" is a testimoney to the degeneracy of American liberal orthodoxy.

That no one on the far-left see's anything wrong with that shows you why this group has lost the center along time ago.

Parent

: Gosh (none / 0) (#78)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:53:24 PM EST

were all the centrists lamenting when Joe Lieberman's presence on the ticket helped the Democrats rake in the lion's share of the Jewish vote in 2000? Didn't people basically take it as a given that of course, Lieberman would help bring in the Jewish vote because he's Jewish?

Parent

religion vs race (none / 0) (#61)
by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:31:31 PM EST

I think there is the feeling among the African American community that for the first time ever there will be a president who understands them and cares about them. I think they do feel they have more common interests with other African Americans than caucasions. I disagree that religion is more substantive than social and cultural similarities.

Also, he didn't hesitate to denounce. The first thing he said was denounce. Hillary thought he should also reject, hence the denounce and reject comment.

Parent

this is illogical (none / 0) (#63)
by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:33:40 PM EST

Co-religionists have some kind of shared interest in a way that people of the same race don't? That's an absurd proposition. Many government policies affect people differently based on their race - e.g. affirmative action, civil rights enforcement. The idea that a vote based on a candidate's religion is cerebral while one based on race is not is ridiculous.

Parent

ok (none / 0) (#66)
by CentristDemocrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:38:30 PM EST

Therefore, by your supposition it is ok that other ethnictiies (including whites, asians and latinos) to vote against Obama, cuase at least 2/3 of those groups will not benefit from affirmative action and other goverment prgorams that help Afircan Americans, cause most goverment programs end up being zero-sum situation.

You see how such reasoning is fallacious and counter-productive. And what will a African American president acutally give substantively to his African American constienuncies that he won't with the other groups?

Parent

: BTW (none / 0) (#71)
by CentristDemocrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:42:31 PM EST

I'd say religion is closer to something like mathematics, whereas it has a large corpus of ideas and notions, it just happens that most of those notions and propositions are false to begin with and thus any conclusion derived from them are irrlevent.
What is the large intellectual corpus that exists for 'voting on race.' Cause the only ones I know off are related to Aryan-Race theory and Neo-Nazism.
BTW, natural Economic situations affects differnt economic and regional cohorts, NOT race. There is a subtle and important difference to that..
Now public policy CAN be tailored or targeted at a partiuclar social race... but then that leads to what I said above.

Parent

There's a lot (none / 0) (#65)
by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:36:18 PM EST

to argue here, but to keep it short, Obama did denounce, reject or call it whatever you want. It should be a non-issue.

Parent

it bugs me (none / 0) (#114)
by TheRefugee on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:36:56 PM EST

because everyone makes a big deal out of Hillary winning the "racist" vote--although I have my doubts as to the accuracy of asking people if they are racist when they leave a polling booth. "you voted for Hillary? Was race an issue?" "Yes."

If that is the case then why aren't Obama voters being asked the same question? I really see reverse discrimination being displayed. Hillary can't be a viable candidate in 40-60 percent of voting blocks except for one. I understand BO is the first viable African-American presidential candidate. I understand that blacks are motivated and excited about getting to vote for one of their own for a change. But I also think an election needs to be decided on more than...hey, he looks like me.

I don't agree with everything Geraldine Ferraro had to say. But I do agree with the basic sentiment. If BO wasn't winning the black vote by grossly disproportionate margins he wouldn't have the delegate lead he has. He might still be in the lead but she definitely picks up some delegates here and there. I don't think she takes the lead because honestly his strategy in the caucus states was flawless. I think caucuses are bs but they are a part of the current landscape and Hillary's campaign honchos were flat stupid to ignore them. I think Howard Dean is a moron and a pathetic excuse for a DNC head BUT I believe in the 50 state strategy. Obama, the only thing I like about him, also believes in the 50 state strategy.

Parent

Look at the most recent exit polls (none / 0) (#13)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:06:05 PM EST

He'll get that.

Parent

And even if he gets 90% of the (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by rooge04 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:08:44 PM EST

AA vote, he still loses by a significant margin.

Parent

Correct (none / 0) (#19)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:11:20 PM EST

especially if, after tonight, the media brands him as the "black candidate." I really hope that doesn't happen though--it's bad for the party.

Parent

: I think he (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by rooge04 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:15:53 PM EST

branded himself that following SC. While blaming it on the Clintons.

Parent

I think you are accurate (none / 0) (#18)
by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM EST

The wrongness of that kind of homogenousness in any demographic is what I'm talking about.

Parent

Every state (none / 0) (#9)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:04:53 PM EST

is like that in early polling. It's a Bradley-type effect, where black voters tell the early pollsters that they're weighing both candidates even though they always break huge for Obama in the end.

I'm not saying they're lying or anything, but obviously they're not genuinely on the fence.

Parent

My theory (none / 0) (#23)
by IVR Polls on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:16:57 PM EST

is that Obama is effective and aggressive in converting unlikely AA voters into likely voters and Clinton is looking elsewhere. I don't think opinions are changing as much as turnout patterns are changing.

Parent

There's a ceiling on black turnout in PA (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:18:51 PM EST

that is well known and routinely reached--luckily for statewide Dems.

It's actually Hillary's base of single young women that could see a massive boost this time.

Parent

Could be (none / 0) (#32)
by IVR Polls on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:26:47 PM EST

Does this ceiling get reached in primaries or only in general elections?

I've got a copy of the PA voter file - I really should load it up and do some analysis.

Parent

Most of the black population (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:31:32 PM EST

is in Philly proper. For local elections, the primary IS the election. So yes, primary turnout is often like this one.

I think a comparable race is the Casey/Rendell Gubernatorial primary in 2002. The roles are somewhat scrambled, but I think turnout should be similar.

SUSA polls Philly well too--they pegged the hotly contested Mayoral primary a year ago IIRC.

Parent

: See (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:38:57 PM EST

here
Rendell cleaned up in Philly AND the Philly suburbs (Bucks, Berks, Montgomery, Delaware). In this election, the burbs will be a battleground. I expect Hillary to get Casey-like numbers everywhere else.

Parent
: Thanks (none / 0) (#42)
by IVR Polls on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:38:30 PM EST

Good info

Parent

At the rally last night in Scranton (none / 0) (#44)
by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:44:21 PM EST

The huge crowd was mostly women and some with strollers. Pennsylvania is still one of those states with a lot of European ethnic groups. Thus you get a lot of Polish, German, Irish, Welsh, And Italian votes. It might be 3 or 4th Generation, but it is there.

Parent

But here (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:05:47 PM EST

is is not as big a deal as it will only be 15% of the turnout.

Parent

Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia is a factor (none / 0) (#25)
by felizarte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:57 PM EST

He is an A/A and firm supporter of Clinton. He was quoted to say, ". . the notion that AA only vote a certain way has to be destroyed " I think that Mississippi marks his peak and it will be downhill from there. Of course, only my opinion.

Parent

I agree (none / 0) (#64)
by CentristDemocrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:35:46 PM EST

... not only that, but it really makes any ethnic group look bad if at this level of importance, they vote based on something like skin color. Unfortunatly, I fear though that the media goading of this sort of behavior will make it "ok" for other peoples in the future. And if the media jumps on one group and dosn't the other for the same behavior, your going to see alot loud noises comming out.

I don't think race relations/people relations will be helped by such behavior.

Parent

: I don't think (none / 0) (#68)
by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:40:58 PM EST

that folks are voting based on skin color. For instance, you wouldn't have anywhere near the AA turnout if the candidate were Condi. Issues matter a lot more than race, for most AA, I think.

Parent
: It's about connecting, not skin color (none / 0) (#110)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:26:58 PM EST

or genitalia.
It's about experience -- shared experiences that shape our views of which are the most important issues. The more a voter connects with a candidate, the more that factor defines a voter's lived experiences and thus most important issues, the more significant that factor is in the polling booth.
If this country had not so defined us dermatologically, even limiting the lived experiences of many of us because of it, other factors would be more important. (I.e., if we defined each other by whether we came from a legacy of slavery or not, few AAs would share a connection with Obama. If we stopped defining and limiting the majority of Americans by their ovaries or lack thereof, fewer women would share the experiences that Clinton exemplifies.)

Parent

He get 76% in this poll (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:05:11 PM EST

Make it 86% percent if you like. 15% of the turnout it net him 3 points.

He loses by 16 instead.

Parent

Ah, the gold standard (none / 0) (#4)
by NJDem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:00:52 PM EST

This margin is up since the last poll. The last poll had a 15-point spread.

I didn't realize her personal/family connection to PA (Scranton). I guess if BO can claim IL, KS, and HA as home bases, she can claim NY, AK, and now PA.

Yes, and on Meet the Press (none / 0) (#20)
by ChrisO on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:12:39 PM EST

when it was mentioned that Hillary was born in Scranton, Andrea Mitchell snarked "another Hillary birthplace." I feel confident in saying, without doing any research, that Hillary has never claimed any other birthplace.

It was these kinds of snarky asides from the pundits that helped build up Gore's negatives in 2000. And this is from the same Andrea Mitchell who said, in response to discussions of media bias against Hillary, "she brought it on herself."

I readily concede that the balance of the coverage is evening out a bit, but these little asides take on a life of their own.

Parent

How It's Evening Out (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by BDB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:25:22 PM EST

But I don't know that it's evening out with fairer coverage of Clinton. If anything it's evening out with snarkier coverage of Obama, indicating what either can expect if he or she is the nominee.

Parent

Andrea Mitchell should be replaced (none / 0) (#47)
by mg7505 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:00:06 PM EST

with Tina Fey. Then I'd actually watch Meet the Press.

Parent

: Meet the Press? (none / 0) (#56)
by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:21:25 PM EST

The name of that show has become such a joke.
Tim Russert is now a collective? He is THE PRESS!
The show used to have a group of reporters (usually print reporters) questioning a politician. Hence, the title.
Now ... it's ... um ... Russert.
Ridiculous!

Parent

And Clinton can claim Illinois (none / 0) (#111)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:29:09 PM EST

where she spent most of her formative years -- far more than Obama -- but Chicagoans have other priorities.

Parent

Btw, it's Clinton's father's birthplace, not hers (none / 0) (#113)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:35:17 PM EST

according to an email from the Clinton campaign that I just received (about the crowds in Scranton called "wildly enthusiastic" in the local press).

Whew. I thought she was born in Chicago as well as raised there.

Parent

PA (none / 0) (#6)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:03:05 PM EST

is like Ohio, except that the Clinton-supporting governor actually has a real Democratic machine to boss around. That wasn't the case in OH where the Dems are just now starting to coalesce their control of the state.

Clinton also has the endorsement of the mayor of Philly, unlike Ohio where I believe Obama had the key mayoral endorsements. While I'm not sure how many voters will actually be moved by the mayor's endorsement, the mayor is always a key figure in terms of GOTV, so Obama won't get as many votes from Philly as he otherwise would have.

If I were Obama, I would be happy to keep the margin in PA to single digits.

Nutter doesn't really have a machine (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:05:14 PM EST

There are two Philly machines: one controlled by Chaka Fattah, who has endorsed Obama, and the other by Bob Brady, who's keeping his mouth shut.

Rendell will be an asset to Clinton in the Philly burbs.

But yes, this result looks right to me.

Parent

I do not put much faith in that Chaka Fatah machin (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:06:34 PM EST

Nutter beat him.

Parent

: It will be irrelevant (none / 0) (#16)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:10:22 PM EST

because this is a high information election, and the black turnout in Philly always rocks when that happens.
I found it interesting that Hillary went to Scranton yesterday but we didn't hear a peep from Bob Casey. I think he'll sit this out, for a variety of reasons.

Parent

Bob Brady (none / 0) (#26)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:18:13 PM EST

seems very obviously pro-Hillary to me. I am surprised to hear that he has not endorsed.

Parent

: In private, yeah, probably (none / 0) (#29)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:22:57 PM EST

But he's got two problems: 1. He's a white guy representing a majority AA district (though no real primary challenge this time); 2. he's head of the Philly Democratic party, and might be looking to maintain some neutrality.
Both of those are pretty thin, and I'm sure he'll endorse if he wants to.

Parent

Pittsburgh (none / 0) (#46)
by cmugirl on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:51:27 PM EST

Anyone have any info on Pittsburgh?

Parent

Random Question (none / 0) (#48)
by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:01:27 PM EST

I know this is off-topic, but does cmu stand for Carnegie Mellon? (I went there too). I don't know about the pittsburgh vote, but I imagine it is probably a split decision or slightly to Obama. Lots of Colleges, fair number of A-A's, but also the blue collar crowd.

Parent

: No (none / 0) (#51)
by cmugirl on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:14:04 PM EST

Central Michigan University - but we have the same colors as Carneige Mellon (maroon and gold!)

Parent

One side of my family has Philly roots (none / 0) (#7)
by Jim J on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:04:05 PM EST

but I've never loved Pennsylvania more than when I just read this post. Thanks, and sorry to gush like that. Looks like things could get very interesting vis-a-vis national popular vote total.

: But the "Dem for a Day" flyers (none / 0) (#112)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:32:36 PM EST

and usual Obama campaign for crossover is just getting going in Pennsylvania, and there's still two more weeks for Republicans to register as Dems.
So I expect the polling numbers to change.

Parent

If this is close to the final results (none / 0) (#17)
by spit on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:10:32 PM EST

based on almost 4,000,000 registered dems in PA as of 3/4 (and decent turnout), she will net a pretty big popular vote gain.

OTOH, like andgarden, I expect Black voters to coalesce at very high margins (80% - 90%) around Obama, and this is only a current snapshot -- lots can happen in 6 weeks. It'll be interesting to see whether he can make bigger inroads into his other core demographic groups than he's currently got in this poll.

They're also finding the "top concerns" to be the economy, health care, Iraq, in that order. She's got huge point leads on the first two, and they're "effectively tied" on Iraq.

The lines are drawn (none / 0) (#24)
by Salt on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:51 PM EST

Thats women up 4 more points from Ohio, really good news to see this group solidify behind Senator Clinton and finally show their electoral Party power.. She needs to keep up her contrast with Obama and continue hitting him on his nod and wink policies, lots of articles that Ohioans turned on the NAFTA ruse and Obama denials, more on the Powers Iraq backpedaling come PA, her campaign should keep up the Wolfson and skilled surrogates beating back the coded misogynic attacks its refreshing and working adding a skilled cultural anthropologist on staff would be a good addition for the remainder of the campaign this is group grievance warfare and it can be tricky and disruptive if lines are crossed much further. The Geraldine Ferraro interview very skillful had to scare Axelrod that the Clinton campaign finally broke the code and is turning the strategy to their advantage.

Wow, coming together nicely.

: I still have to be convinced (none / 0) (#52)
by ChrisO on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:18:01 PM EST

that the Ferraro interview was a good thing. There's truth to the fact that being black is helping him electorally, but "he's lucky he's black" just sounds wrong to me. Hillary still hasn't come all the way back from people who think Bill crossed the line racially in South Carolina, IMO.
And to be clear, I think he didn't cross any line, and I understood exactly what he was saying. But there's no question Obama won that one.

Parent

The best thing about Penn...... (none / 0) (#28)
by bodhcatha on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:18:54 PM EST

is they have a CLOSED PRIMARY. That's it. Democrats voting for the Democratic nominee. No crossover, Hillary-hating Repugs, no Democrat for a day Indys. Let's see Nobama sweet-talk his way out of that!

"Don't bring a calculator to a knife fight"

There will be crossover -- (none / 0) (#115)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:56:55 PM EST

see upthread; the "Dems for a Day" campaign is getting going, and there's still two more weeks to switch party registration.

Parent

Are you sure? (none / 0) (#118)
by bodhcatha on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:57:11 PM EST

I heard last week that registration was already closed. (Mind you, I got this info from one of the cable networks, so consider the source!)

Parent

: March 24 is the date I saw and (none / 0) (#120)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:29:02 PM EST

it looks like that is it, as I just doublechecked the Pennsylvania secretary of state's info (it's online, just google), and the deadline is 30 days before an election.

Parent

So, the CW now should be... (none / 0) (#30)
by mike in dc on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:25:12 PM EST

...that Obama is expected to sustain a double-digit loss in PA, right? I mean, clearly since PA is like OH, and Indies and Reps aren't permitted to vote there, there's no way he can get this margin down to 9 points or less, right?

That would be a really big deal if he did, right? If the margin were closer than it was in Ohio?

I think it would be (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:27:35 PM EST

But losing by 9 is no positive if that is what you mean.

What he can not do is lose by 15.

Parent

: I think he can shave it down to about 6-8 (none / 0) (#38)
by mike in dc on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:34:44 PM EST

points behind, but absent some game-changing event(a foreign policy tour by him, a major gaffe or scandal for her, a major endorsement of Gore-Edwards magnitude) I don't see a way for him to win PA.
I do see him narrowing the gap as much as possible while investing more heavily than her in NC and IN, though. Big wins there would more than wipe out any delegate gains for her in PA.

Parent

Obama Needs to Win Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#34)
by BDB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM EST

So does Hillary, btw. The bigger the loss for either, the worse the news for them. So a 19 point loss by Obama is devastating, a 10 point is probably damaging and a 5 point is merely bad.

Any loss by Hillary is at least damaging, but again the bigger the loss, the more damaging.

Parent

: I don't think Obama needs to win. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:12:41 PM EST

I think he needs to keep Clinton's popular vote advantage below, say, 75,000 votes.

Parent
: I think (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:42:03 PM EST

ANY LOSS by Hillary is fatal. A minor win by Hillary is not good. A good win is fine. A blowout may be near fatal to Obama.

Parent

I agree (none / 0) (#35)
by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:28:05 PM EST

Obama can't lose PA by 19. He needs to come within 10. Everyone agree with me?

Anyone got an idea ... (none / 0) (#36)
by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:28:16 PM EST

how may delegates Hillary would net from a win like this?

Hey BTD (none / 0) (#45)
by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:51:21 PM EST

I'm happier now.

I suspect that (none / 0) (#50)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:13:34 PM EST

by the time of the election this result will be somewhere around an 8-10 point win for Hillary. The ads are just starting in the region. The campaigns are just starting to focus on the state.

6 weeks out from Ohio, Obama was 20 points behind.

I would hope (none / 0) (#54)
by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:19:59 PM EST

the margin would be at least the same as Ohio's spread. That would be good for Hillary camp.

Parent

: it is going to be much better than OhIo (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:22:14 PM EST

count on it. = )

Parent

Ohgio is not a good parallel (none / 0) (#55)
by ChrisO on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:20:03 PM EST

because Obama came back in the polls riding a wave of coverage that he was the inevitable nominee, and the Clinton campaign was on a death watch. The worm has turned considerably on that one, even if he trounces her in Mississippi, as expected.

Parent

That nothing more than (none / 0) (#62)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:32:06 PM EST

hope and faith.

Last week's good feelings will evaporate. If he wins today, as is likely, then there will be 5 weeks before another election and Michigan.

That's a lot of time for both candidates to campaign. They will be living in PA, with stop overs in NC.

I predict this right now this is likely to be the high water mark for Hillary UNLESS some major negatives hit Obama.

Parent

That is a fairly safe bet (none / 0) (#73)
by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:43:55 PM EST

That this is a high water mark, no argument there. The question is how close it will get. I am not so sure that a barrage of campaigning will do what nearly happened in TX/OH. I think once the coverage turns we are going to see a more "conventional" campaign result. Sen Obama should close the gap, no question. But how much?

I don't think this will be anything like what he did in Texas.

Parent

As I said (none / 0) (#93)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:46:40 PM EST

I think that Hillary will win by around 10. It will be a big story and then a week and half later Obama will win by 10 in North Carolina. Net effect will be minimal.

Parent

Assuming (none / 0) (#100)
by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:17:08 PM EST

There is an equivalency to the two states in the narrative. At least right now that is not the case.

Parent

The narrative is set (none / 0) (#103)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:27:12 PM EST

on both sides. Whatever happens in PA that narrative will still be argued.

Parent

: Partly (none / 0) (#109)
by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:26:35 PM EST

But honestly right now the main narrative is "Obama can knock Hillary out in PA with a win." No one is talking about North Carolina.

Parent

But the margin 2 weeks before TX and OH (none / 0) (#84)
by Christopher MN Lib on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:15:02 PM EST

was nearly identicle to the final results. Actually I think Hillary ended up peforming a little better than the polls released around the time of Wisconsin. 6 weeks is a long time between primaries. Who knows what will happen, but the fact is there won't be any caucuses or primaries in between that Obama can ride momentum off of. It's essentially 6 weeks where the race will be in flux, and 6 weeks where mistakes could be made, and in that sense the Clinton campaign probably likes the long gap.

Parent

Undecideds (none / 0) (#72)
by evan108108 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:43:40 PM EST

Convenient that the undecided are 19% the same as Clintons lead. Not saying anything just saying...

: Where? (none / 0) (#76)
by spit on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:49:17 PM EST

I'm seeing undecided 3%.
SUSA generally pushes leaners pretty hard.

Parent
: Don't know where you got 19% (none / 0) (#77)
by tree on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:52:47 PM EST

In the SUSA poll linked, "Other" got 5%, and "Undecided" got 3%. Even if you lump those two categories together it only adds up to 8%.

Parent

She will win by an even larger margain now that (none / 0) (#75)
by DemBillC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:47:42 PM EST

Obama is up to using his old racist language in Mississippi. He gives a speech in Mississippi saying Hillary is trying to "use the "old okey-doke", trying to "bamboozle" you, and to "hoodwink you". Who uses those racist terms any more? Obma is for change alright right back to the 1800's. He has run the mst racist campaign ever and it will back fire on him even if he does get 95% of the AA vote.

You're kidding right? (none / 0) (#80)
by Joike on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM EST

Since when have hoodwink and bamboozle been racist terms?

Maybe its terms that Abbott and Costello would be more familiar with, but racist. I think not.

Were the KKK running around America back in the 20's saying, "we've got to bamboozle these people or at least hoodwink them, okey-doke!"?

I'm not even sure about okey-doke. I always thought that meant "okilly-dokilly".

Parent

Right ... No race card it's just Obama (none / 0) (#89)
by RalphB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:24:28 PM EST

doing his impression of Denzel Washington's impression of Malcolm X to get a little extra solidarity with the people of MS. :-)

Denzel Washington was much better.

Parent

: it's been years since I've seen that (none / 0) (#117)
by Joike on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:13:52 PM EST

movie.
I thought it was pretty good, but have no memory of those lines.

Parent

You have to understand (none / 0) (#94)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:49:48 PM EST

that some people think that movie quotes have deeper meaning among AAs than others.

He's not saying that because its an inside joke that will get a chuckle from a lot of AAs. Nope, he's saying it because his target audience, people under 40, deeply identify with a guy who died before they were born.

Parent

Racist terms - what? (none / 0) (#86)
by jcsf on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:19:17 PM EST

"hoodwink and bamboozle been racist terms"

No, I think not.

Parent

then why does he only use those phrases (none / 0) (#108)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:12:35 PM EST

in states like AL, GA, SC and MS?

Find another instance where he uses them. There are none. The traveling press corps has noticed this, too--but no one dare writes about it.

Parent

: He uses those lines (none / 0) (#119)
by bodhcatha on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:05:11 PM EST

when he's talking to majority AA audiences. And yes, those lines are in the movie 'Malcolm X'. Check out youtube for Obama's greatest (plagiarized) hits.

Parent

With 40 some odd days to go (none / 0) (#79)
by Joike on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:01:03 PM EST

until PA votes, we'll have enough time to see the polls swing back and forth several times before the votes are cast.

40 days is a lifetime in politics.

I'm sure the polls will tighten then widen then tighten again then widen again etc.

It will be like the waves coming into the beach. The lucky candidate will catch the right one leading into election day.

I'll guess that Clinton wins by 8, but doesn't significantly close the delegate gap.

Clinton's only hope rests in the super-delegates.

Michigan and Florida get a lot of news, but they don't really change the landscape of the election dramatically.

She needs to win the remaining S-Ds handily while at the very least running even with Obama in pledged delegates the rest of the way.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it will be expensive for her and the party.

Clinton will win PA (none / 0) (#85)
by jcsf on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:17:43 PM EST

I doubt it would be by more than 10%, but I've been wrong before. Clinton does need 15% though.

An interesting post by Markos, regarding the popular vote.

Suddenly, Obama's lead [meaning pop vote - jc] is about 780,000.

Unless Obama suffers an epic collapse, he should end this contest with a lead in the popular vote, a lead in the pledged delegates, and a lead in the number of states won.

Clinton will apparently attempt her coup by super delegates, but that path lies civil war. I doubt the supers are that stupid.

I'm guessing that doesn't include (none / 0) (#87)
by tigercourse on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:20:36 PM EST

Florida and Michigan, 2 states that (now that Clinton has won them) Kos very much wants to disenfranchise. The funny thing is he used to support what they were doing.

Parent

I think the point is (none / 0) (#88)
by jcsf on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:24:24 PM EST

That Florida and Michigan, with the type of lead that Obama has in popular votes, won't make up the difference. Especially since Michigan doesn't count, unless there is a revote.

Parent

realclearpolitics tells a different (none / 0) (#90)
by tigercourse on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:31:01 PM EST

story then Kos.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Parent

So, going by the real clear numbers, (none / 0) (#91)
by tigercourse on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:38:18 PM EST

if Florida and Michigan revote, I expect her to do about the same in Florida and just about break even in Michigan (that's what current polling says). Which would give Obama abut a 300,000 vote lead. If Pennsylvania goes for Clinton by about 10$% (same as Ohio) and with a similar turnout, she will take the lead. That of course leaves out the other states like North Carolina and Montana(advantage Obama) or West Virgina and Kentucky (advantage Clinton).

Parent

ANd don't forget (none / 0) (#92)
by tree on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:41:28 PM EST

Puerto Rico.

Parent

Size of states following PA (none / 0) (#96)
by jcsf on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:03:07 PM EST

Good response, and honest with the numbers. Thanks.

Some very good points.

If Penn were voting today, and you are looking at a 10% difference, then Penn might go 300,000 people more for Clinton.

This would actually tie them, or close to itVery good pointNorth Carolina is a big state, as is Indiana, both of which poll towards Obama. That won't be made up by .

But a few points:

today is a vote, where Obama will increase his popular vote lead.
North Carolina is much larger than Kentucky.
Right now, polling in Indiana has Obama ahead (at least a couple of weeks ago)
You didn't mention Oregon - which probably will balance Kentucky, in any event?

I don't know about Puerto Rico. I'm trying to figure out the contradiction between Puerto Rico going for Jesse Jackson in the 80's, versus what seems like a clean Latino vote, which favors Clinton.

Those are two counter-indicators, and I haven't seen a good explanation of which is more indicative of the territory. Is it possible that Puerto Ricans themselves will split?

Parent

Kos addresses RCP numbers (none / 0) (#98)
by jcsf on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:07:53 PM EST

And points out that Washington, Iowa, Nevada, and Maine aren't included in RCP numbers.

If you include those numbers (and we are talking popular vote, so they have to be included), that's why the numbers go from 600K ahead, to 800K ahead.

Parent

: Kos does funny math -- not to mention (none / 0) (#116)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:06:52 PM EST

Chicago-style vote counting. He counts both the primary voters in Texas and the caucus participants in Texas -- but they're the same voters.
Pfffft.

Parent

don't forget (none / 0) (#101)
by cpinva on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:18:19 PM EST

that NC will go republican in nov., so winning there is sort of meaningless in the long-term. PA will go democratic in nov., regardless of who wins the primary.

i see sen. obama is lying once again about the "source" of the two year-old AP photo of him in native dress, that the clinton campaign sent it to the press. with no evidence to support his accusation of course.

and why is he the agent of political "change" again?

geraldine ferraro was right. if obama were white, with the same credentials, john edwards would probably be duking it out with sen. clinton right now.

sometimes facts are nasty little critters.

19? (none / 0) (#104)
by tek on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:06:51 PM EST

Yeaaaaaaah!

SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 19 | 118 comments (118 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment