home

PPP PA Poll: Obama By 3

By Big Tent Democrat

PPP has Barack Obama leading by 3 in Pennsylvania. To call this an outlier is an understatement. It is the only poll that has Obama ahead. PPP seems intent on making a name for itself in Pennsylvania, one way or another.

More . . .

PPP provides us a turnout model and crosstabs. Turnout according to PPP will be 77% white, 17% A-A, 6% Other.

PPP has Clinton leading by only 12 among whites, 49-37 and has Obama leading 77-12 among African American. Among the 6% labelled "Other", Obama leads 53-40, but with such a small subsample, it is hard to make much of that number. In an event the difference produces less than 1% advantage for Obama.

The key finding is 49-37 (with 13% undecided) among white voters. If Obama can hold this spread, he has a great chance of WINNING PA. This spread is much lower than that found in any other poll and would be Obama's best performance among white voters outside of Wisconsin and Virginia. It runs counter all other polls. I find it hard to believe. But it would be terrific news if it were true. Because then Barack Obama will be a truly viable candidate in Pennsylvania in November.

< No Mirrors Handy? | Righty Talker Smerconish Endorses Obama Over Clinton, Springsteen Too >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    PPP (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:05:38 AM EST
    is a secret Clinton organization intent on illicitly raising Obama supporters' expectations.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:06:16 AM EST
    Somewhere in the back of my addled brain (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    ACDC started screaming 'Shot Down in Flames'.

    Parent
    PA people, can you comment on this (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:02:20 PM EST
    poll's allocation of 46% of those surveyed statewide being from the Philly area?  I looked up the state's population map and data online, and that seems a bit high -- and that alone would affect these results.

    Will turnout be so much higher in Philly, above its share of the state population, and thus lower than usual in other areas of the state?  

    Parent

    I think that's a little high (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    but we'll know soon enough.

    I will be interested to see in Philly turnout breaks 400,000 or even 500,000. It's possible.

    Parent

    Again, Demographics (none / 0) (#35)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    I know Philly has a large AA vote there and that might be a driving force, but the rest of the state is mostly bitter white people. Heh. No one in NE PENNA that 'I' know has changed their opinion since they made it a month ago. So we will see. I keep getting daily Obama advertisements about telling the truth about Hillary. I got one from Hillary and it a good one and more positive. I think people know already. But if you take a poll in SE PA area only, then that is the result you will get. I know she will take Penna, but I do not know by how much. I hope it is at least 10.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#43)
    by Nasarius on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:42:21 PM EST
    Can we work two gaffes into one and make it "typical bitter white people"?

    Parent
    Hey, how about this? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Melchizedek on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    "God damn those bitter white people!"

    Yeah, that'll show 'em!!

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#49)
    by sas on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:16:02 PM EST
    way is that 46% number accurate.

    Parent
    I hope (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:15:21 AM EST
    the media and the Obama campaign take this poll and run with it. AS a Clinton supporter it willmake me very happy because this is so obviously wrong.

    The media ignore SUSA at their peril.

    I agree about SUSA (none / 0) (#62)
    by stefystef on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    Do you notice that the media avoids any polls that doesn't show Hillary with low numbers or Obama ahead of Clinton?

    The bias coverage keeps going on and on.

    I remember when they said Obama was going to win TX and OH too.  He had his head handed to him in OH and he will have it handed to him in PA too.

    And KY, IN, WV, MO and PR.  All the media does it talk about the national polls (I would LOVE to know what states and communities they are sampling) that make Obama look good.  

    Very little coverage of the 100 PA mayors endorsing Hillary, very little coverage of the unions supporting Hillary, very little coverage of Hillary's growing support in rural and suburban communities.  They only pick the polls that support the scenario that the MSM wants to promote.

    Parent

    Rinse and Repeat (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by nell on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:10:23 PM EST
    Nothing new to see here. Another big contest coming up, the polls and the media start screaming about how much everyone hates Hillary, how she is losing in the polls, there is no way she can catch up. It really freaked me out before Super Tuesday when they said that he was closing hard and fast in CA, NJ, etc. The polls literally showed that they were tied or that he was ahead. And what happened? She won both, and she won them good. I still have not forgotten that when the media was convinced that she would not win California, they said the winner of California would be the nominee. She had a horrible month and they said that she would need to win both Ohio and Texas, and that if she could do that, she was still very much in the game. All the polls shows him winning, the media screamed about how she could not win, everyone hates Hillary, etc, etc. And then she won. Right after she won three states and Obama had to deal with the Wright mess, they started screaming for her to drop out. I mean, that didn't even make any sense. She just won three states, her opponent has been calling a man who preaches hate his spiritual adviser for 20 years, but SHE is supposed to drop out? And now, predictably, with Pennsylvania looming, everyone is now saying she just CANNOT. WIN. I say, you cannot scare me anymore, I will let the people vote. It amuses me that the media STILL carries on in this most predictable pattern - you would think they could come up with a new twist or something!

    If she loses PA, she has a serious problem. If she wins, I think Obama has a serious problem. He has EVERY advantage going for him, momentum, positive media, huge money, presumptive status as the nominee (media created)...so why on earth can't he just put it away?

    What are you smoking (1.00 / 8) (#18)
    by bob5540 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    The key finding is 49-37 (with 13% undecided) among white voters. If Obama can hold this spread, he has a great chance of WINNING PA. This spread is much lower than that found in any other poll and would be Obama's best performance among white voters outside of Wisconsin and Virginia. It runs counter all other polls. I find it hard to believe. But it would be terrific news if it were true. Because then Barack Obama will be a truly viable candidate in Pennsylvania in November.

    Naw. Can't be. An uppity negro? Unelectable.

    Perfect (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:54:43 AM EST
    I actually think (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:03:27 AM EST
    their Demographic model is right. I just don't think the percentage of people choosing "other" is credible.

    I'd like to know what they classify (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    a likely voter.

    Parent
    Not the only poll with him ahead (none / 0) (#2)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:05:02 AM EST
    but it is the only pollster. They had him at +2 before... your right though, this is the very definition of outlier.

    The only pollster (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:08:32 AM EST
    is PPP. Sorry, they have been on their own here.

    Parent
    If Obama does win -- he should be the nominee (none / 0) (#6)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07:05 AM EST
    If he doesn't, he shouldn't. It will mark his inability to win any of the top ten democratic states outside of his home state and it will underscore, yet again, his inability to attract a broad electorate needed in November.

    So PA should decide this thing? (none / 0) (#9)
    by barryluda on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:09:35 AM EST
    I don't think so.

    Parent
    If Hillary loses PA, she drops out (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    There is no way she could continue.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by herb the verb on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:16:58 AM EST
    If she loses PA, she should drop out. Plus my support will end. That's because I would be in the hospital recovering from shock.

    Parent
    I too agree (none / 0) (#26)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:44:33 AM EST
    She needs to stop if she loses PA. But I don't think she will.  There was a fascinating discussion on NPR this morning. They started it by saying Obama is cutting into Hillary's women vote in PA (didn't hear which poll they were basing this on). But then they had a group of women talking about who they would vote for and why and it seemed to me most of the women were still with Hillary. Some had gone back and forth, some felt she had gone too negative, but in the end most were coming back to her because of "leadership" and policy issues.

    Parent
    I have to agree with you there. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:17:18 AM EST
    And I felt the same way with the Ohio and Texas primaries.

    Demographically, I don't see any way she could lose in PA, though I was on pins and needles with Texas.

    If she wins in PA, her electability argument gains credibility and she can go on to the rest of the primaries.

    But of course, who knows what she'll do. IMHO only.

    Parent

    Yeah, she still should be "allowed" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:20:57 AM EST
    to continue and still would be in a better position than previous candidates that stayed in it, I just think she would call a day at that point. However, it is far-fetched that she will lose PA and I think if she does, she should be the nominee.  

    Parent
    Sure. (none / 0) (#16)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:21:40 AM EST
    But I don't think the reverse holds. For better or worse, Obama can afford to lose PA by a considerable margin, especially if some of the more depressing delegate analysis prove to be prescient.

    Parent
    Right... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    ...he's definitely not going anywhere.  But, it is funny how even though are essentially tied, that the conversation is always centered on when Hillary is going to quit.

    Parent
    of the remaining 797 delegates (none / 0) (#36)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:20:27 PM EST
    to be allocated, obama needs 378, clinton needs 514 to claim the nomination.  

    this is hardly a virtual tie and while this poll is way outside the rest, it is becoming clear the delegate math will not be altered by pennsylvania.

    furthermore, the discussions of electability and general election viability are interesting, but have no bearing on this calculus.  post puerto rico, obama will need dozens of supers to hit the magic number.

    it takes sixty plus percent of every contest remaining for clinton to have any chance.  even the most favorable polls for clinton are not predicting this outcome.  

    Parent

    Spreading the same misinformation (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:34:22 PM EST
    The only thing either candidate needs to clinch the nomination is SD support. Neither will win this outright. So please stop saying the same incorrect Obama campaign memo.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    what is incorrect? (none / 0) (#42)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    there are 797 delegates left to be allocated.

    obama has 1642 pledged and supers today.

    he needs 378, less than half of the remaining.

    if you take the 467 to be decided by contests remaining, he is likely to win more than half.  this leaves dozens of supers to push him over the 2025.

    no polls can change this.

    Parent

    correction. (none / 0) (#44)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:44:00 PM EST
    he needs only 376.  he just picked up two more supers while i was typing.

    Parent
    Source on total tallies? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:51:56 PM EST
    As counts differ at various sites, and several are not keeping up with super-d's coming to Clinton, I can tell.

    Also, you are aware that super-d's already declaring can switch, as some have done in coming to Clinton?  And as some did before for Obama, of course.  So do you agree that your very definite numbers on how many each needs are not so definitive, really?

    Parent

    citizen cream city, these numbers are confirmed (none / 0) (#47)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:01:53 PM EST
    by both campaigns.  but, i will grant you there are movements to come.

    i was responding to the notion that this is a virtual tie.  clearly it is not.  the hill is steep for clinton, while obama glides.

    i voted for hillary and stopped supporting her post wisconsin when the math became such a problem.  i blame her campaign staff for sitting on their hands for twelve straight contests.

    whoever you support, it is hard to dispute that obama's camp did what they needed to do post super tuesday.  i wish clinton would have stepped aside before texas/ohio.  i believe she had a chance to be on the ticket if she would have.

    i would still like to see her on the ticket, but i think that is all but impossible given the state of the race.

    Parent

    Yes, I am a citizen -- but you are not (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:32:36 PM EST
    providing good sources, as I have been to the Clinton site again, and I find -- voila! -- that it says the opposite of what you say, i.e, it's a tie.

    And it does not give delegate counts.

    So unless and until you provide your sources, and they prove to be real sources, pfffft to your thoughts -- because that's all they seem to be.

    Parent

    try these, (none / 0) (#59)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    new york times:

    Barack Obama    1,632.5   
    Hillary Rodham Clinton    1,474.5

    cnn:

    Barack Obama
    Pledged:1,418
    Superdelegates226
    Total:1,644

    Hillary Clinton
    Pledged:1,250
    Superdelegates248
    Total:1,498

    Needed to Win: 2,025

    msnbc:

    obama:  1647
    clinton:  1511

    Parent

    Seen those, proves my point (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    and not yours.  No one knows -- yet you claim exact counts, claim they're from both campaigns, claim that both campaigns provide exactly the same. . . .

    Parent
    the numbers are dynamic of course. (none / 0) (#63)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:09:02 PM EST
    clinton just lost two more supers according to msnbc.  so on the day, obama has netted four.  i do not see how this affects the margins needed for victory for obama or clinton.

    the net difference from these three sources is less than a half a percentage point.  are you suggesting these sources are not to be trusted?

    this is not rocket science.

    Parent

    I am not just suggesting, I have stated (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:47:24 PM EST
    that it is foolish to cite exact numbers now or needed, as you did in your first several comments at the start of this thread -- exactly because they are "dynamic," as you now admit.

    Parent
    Corrections Galore (none / 0) (#50)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:17:43 PM EST
    1. No one has the "final" and correct SD count, they vary all over the place,

    2. He is not necessarily likely to win more than half, but let's say its an even split.

    3. Its 1644 to 1498 according to CNN (pick a source). Add 230 to each you get 1870 to 1728. The "dozens" you talk about are 154 vs 298.

    So there is no game of catching up or winning. NEITHER WILL WIN. Sen Obama will need a smaller unmber of delegates to break to him, that is a fact. But that's about it.

    Oh did I forget to mention FL and MI delegates? All this assumes they remain unseated.

    And I wonder what happens if he is behind in the popular vote, which is looking more and more likely.

    Parent

    citizen forty two, we agree then. (none / 0) (#55)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    i do not see the popular vote outcome you see, especially if pennsylvania is single digits.  with oregon and north carolina to go, obama will surpass any popular edge of a single digit win.

    this is why it is imperative for clinton to win twenty plus margins.

    if she were to accomplish that, i would grant you a good argument to make to the supers.

    if we wake up next wendsday though and clinton wins by ten delegates and one hundred and fifty thousand votes, then the hill becomes steeper, not flatter.

    Parent

    You are forgetting some states... (none / 0) (#64)
    by stefystef on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:17:49 PM EST
    Hillary can still win the popular vote if she can win IN, KY, PR (big Hispanic vote there), and WV (she's winning 2-to-1 in a classic Southern Dem state).

    What the Obama people DON'T want you to know is that Hillary CAN still win this.  If she gets the popular vote, then the argument about the supers voting the "will of the people" is out of the window.

    If Hillary wins a majority of the remaining delegates (I think NC will be closer than people are polling right now), closing in on Obama, then the Obama camp is in trouble.  That's why their followers are still trying to put it out there that Hillary is "destroying" the Democratic Party (they wish) and that Hillary needs to drop out now (again, they wish).

    Hillary is closer than the MSM wants you to believe.  Always question the messenger.

    Parent

    Partial agreement (none / 0) (#66)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    Delegates don't matter, have not seen before TX/OH. If Sen Clinton is tied or ahead of popular vote by end of the run including FL (but not MI) then Sen Obama is in trouble. It would mean he has failed to regain his footing with white voters and that will doom him in the GE. And this argument, really, is the only one left for Sen Clinton to clinch the nomination.

    Don't discount that tidbit, its not as tiny as it may seem.

    Parent

    I see what your saying... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    If this were a two mile race (eight times around the track), Obama would be at the 1.6 mile mark or about half way around the sixth lap, while  Clinton would be at 1.5 mile mark, or just starting the sixth lap and a half lap behind Obama.

    That wild card are the super delegates, because they could, essentially, make the distance to the finish line shorter for Clinton or Obama.

    Parent

    Yes, technically Obama has a small lead... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:13:36 PM EST
    ...but the reality is that both candidates will need a tremendous amount of super delegate help to reach the 2024 threshold. They have both received about the same amount of support and both will finish with about the same amount of support and if I'm a superdelegate, and they're about the same, I'm picking Clinton.

    Parent
    not true. (none / 0) (#53)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:22:52 PM EST
    if you split the remaining 467 pledged delegates, which is generous to clinton, then she will need close to 260 of the remaining 328 super and obama will need 120 or so.

    this is not abstract.  obama only needs one third of the supers to claim the nomination.  clinton will need sixty six percent.

    this is not a virtual tie.

    Parent

    Not an "exact" tie... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:39:13 PM EST
    I acknowledge that Obama is ahead. I'm just saying that winning the super delegates is not the same as winning a state election.  My sense is that they will fall decisively for one candidate or the other.

    Parent
    agreed. (none / 0) (#61)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:59:37 PM EST
    the supers will declare before the convention.  if i were a super and clinton won the last ten remaining contests decisively, then i would be more likely to support her.

    it does not appear this will happen.  as i stated before, i supported clinton.  i fault her strategists for cherry picking the schedule and essentially ignoring too many contests.  this is why she is up against the wall.

    i also fault penn for making the ridiculous statements about small states, rural states and such.  he gave fodder to all those supers to turn on clinton.  he clearly did not take the obama playbook that was accidently published seriously.  if he had, clinton would have competed across the board and then this race would be tied or in clintons favor.

    what were they thinking in wisconsin?

    Parent

    Penn is arrogant and unworthy of Sen Clinton (none / 0) (#69)
    by stefystef on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:27:48 PM EST
    I agree with Ickes on that account.

    But I think Clinton, with the help of Ickes, was able to stop the super delegate defections and revitalized her campaign after OH and TX.

    I support Clinton and I believe that she can win the next 7 outta 9 primaries and win with 10+ margins (I don't care what these so- called polls are saying right now).  

    Hillary is right- Bill didn't rap things up until June during his campaign.  I think there is going to be an April-May surprise in the wind.

    Parent

    for the last month they have been (none / 0) (#65)
    by libfighter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    going to Obama in far greater numbers.

    He nabbed 3 supers so far just today.

    Parent

    That is just games (none / 0) (#68)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:21:01 PM EST
    When it breaks it will break. This is a PR game, one here, two there. Sen Clinton also has picked up a few (less I grant you) but no one keeps yelling, as its really not about this anymore.

    When the day comes, whichever way, there will be no trickle.

    Parent

    I doubt Obama will drop out (none / 0) (#17)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:26:10 AM EST
    when he loses PA, as well. :-)

    But I do hope that Clinton gets a chance to show that she is the stronger GE candidate, and to rack up a lot of popular votes in the process.

    Parent

    Obama is still ahead in (none / 0) (#28)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:46:37 AM EST
    votes cast and pledged delegates, there is no way he should drop out even if he loses PA, IN and NC (which he won't). But it would be silly for him to think about dropping out.  Clinton, as much as I love her, is the only one who continues to have must win scenarios.

    Parent
    Is this a good time (none / 0) (#24)
    by Grey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:37:47 AM EST
    to remind the media that, after Clinton lost 11 contests in a row, they decided that the candidate who'd go on to win OH, TX and PA would and should be the nominee?

    Now, I fully expect the media to walk that back, much the same way they walked back that the candidate who'd win CA would and should be the nominee.  But, they said it, and I'm only too happy to remind them.

    Has PPP correctly called anything this time around?  'Cause I don't think so and, anyway, this poll is so whack that I've been giggling at it like a 7-year old for the better part of 15 minutes.

    Parent

    I hope your don't think this is off point... (none / 0) (#14)
    by barryluda on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:18:14 AM EST
    And I posted on this before but you made the point a few times that looking at polls and exit polling shows how demographics has driven the race between Clinton and Obama.  I'm still wondering how you might use the "BTD Analytical Black Box" and take the demographics and the polls (and whatever else you use) to figure out what might happen in the GE.  Or will demographics not have the same impact, for some reason, versus McCain?


    Someday (none / 0) (#19)
    by OxyCon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:29:02 AM EST
    It'll sink into JMM's head that because of his Hillary bashing, his online world has been shrunk substantially by his alienating the Clintons personally, most of the Clinton's friends throughout American government and most of the Clintons supporters who participate in online discussion.

    That day will be (none / 0) (#21)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:30:44 AM EST
    November 5, 2008.

    Parent
    Ya know (none / 0) (#22)
    by OxyCon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:31:07 AM EST
    I just figured out that whenever I open a post here, then log on so I can comment, I usually get bumped to a different post and end up posting my comment to the wrong post!
    Plz delete

    Parent
    Zogby's dart board is on loan? (none / 0) (#20)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:29:40 AM EST
    Rumor has it that failed pollster John Zogby now eeks out a daily wage peddling dart boards door to door.

    Another rumor going around is that he changed his last name to PPP for some strange reason.

    Good way to motivate Clinton supporters (none / 0) (#23)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:32:03 AM EST
    If the media convinces people that Hillary needs all the help she can get, maybe her voters will make a little extra effort to get out to the polls on Tuesday than they would have if they thought she was up by 20.

    Oil and gas $$ - Obama TV ad (none / 0) (#27)
    by CookCountyDem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    Sorry if it seems I'm posting this in the wrong place...but, it involves an ad running in Pennsylvania...

    Is there anything disingenuous (or at least ironic) about Obama claiming he doesn't take oil & gas money...when the infamous SF fundraiser was held at the estate of the heir to the Getty fortune?  

    I think these Gettys (Ann & Paul) sold much (perhaps all?) of their operations to Texaco...nonetheless, they are listed by Forbes as being in the oil and gas industry.

    Just a thought.

    He said he didn't take money (none / 0) (#67)
    by libfighter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:20:10 PM EST
    from Oil industry PAC's or lobbyists.

    Entirely true.

    Parent

    From the ad: (none / 0) (#72)
    by tree on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:27:38 PM EST
    I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists..

    From Factcheck.org:


    It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.

    Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.


    <snip>

    When the Clinton campaign criticized Obama's ad, calling it "false advertising," Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

    We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.

    In addition, two oil industry executives are bundling money for Obama - drumming up contributions from individuals and turning them over to the campaign. George Kaiser, the chairman of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., ranks 68th on the Forbes list of world billionaires. He's listed on Obama's Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the candidate. Robert Cavnar is president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, an oil exploration and production company. He's named as a bundler in the same category as Kaiser.

    We're not making any judgments about whether Obama is influenced by campaign contributions. In fact, we'd note that he singles out ExxonMobil in this ad, even though he's received more than $30,850 from individuals who work for the company. But we do think that in theory, contributions that come in volume from oil industry executives, or are bundled by them, can be every bit as influential as PAC contributions, if not more so.




    Parent
    No way Obama's winning PA (none / 0) (#30)
    by AF on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:59:36 AM EST
    But any blowback from Bittergate is sure hard to see in the polls.  Even the sainted SurveyUSA has him doing better this week than last week.

    The Blowback (none / 0) (#73)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:41:37 PM EST
    Will be in the general.

    Parent
    Speaking of polls (none / 0) (#31)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:59:43 AM EST
    What do you make of the current national polls Jeralyn referenced earlier? One thing that strikes me is that perhaps what has been almost universally characterized as Obama's gaffe wasn't really a gaffe at all, unless you want to argue that but for his "gaffe" his national polling lead would have been even more substantial.

    Lunchtime conversation (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    With two people who are following this say that Obama may have reached a tipping point with bittergate.  He could survive Wright.  He could survive Bittergate.  But he can't survive both.  It is the cummulative effect that is going to get him.  My friends say they don't think he can survive the GE against McCain.    

    Parent
    I have been thinking about cumulative effect (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:54:45 PM EST
    as well.  So far, per some polls, he is surviving those two big gaffes -- but I think he now is too imperiled if there is another . . . and with his track record on these two, it would seem that there will be another.  Rezko, Ayers, etc., are all just simmering now, but I worry what could come next.

    What I have seen before is that the cumulative impact can be too telling, and three does seem to be the turning point in campaigns.  For Clinton, too, but she has had only one similarly sizeable gaffe so far.

    Parent

    You are looking at the wrong place (none / 0) (#34)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:13:33 PM EST
    Look at results from PA and IN and decide what the gaffe did. It may be nothing, it could be very bad.

    I'd say if he loses PA by 15% and IN by 10% the gaffe cost him. Remember he is putting SERIOUS money and effort into PA and it has to show. Saying that Hillary was ahead 2 months ago won't matter.

    Parent

    I have seen commentary by pollsters (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:20:52 PM EST
    and other close observers who say that the gaffe has "stalled a surge" for Obama, so that would accord more with your last suggestion.

    However, I don't think that it can be argued that it wasn't a gaffe.  It was, as it could be used against him in the general election -- and never is it good to give the opposition any ammo.

    If he does well in PA, IN, etc., what could be argued is that his campaign handled the gaffe, and that could be an argument in his favor with super-d's who are trying to see who can go the distance for the next six months -- against the oppo that is being planned by the Repubs right now.

    Parent

    I hate to say this (none / 0) (#38)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:29:40 PM EST
    but a lot of my liberal democratic friends think Obama's cling statement was true and right on.  This is why we can't seem to win elections, too many liberal democrats have dumb stereotypes of white working class.  This is probably why cling-gate is more a problem in the general election.

    Parent
    I'm about as elitist as they come, in (none / 0) (#54)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    many ways. Maybe it's because of that that I really hate seeing sloppy thinking such as Obama's accepted as truth. First of all, what he actually said was nearly incoherent. How is it that clinging to this and that is a way of explaining misfortune? I can't make any sense of it.
    Let's not forget that what he was explaining was why people won't vote for him. Why did he need to bring up the clingy bitterness of those small town voters to explain why people don't support him?
    That's a good question.

    Parent
    I've got a theory about these outliers (none / 0) (#40)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:36:20 PM EST
    They are coming right before the debate.  The idea is to make Hillary look desperate and flailing.  The expectation for her debate performance becomes impossibly high.  It won't be enough for her to merely beat him with her expertise in policy and her knowledge base.  She will have to be the most charismatic and dazzling debater since Abe Lincoln to be seen as anything more than a loser.  
    He on the other hand, will be given a pass to be mediocre because he can afford to lose a few points and still pick up momentum post debate with media spin.  

    I predict (none / 0) (#51)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:19:08 PM EST
    A relatively wonky Clinton, an attack mode Obama. But we'll see.

    Parent
    This (none / 0) (#52)
    by sas on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:21:16 PM EST
    poll is hogwash.

    BUT

    it will make it all the more delicious when she pounds his arse here in PA.

    i don't like it (none / 0) (#75)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:07:30 PM EST
    with enough punditry on "how she can't win" or "it's the math,"  it could convince voters to stay home instead of encouraging them to come out.

    sure she will still win PA, but clinton needs every voter for the popular vote totals.

    Parent

    BTD, (none / 0) (#76)
    by kangeroo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    how is it terrific news if what we end up getting with obama in november is a trojan horse?  this news only makes me even more depressed.