home

SUSA KY Poll: Clinton By 36

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:48:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Like WV, SUSA has Kentucky as overwhelming Clinton country:

[F]ive weeks to the vote, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama 62% to 26%, according to a SurveyUSA poll . . . Compared to an identical SurveyUSA tracking poll released two weeks ago, Obama has lost ground among men and women, young and old, conservatives and moderates. . .

Key number, Clinton wins whites (90% of the vote) by 66-20. Obama wins blacks by 4-1.

< Why SUSA Provides the Most Helpful Polling | Finally Someone Worries About Alienating Women Voters >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA KY Poll: Clinton By 36 | 82 comments (82 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    hmm... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:54:14 PM EST
    so, you're saying demographics are a factor?

    I'm saying demographics has become everything (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:57:57 PM EST
    You think the issues are driving this? Can you find an issue except health care they disagree about?

    Parent
    i'm joking (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    the differences between them on most issues are trivial- which is why the shrill is running so high. nothing substantive to argue about, so let's invent things. you're been saying this for months, and it's always cut both ways- demographics are everything, this year. which doesn't bode well for november.

    Parent
    I haven't heard (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:07:20 PM EST
    any of Sen. Clinton's advisor's contradicting her policies on Iraq to anyone like I have about Sen. Obama's advisers contradicting his stands on withdrawal.

    Parent
    both their withdrawal plans fall short (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:16:44 PM EST
    i wrote about it last month.

    Parent
    That there will be a military presence there (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:24:14 PM EST
    For a long time is a reality.  

    Ending the war is defined as restructuring mission objectives, getting most of the soldiers home and getting the remaining out of harm's way.

    Everything else is demagoguery.

    Parent

    Clear Assessment (none / 0) (#68)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:55:00 PM EST
    is what is needed and that will not happen for quite awhile. I think Clinton has better advisers but no matter who is in charge there is no good outcome.

    Parent
    I find them worlds apart in abilities, (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    temperament, intellect; I also find them sharply different on the issues---ESPECIALLY healthcare.

    Parent
    Thank You (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:15:12 PM EST
    The idea that they are the same and all we have to consider is electability is one that I find potentially harmful to not just the party but the country itself.


    Parent
    health care is a big divide (none / 0) (#13)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    but neither dares go for single-payer. on many other issues, though, the differences are negligible.

    Parent
    They may be equal at 12 noon, with (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    advisers around, but at 3 am? One of them is not ready.

    Parent
    Not even equal at noon (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by LoisInCo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:06:35 PM EST
    IMNSHO. He has to many "seats at the table" for republicans to suit my taste.

    Parent
    I like your turn of phrase here (none / 0) (#31)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    And I agree with the point.  

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by facta non verba on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:19:21 PM EST
    with you on health care but I find substantive differences between Clinton and Obama on a host of issues: gay rights, energy policy, foreign policy, environmental policy and medical research.

    Then of course there is experience and the fact that Hillary is a fighter and Obama an appeaser.

    Parent

    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    They both have good voting records, but HRC is advocating more progressive policies. There are very large differences between the two.

    Parent
    You should inform yourself (none / 0) (#33)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:24:06 PM EST
    better on the health care issue.

    This site has some of the best analysis I've seen on it: Obama's plan - Clinton's plan.

    Bottom line - very little substantive difference between them, and the claims they make as to the value or realism of the actual differences are questionable. Both/either would be a substantial improvement, since the main hump to get over is to get a substantial number of people into coverage. That is the political part of the problem, the hardest to deal with.

    Parent

    You are almost as supercilious as (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    Obama. I AM informed on health care, which is why I prefer Clinton.

    Parent
    Your comments don't seem informed (none / 0) (#44)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    on health care. All you offer is your biased opinions with no backup. And this is not the first time.

    Parent
    No need to insult others (none / 0) (#54)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:12:38 PM EST
    To make a point, specially if you are wrong. I'll dig them up, but unbiased and INTELLIGENT analysis shows her plan to be better, more covered for less.

    Parent
    No need to insult others (none / 0) (#55)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    Don't forget to tell that to MarkL too.

    Parent
    Ok then please (none / 0) (#59)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:31:54 PM EST
    Lead by example first. :)

    Parent
    MUST lower costs per capita; furthermore (none / 0) (#60)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:35:31 PM EST
    it is the insurance companies who are adamant against mandates. Obama already has a record in IL of weakening health care legislation with sops to the insurance companies; since the plan he offers now concedes the most important ground to them, there is no reason for any confidence  at all.

    Parent
    The political problem comes first (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:53:15 PM EST
    How to get an open access system enacted.

    I dislike both their plans for the private aspects of them - I thought only Kucinich had it right. But I think Obama's will be more politically palatable in the current RW environment that is America.

    If you read that analysis I posted, you'll see why the cost difference is basically illusory.

    Parent

    The problem is compromising our (none / 0) (#75)
    by Teresa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:32:01 PM EST
    position away before you even start the political fight. We will never get UHC without proposing it first.

    Parent
    If access is provided for everyone (none / 0) (#77)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:56:58 PM EST
    who needs it, how is such a program not universal?

    The problem with Obama's plan is not its lack of universality but in its long-term financial viability because of the lack of a mandate. But that's the political tradeoff needed now to be able to move it successfully, and it's something that can be dealt with later, when preserving the program's solvency is popular, like preserving SS.

    Parent

    Containing costs is a problem (none / 0) (#79)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:05:30 PM EST
    The political problem is the main hurdle though - will people mobilize on a mass basis to press their senators and congresspersons for a program that will penalize them for not participating, as in Mass, where those who can't afford it prefer the fine and not healthcare coverage?

    As for the rest of what you say, please provide links to neutral sources to back up what you say.

    Parent

    What you're missing is that is isn't (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:38:39 PM EST
    just the substance - it's the impression that he's (1) willing to compromise from Day One, (2) overly fond of right-wing talking points on issues of both health care and Social Security, (3) not all that energized about health care to where one could believe he's going to make it a priority, (4) doesn't seem as committed to the right to choose as most Democrats would prefer and (5) has too many advisors who would seem more at home in a GOP administration, (6) cannot be trusted to stand up for the core Democratic principles that matter to us.

    Now, you could call that "style over substance" if you wanted, but I prefer to think that the commitment to the substance is as important as the substance itself - and I don't think he has it.

    Parent

    Please don't take this the wrong way (none / 0) (#49)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:54:21 PM EST
    but do you ever get away from the Hillary blogs?

    I don't want to get too O/T for this thread, but your impression on each of these points is quite incorrect. What you mistake for compromise is a tactical approach that involves finding practical points of agreement with a broad range of allies that satisfy each party's self interest. It's pragmatic alliance building, and it comes out of his work in Alinsky-based community activism. The point is not to compromise, but to find ways to bring others who might otherwise oppose you onto your side. The value of the broad perspectives of the advisors is to understand how to appeal to those you want to become your allies in achieving your goals. It has nothing to do with triangulating or Liebermanesque capitulation.

    Parent

    Wouldn't it be nice (none / 0) (#58)
    by mm on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:28:07 PM EST
    if Senator Obama had actually tried this theory out in his role as a, you know, Senator?  What's his record there?

    February 6, 2006

    The Honorable Barack Obama
    United States Senate
    SH-713
    Washington, DC 20510

    Dear Senator Obama:

        I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again.



    Parent
    Do you have a point? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:42:11 PM EST
    Other than that the lunatic Republican McCain was po'd at him for preferring a Dem bill over a Rethug one on ethics and for supporting his own party's efforts to keep the process public? Are you joking?

    Parent
    Wow - thanks for the best (none / 0) (#71)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:58:51 PM EST
    laugh I've had today.

    For some reason, your comment reads like it came right out of the Obama manual.

    The comedy version.

    Parent

    Enjoy your ignorance then (none / 0) (#80)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:07:05 PM EST


    Parent
    I never cared much for the Overton Window (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:27:09 PM EST
    But if one did, one candidate is making Mandates acceptable in the mainstream by talking about them and supporting them.


    Parent
    One candidate will get their (none / 0) (#42)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM EST
    health care plan defeated a second time by insisting on mandates against an electorate that's been propagandized against them for the past 50 years.

    I think mandates are essential for the long-term viability of such a health care program, but politically they are a stopper. No mandate to start with I'm afraid is the only politically possible route.

    Parent

    Incrementalism (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    And triangulation.


    Parent
    Incrementalism, yes (none / 0) (#52)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:03:30 PM EST
    Triangulation, no, imo, because the goal of implementing a full-access system is not being compromised, only the tactics are being adjusted to work within political realities. But the goal remains to get to full coverage - no one turned away.

    Parent
    That's what triangulation is (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:24:45 PM EST
    Conceding the goal for incremental gain.

    Parent
    No conceding of the goal involved (none / 0) (#64)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:42:51 PM EST
    Just adjustment of how to get there - to where no one is turned away from health care.

    Parent
    I'll amend then to suit your fancy (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:47:41 PM EST
    It's conceding the goal for the time being.

    That's triangulation.

    You just don't want to label it triangulation because blogs consider triangulation a negative strategy.

    Parent

    Finding a way to get to your goal (none / 0) (#69)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:55:54 PM EST
    is not conceding your goal, in my book. But our argument here is getting silly.

    Parent
    If you're conceding it temporarily (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:58:07 PM EST
    With the intent of completing it later on, then that's triangulation.

    Parent
    Triangulation is a defensive (none / 0) (#72)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:15:14 PM EST
    political gambit.  

    link

    Triangulation is the act of a candidate presenting his or her ideology as being "above" and "between" the left and right sides of the political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue. Opponents of triangulation consider the dynamic a deviation from reality and dismiss those that strive for it as whimsical.

    I used to think that about him too. The more I've looked into his work though the more I realize it isn't true. His work with Alinsky-based organizing methodology tells me it's tactical, a means of of finding the self-interest of your opponents and playing on it to draw them in to help you achieve your goals.

    Parent

    That's spin (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:24:11 PM EST
    Of course it's not defensive when Obama does it.

    Parent
    That's the biggest one (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:04:06 PM EST
    Drivers licenses for Illegal immigrants is another.

    So is their positions on mercenaries' role in whatever combat strategy that exists at any point in time.

    Also.  Obama thinks the office of the president should not be used as a carrot in diplomatic matters.  Clinton does.

    The health care difference is still the biggest one though.


    Parent

    IMO There Are A Few Issues Other Than (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:28:58 PM EST
    just health care. Obama putting Social Security on the table is one issue that causes me a lot of concern along with his comments supporting absence only sex education and some of his comments on abortion are also troubling. His constant rehabilitation of the Republican  party is another area of concern. Proposing Republicans for both Sec. of State and  Defense in his administration and saying he plans to adopt a foreign policy like Reagan and Bush I is another real issue as far as I'm concerned.  I for one though Reagan's foreign policy was pretty horrible.

    Parent
    One more issue ... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Inky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    Hillary has promised to scrap NCLB, whereas Obama has promised to mend it, not end it (he may have had to make this promise to win Kennedy's endorsement, but whatever). For most educators, this is definitely another point in Clinton's favor.

    And I couldn't agree with you more re Reagan's foreign policy. Obama's self-proclaimed desire to pattern his foreign policy on those of JFK, Reagan, and Bush Sr fills me with utter dread.

    Parent

    Wow, that's big, but... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by stefystef on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:02:27 PM EST
    The polls will change when Obama starts blanketing the state with ads.

    With that said, I predict that Hillary will win PA, IN, WV, KY and PR.  I also think she will win Montana (snobbery about gun owners doesn't go well out there).  If she wins those states, you know Obama will be reeling.

    But more important, when I look at news sites and Yahoo! news, they never show the SUSA polls.  All day, they show the polls showing Obama beating Hillary by 11 points.  No other polls, nor polls showing McCain with strong national leads.   And the MSM says they aren't bias against Hillary.

    Yeah, right! : (

    Hillary '08!

    It might tighten a little (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    but after PA the narrative will be different and it isn't like Obama has not been to KY or they are not aware of him. Her lead there is growing.

    Parent
    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by stefystef on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    I think Hillary is picking up momentum, but the MSM is so into Obama, that it will be difficult for them to admit (out loud) a real shift in the Democratic Primaries.

    Parent
    And much of his paid exposure was amplified ... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:52:57 PM EST
    ... by a lot of flattering freebies: like news sources hyping his "movement" and all his swooning young voters

    They ran flattering clips of his "inspiring" speeches, many of which included explicit instructions of what his supporters had to do and say to be part of the phenomenon.

    They reported his campaign achievements as separate news stories showing him in a flattering light and -- irrationally -- his missteps as having originated from HRC.

    The analysis panels were pretty much, "What do YOU think is magically delicious about Obama?" all while drearily wondering why HRC didn't go away or "do something" about Bill and, of course, trashing her relentlessly by rehashing old right wing smack.

    IMO as much of that was koolaid and anti-Hillary malice (ntm sexism), combined with not wanting to be left off the band wagon.

    As I've stated in another thread, they can't continue to do that exponentially when he keeps making gaffes and revealing huge flaws in his abilities. He's alienated a lot of his support and given another sizeable chunk a chance to reconsider their positive (or neutral) opinion of him.

    Countering that is going to require more than just dough.

    Ads aren't news and since it's the boneheaded media we're talking about here, they're not going to admit that they were wrong but that they were fooled.

    YMMV, but the momentum has ground to a halt and will be hard to get going again, especially with some of the desperate tactics being deployed lately.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    "In Western KY, Clinton had led by 30, now leads by 43. In Eastern KY, Clinton had led by 52, now leads by 63. in North Central KY, Clinton had led by 30, now leads by 39. In greater Louisville, Clinton had led by 12, now leads by 16."

    How many delegates? Is it a winner (none / 0) (#76)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:34:51 PM EST
    take all state?  Is it a closed primary state?  And how many electoral college votes will it produce in a GE?  thanks

    Parent
    It seems to me that it's (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST
     fish-or-cut-bait time for Obama (might as well get a fishing reference in here - it is fishing season in a lot of places).  Early on, he was able to sell himself as having broader electoral appeal and the ability to make inroads in what have been typically red states.  But that was when he was the uniter - now, not so much.

    So, hello Kentucky!  Hello, Indiana!  Primary states, both - no pretending that caucus attendance that equals 10% of a state's registered voters translates to a winning general election formula.

    Have at it, Barack - prove your case.

    I don't see it happening for him.  I think Clinton wins big in Pennsylvania, and I think the momentum tips her way from there on out; unless superdelegates are committed to losing to John McCain in November, I think they have to support Clinton.

    Will these demos be GE destiny? (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    I know we can't make direct extrapolations from primary results to GE results, but seriously, how many white voters can Obama win in the general?  If he can't regularly get above 40% with white Dems, and some places can't break 30%, with all his money and exposure and good press, and running against a woman with high negatives then what will the general look like?

    Does anybody know Kerry's percentage of the white vote in the GE?  Can we mull over whether the loss of blue collar and small town/rural voters with Obama would be compensated for adequately by boosts in turnout in the AA and youth vote that he might get that Clinton would not?

    Kerry and Gore got 41-42% of the white vote (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:39:11 PM EST
    in 2004 and 2000 -- I looked it up, too, a while ago as I started to wonder about the impact of Obama's average of only about 35% of the white vote so far.

    The last time we got enough of the white vote was the last time we won.

    Btw, I saw yesterday that Kerry got about 35% of the white male vote -- it may be more the "decider" in this one than white women's vote, of which Kerry got 44%, but it still wasn't enough.

    Watch the white male group in polls that give that breakdown as we watch this race unfold.

    Parent

    I know I said (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:23:57 PM EST
    I'm staying away from polls, but this one makes me feel very good!

    Why can't the DNC see it? Obama is effete, elite and easy to beat!

    America has become so racially divided (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:57:52 PM EST
    and for someone that marched in the civil rights marchs of the 60's that is so sad to me....:-(

    Wait a minute (none / 0) (#16)
    by annabelly on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:05:43 PM EST
    Are you saying the results in KY are the result of racism on the part of KY voters? If so, as a citizen of the Greater Louisville Metro area, I would have to take offense.

    Parent
    not anymore racially divided than any other (3.00 / 2) (#21)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    state at this point...Was looking at the internals showing white and black vote percentages...it is striking to me....

    Parent
    One election? The first time (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    a black candidate has been a front runner?  And JUST in the Democratic primary?

    This is not statistically significant.  It's only one data point.  You would have to look at the behavior of white voters in EVERY race that included a competitive black candidate to come to any kind of conclusion.

    Columbus OH has a two term black Democratic mayor.  Here's our demographics - majority white.  Does that prove anything in itself?  No.  It's just one data point.

    Obama's campaign isn't a referendum on race in America.  It's just another data point.

    Parent

    It's not that much more (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    than the AA vote for Dems before.  Turnout has been the key to make AA voters matter more than their percentage of the population. Context uber alles.

    Parent
    any idea what they are saying... (none / 0) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:57:00 PM EST
    LA Times: Obama Surge in Upcoming Indiana Poll

    Because it fits the narrative (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:15:58 PM EST
    Polls showing "Obama winning" or "Obama closing the gap" are the favored ones.  Polls showing Hillary ahead or gaining are virtually ignored.

    I live in California and we were inundated with polls showing a close race or with Obama ahead.  SUSA said Hillary by 10, and they were right.  But prior to Super Tuesday, they hardly got any attention.

    Parent

    I assume they have a poll with Obama ahead (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:59:29 PM EST
    I have explained why I look at SUSA as the best pollster.

    I am curious that they do not leak the PA result which is obviously the result everyone will want to see.

    Parent

    Let me add (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:00:36 PM EST
    that since this is their FIRST Indiana poll, no longer in the lead is a false headline. If they have Obama in the lead, then Obama has been in the lead in THAT poll throughout.

    Parent
    that not so subtle nuance (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:02:25 PM EST
    is constantly missed in the blogs- find a favorable poll that overturns a recent unfavorable poll from a different pollster, and claim the momentum!!!1!1!1

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:11:07 PM EST
    looks to me a very desperate headline on their part and esp by Mark Halperin

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#38)
    by swiss473 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:30:19 PM EST
    BTD, I'm in PA and on the NBC affiliate website here they have it already.  It's 54-40, down from 56-38.

    Here's the link:

    http://www.nbc10.com/politics/15884424/detail.html

    It looks pretty similar.  They in my view is that Obama's numbers have crested in the 38-41 range.  Even in the polls more favorable to him, I don't think he's ever topped 44 in PA.

    I excpect Hillary to win by from 10 to 15 and 12 sounds like a good number to me.  Unfortunately for her, even a 15 pt win nets her around 12 delegates.  The popular vote is really her best shot now.

    Parent

    I trust SUSA (none / 0) (#7)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:00:47 PM EST
    more than Bloomberg. Sorry. I do not believe there has been an Obama surge in Indiana or anywhere else.

    Parent
    IMO, showing a bogus poll would have the opposite (none / 0) (#10)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:01:47 PM EST
    affect wouldn't it? If they say Obama is ahead, doesn't that stimulate Clinton supporters to get to the polls?

    It sure helps her spin after the vote if she does (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Teresa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:05:53 PM EST
    well. Let them keep talking up the close polls all they want because if she wins as big as SUSA predicts, it will look that much better.

    Parent
    He could do with a local group (none / 0) (#25)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:12:50 PM EST
    like this one - video here. Why not in KY if in TN?

    Did you not read the poll? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:18:51 PM EST
    They may be some of the very few in KY who like him if they aren't actors. /snark

    But seriously...what is the point? This poll is stunning and thereis no denying that. The MSM only like polls that show him steady or gaining and those are the only one they show to their own peril.

    NH anyone?

    Parent

    The point of posting it here? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:29:32 PM EST
    Basically just for the  entertainment value of muddying up the schadenfreude.

    Parent
    it doesn't really muddy it up (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:43:15 PM EST
    for me. it just make it that much more pronounced at the moment.

    Parent
    Off-topic but... (none / 0) (#41)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:32:19 PM EST
    What does everyone else think about the new Obama ad that mocks Clinton?
    Its uses the jeers from yesterday's Pittsburg event against her.

    Link

    I just don't know how much more (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:45:18 PM EST
    of this unity stuff I can take.

    So much for changing the tone, and doing it differently, huh?  I can just see it now - the new slogan of the Obama campaign can be "Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah."  

    Yeah - he really wears the mantle of leadership well, doesn't he?  

    We should all be so proud.

    Parent

    ummm...... (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    Somehow I dont think it will really hurt Hillary Clinton.

    In fact, I think attacking the favourite doesn't really hurt. But I don't know. Anything can happen.

    Parent

    The "jeers" sound louder in this ad (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:52:32 PM EST
    than in the video I saw yesterday.  Just saying.  If there was audio amplification, I'm sure that I can count on Markos to decry it, as he did the alleged "skin-darkening" of Obama in a Clinton ad.  (Not that claim soon, to all but Orangeites, was discredited.)

    The audience was a chamber of commerce manufacturers type group, I read?  Hardly surprised at the reaction, then.  That group in my state would not have just jeered; they would have tarred and feathered Clinton.  They hate the Clintons.

    But they would have behaved for Obama, even though not a one of them would have voted for him, either.  These are the management guys who have had their HR training on racism, but they do not get sexism (I have been in the sessions and seen this); they just know to not do overt harassment.  They do not get "hostile environment" at all.

    Btw, these also are the guys here who funded the purchase of two state supreme court seats here, most recently running off the court -- in the first non-reelection in decades -- the first AA justice in state history.  A very good and fair guy on the bench whom the business group replaced with a totally unprepared goof, but that won them the majority after last year's purchase of a justice censured for unethical breaches by the court as soon as she got on it.

    Anyway, in sum, I consider demographics of the audience in their reactions, too -- as with the rude reception that Clinton got last night from Dems in Philly.  Well, it's Philly.  No surprise.

    Parent

    The Same Thing I Thought About the Clinton Ad (none / 0) (#81)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:21:57 PM EST
    Lame and made primarily for news media not for ad buys in Pennsylvania.

    Parent
    Not a surprise... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Garmonbozia on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:01:22 PM EST
    I live in southwestern Kentucky. The county immediately north of the one in which I live is notorious in the entire region for an unwritten law that black people are not allowed to live there. Even visiting is discouraged. (The town that serves as county seat there has a parade/white trash convention every spring at which the Klan has been frequent attendees.) I'm not claiming that every Clinton victory is the result of racism or even a racial divide...but that most certainly will be the case in Kentucky.

    Not All of Kentucky Is Like That (none / 0) (#82)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:53:25 PM EST
    Let me guess, Dawson Springs?  

    Other parts of Kentucky are quite different.  Hopkinsville, for example, is very diverse.  

    Kentucky with it's population of 3 million is a lot like Los Angeles with its population of 3 million.  There are some neighborhoods where you don't want to be after dark, particularly if you are a certain ethnic or racial group.  Other places are just fine any time of day.  

    Parent

    SUSA KY Poll: Clinton By 36 | 82 comments (82 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment