home

Bad News For Hillary: Zogby Has Clinton PA Lead Growing

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:48:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

When you read a Zogby poll, you have to try and figure out what he is trying to do. He is not just giving you numbers. He is massaging a storyline. Right now, Zogby's reputation is in tatters, so one would think he would just be trying to get it right. But I think there is more to it. I think he is trying to present a narrative. So what narrative do we get from this?

"Undecideds breaking to Clinton" is what he is trying to sell here I think. And he will try and sell that as some great Zogby insight. Is it true? Probably. They have in every other big state contest. But Zogby is a charlatan so beware Clinton supporters.

< Boehlert's Revenge: Politico Asks Why Weren't You Whining When Clinton Got The Treatment? | Musings on the Price of Gas >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bad News For Hillary: Zogby Has Clinton PA Lead Growing | 86 comments (86 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:52:23 AM EST
    nevertheless, my prediction is that Hillary picks up 75% of the undecideds from those polls that have everyone under 50%. That gets us SUSA numbers, usually.

    This Is No Surprise (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by flashman on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    sometimes, even charletans have to acknowledge reality.

    Parent
    OMG, he's polling for NEWSMAX (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:55:42 AM EST
    what a buffoon.

    Parent
    but wait... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    On Bill Maher, the roving reporter basically said, no one likes Hillary in Penn.  Where do you get your news.  

    you were brave (none / 0) (#5)
    by Lil on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:56:57 AM EST
    I wouldn't even watch Maher last nigt (first time in ages). I didn't want to get discouraged. How bad was it.

    Parent
    Mostly silly (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:16:08 AM EST
    Cornell West was great though.

    Parent
    I saw part of that as well (none / 0) (#12)
    by kenosharick on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    He said they all hate her because of NAFTA, and no other issues matter. I would have thought that would play more in Ohio- I could live with a repeat of tha state; ow did Zogby do there? BTW- did kos look "puffy?"

    Parent
    Maybe Kos Has Been Crying (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    Because sane people are tearing him apart for his stances on Sen. Clinton and on being totally slanted towards Obama.

    Parent
    Where Do You Get Your News? (none / 0) (#13)
    by flashman on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    Not from BHO suckup Maher.  The "roving reporter" segment is an insult to the intelligence of his audience.  What a hack.

    Parent
    It was a snark....!! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:23:46 AM EST


    Parent
    I know :) (none / 0) (#19)
    by flashman on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:30:17 AM EST


    Parent
    I sat through that doo doo too last night (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    How about that stripper poker naked girls and bikers for Obama?  Whatever that narrative was about is still mostly a mystery to me on most of my levels of awareness ;)  Cornell West though was off the charts aware of everything.  What is that man's I.Q. plus his emotional I.Q.?  Why doesn't he run for president and why wouldn't we elect him?

    Parent
    Many Blacks Are P'O'd Bcuz West Too Obama To Task (none / 0) (#77)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:08:30 PM EST
    over not going to GA for MLK celebration.  I think he was right on the money.  This guy is brilliant and he shows it again and again.  Obama is not 1/4 the man this guy is.

    Parent
    make that TOOK Obama to task (none / 0) (#78)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:09:13 PM EST


    Parent
    I think the trend or (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:01:13 AM EST
    evidence from other states is with Zogby on this one.  But you are right BTD, Zogby plays a different game so it is hard not to be suspect. And everything on tv yesterday made it sound like Barack was winning or at least within 2-5 points.  I mean no one, but no one has even mentioned the SUSA numbers. For that matter, no one, until Zogby, was even talking about the trend in other states where undecideds broke for Clinton.  The gloom and doom and obits for Clinton were back yesterday all over the airwaves.  Harold Ford Jr. was the only one who was still speaking of Clinton as "in the race" ,
    "not over yet", he says respectful and true things about both candidates.  But he was a lone voice yesterday. Dems ought to single him out for he true objectivity and his graciousness to both sides.

    My personal favorite was (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:56:43 AM EST
    Brian Williams, blow-dried hair perfectly in place, announcing that the Newsweek poll had Obama UP 20 points in PA over Clinton.

    I mean, he read it, and didn't bust out laughing, or spew water on the camera, or fall off his chair or anything.

    Really, will there be any reliable source of information going forward?

    Parent

    I can't stand Brian Williams (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:36:47 AM EST
    Remember what an onscreen sourball he used to be, so impatient for Tom Brokaw to kick over and give up the chair (if not the ghost) that Williams was hanging on to get?

    He's been so smirkingly self-congratulatory since he finally got Brokaw's old chair, I wonder if that didn't happen the same week Williams also discovered he could teabag himself.

    Parent

    lmao....teabagging himself....rofl (none / 0) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:11:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Newsweek and MSNBC (none / 0) (#47)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    (same parent company by the way though I gather Newsweek is for sale) both are in the tank for Obama. Perhaps I need to hear Howard Fineman of Jonathan Alter demand that Hillary quit the race again...they showed so much journalistic integrity.

    At what point does their ruined reputations for fairness matter?

    Parent

    Newsweeks is owned by WaPo (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:40:54 AM EST


    Parent
    perhaps it was the joined web site (none / 0) (#53)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:53:28 AM EST
    that had me linking them together then

    Parent
    Did he say Pa? or USA (none / 0) (#67)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    That was a national poll, did he really say Pa?  Either way, most news outlets followed will Gallup by 3.

    Parent
    In another reality (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lahdee on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:13:21 AM EST
    Dems might single out Mr. Ford, Jr. for his objectivity, but not in this one. I just can see that happening, what with DLC and all that engenders for the creative class.

    Parent
    Unlike other bloggers (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:27:42 AM EST
    perhaps even including Jeralyn, I do not find national polls relevant to a discussion of the PA primary.

    Any further comments that bring such irrelevancies to the thread will be deleted.

    You remember Zogby in IA? (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:36:15 AM EST
    Zogby had Hillary ahead on Friday and Saturday.

    Once the most reliable pollster in the state came out on Sunday with Obama ahead, he stared playing the same "undecided are breaking for Obama" game. I think he wanted to match the more reliable pollster.

    That is exactly what he did in Iowa (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:38:02 AM EST
    As I said, he is a charlatan.

    Parent
    I'm going to the beach today BTD (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM EST
    Respectfully, you've made enough porridge out of my noodle this week.

    Dang, I'm jealous. You live in the good part (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:26:20 AM EST
    of Alabama. (Alabama, right?)

    Parent
    I live right above Panama City (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:30:34 AM EST
    I'm driving a little further and going to Destin, hour and a half.  We must get some cool kites this year!  Living in the reddest part of Alabama does have its privileges.

    Parent
    THE BEACH? (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:27:22 AM EST
    We have snow today! (and I live in temperate Seattle).

    Parent
    I would trade you a weekend of snow (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    for beach.  I miss snow.

    Parent
    Me too :) (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CST on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    In Massachusetts no less.  Although I don't know that I'll get in the water.

    Living in this part of the country sure does make me slightly more optimistic about global warming.

    Parent

    Only about 2-3 polls... (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by mike in dc on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:32:29 AM EST
    ...total have shown an Obama lead in PA, and all of them were within the MOE.  
    I am wondering how many more polls we'll see before the voting starts on Tuesday.  I'm guessing maybe 4 or 5, which you can probably average, add 3-4 points to, and that's Clinton's probable margin of victory.  
    So, if Obama's still within 5-6 in most polls, and SUSA releases a new poll showing him gaining, then a single-digit loss is highly likely.

    Electoral-vote.com (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    has Clinton looking like the stronger electoral candidate today.

    I'm not a big proponent of averaging polls made of different methodology, but electoral-vote was pretty right on in both 2006 (congressional races) and 2004.

    He wants Hillary voters to stay home! (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by BlueMerlin on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:48:11 PM EST
    The linked article is sounds so happy and reassuring for Hillary, boosting the fact that she's ahead by 7% and not mentioning the fact that she needs double-digit lead to have a chance at pulling ahead overall.    That's it.  He wants to lull the casual Hillary voters into thinking they don't need to show because she's going to "win" in PA.

    IGNORE ZOGBY, BEST THING TO DO (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    Clinton is winning the fight and we can look forward to her moving down the road to Indiana, KY, OR, NC, etc.

    Viva Hillary Clinton '08

    Zogby gets his narrative from a checkbook. (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by tandem5 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:18:14 PM EST


    Didn't Zogby (none / 0) (#6)
    by americanincanada on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:57:28 AM EST
    show movement to Clinton right before California as well?

    Texas (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:58:08 AM EST
    IIRC, he said Obama would win Texas.

    Parent
    I mean CA, of course (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:58:26 AM EST


    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28:29 AM EST
    Obama by 13 said Zogby about CA.

    It was his Waterloo.

    Parent

    I did better than Zogby (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:18:29 AM EST
    with my California friendships and my magic eight ball.

    Parent
    And TPM's as well for highlighting his trash (none / 0) (#50)
    by Salt on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:39:21 AM EST


    Parent
    Don't be impressed (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:58:13 AM EST
    I sort of stole this from USA Today:

    "I know you understand what I said, but what you don't realize is that I said it wrong and actually meant something else."

    If you wanted to read too much into this, you could just as easily say that The Zog has realized he needs to get one right, or that he sees the numbers moving for Clinton and wants to be on that bandwagon so the next time he's on TDS, he can talk about how he predicted the turn when no one else did.  

    But, as I have consistently said on every poll: I only believe the ones that support my candidate, so this one is obviously right.

    That's life, isnt it? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    There's a saying in the computer business, that the nice thing about standards is there are plenty to choose from.

    In high tech almost everyone likes the concept of standardization, but competing vendors find it hard  to agree in practice. So competing standards proliferate. Eventually the marketplace decides which is best.

    So it is with polls. Everyone wants them, no-one can agree on how to conduct them, so they proliferate. And people pick the one they like. Eventually the voters decide which is right.

    That's the way everything in life works, when you boil it down. Democrats, of all people, should recognize that. It's why Armando calls himself BTD, I believe. All attempts to enforce just one point of view -- though it may be deemed "theoretically correct" by some -- are doomed to eventual failure. And why this election season will prove to be a case study for students of Political Science, I think.

    Parent

    I wouldn't say they're "breaking"... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Exeter on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    Because of the media narrative, people are embarassed to admit that they are voting for Clinton. The media has framed the narrative around whether you are voting FOR or AGAINST Obama, and why-- not whether you're voting for Clinton or Obama, and why. And, of course, since both have the EXACT SAME POLICIES, if you do vote AGAINST Obama, you are a racist.

    agreed, except they don't have (none / 0) (#84)
    by kangeroo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:35:30 PM EST
    the "exact same policies."

    Parent
    I know... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Exeter on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:51:40 PM EST
    ...I'm saying that's been the media spin.

    Parent
    But what about that massive ad buy (none / 0) (#20)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:33:12 AM EST
    by the Obama campaign that Jeralyn posted last night.  Given that the Obama campaign has its own internal numbers -- which poll's "narrative" does that support? Could be that the internals show him losing some support and they are trying to stop the bleeding with the extra ads.  True also that the internals show he is within striking distance and hope the extra money is going to help. Doubt that last one based on the demographics.

    Obama has all the money in the world (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:38:46 AM EST
    Why wouldn't he spend it in PA?

    I read NOTHING into Obama spending money on advertising in PA.

    Parent

    Yes, but if the internals showed him (none / 0) (#25)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:44:15 AM EST
    16 - 20 points behind would they really "waste" all that money on a lost cause?  In that scenerio it would be better to move that money to Indiana where it may be closer.   I mean a 14 point loss would be tough, but to have spent 2 million on the last weekend and STILL lose by that?! Seems like a stupid move.

    Parent
    Of course they would (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:45:49 AM EST
    in an attempt to make 16 closer to 10.

    I do not follow your logic at all frankly.

    Parent

    The goal IMO is to keep Hillary under 10% (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:50:40 AM EST


    Parent
    of course a double digit victory by Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:58:16 AM EST
    hurts Obama badly...

    That all of the time (6 weeks)...
    That all of the money (mucho)...
    That all of the benefit of media favor...

    doesn't change his numbers and he is unelectable

    Parent

    it's called be diplomatic (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by angie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    something the Obama camp knows little about.

    Parent
    Didn't Obama also say Clinton could win? (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:23:05 PM EST
    I love how some folks say that Clinton is a desperate liar until she says something that they want to hear.

    What would you have her say: "No, he can't win.  He can barely hang on against me, and I'm treating him with kid gloves while the press gives him a daily tongue bath just to spite me.  The republicans are going to slaughter him over Wright, Ayers, Rezko and anything else they can dig up, whether it's fact or fiction.  Are you frackin' kiddin' me with this lightweight?"

    Parent

    of course... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:26:29 PM EST
    she always lies except when she says Obama can win.

    You can't trust anything a Clinton says...just ask any Obama supporter.

    Parent

    Man, I so wish she would have (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:46:13 PM EST
    It would have been too freakin' funny. Would have loved to see the reaction in the room to that one, lol!~

    I wonder who she was trying to convince with "Yes, yes, yes." ?

    Parent

    You have it backwards (none / 0) (#63)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:45:38 PM EST
    Hillary needs a double digit win in order to even stay in the race. Some set the number as high as 15 points. Markos at the big orange sets it at 19.  Of course, the odds against her getting that kind of win are very high. They're setting her up to fall.

    Parent
    Odd isn't it... (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    Isn't it odd how the voters just keep ignoring the pundits and keep her in the race.

    Parent
    I've wondered about that (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    A group of governors endorsed Clinton this week. A couple of superdelegates shifted into her column. That doesn't make much sense if you assume that Clinton is universally disliked and should pull out of the race. She has been running nearly the same numbers as Obama. The only reason this is even a story is that he wasn't expected (by the media) to do well. I don't know where they got that idea - he was a very popular if little known figure even before the election started. They set up Clinton as the predestined winner, and then when she didn't do as well as they expected, the attacked her for being arrogant for thinking that she could win. I know life isn't fair... but this is ridiculous. We're all trapped in a fairy tale that is being written by the media.

    Parent
    And Isn't It Odd That No Matter.... (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:27:10 PM EST
    ....how much money Obama throws around, he doesn't seem to be able to seal the deal on the nomination.  This is part of the reason I believe he cannot win the GE.

    Parent
    I agree that that might be their thinking (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:49:45 AM EST
    but I think it overplays the money advantage.  As I said below, there comes a point when too much money works as a negative.

    Especially in a state where street money lubricates everything, and the wealthiest candidate in the history of any election has refused to play ball, the conspicuous showing of wealth will grate.  "He can give my local affiliate 60 trillion bucks but he can't give me some free yard signs and gas money?"

    Clinton has a very good excuse--she doesn't have the money he does.

    Parent

    Clinton always had the upper hand in PA (none / 0) (#34)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:13:20 AM EST
    no  matter how much money he has.  The demographics work for her.  She has the benefit of an ex-President campaigning for her, one who is a great public speaker himself.  She also has another good surrogate in their daughter.  Obama has himself, and sometimes Michelle who certainly isn't known like Bill or Chelsea.  Plus Hillary had the Dem machine on her side before Obama even declared he was running.  And that is one of the downsides to his declaring so early in his "national career."  He made the decision to do so, therefore he has to deal with the good and bad of it.

    Money only does so much or we'd be running against Mitt.  Though Obama's money is people powered, unlike Mitt's. And I think it it a good thing he didn't give the street money, even though it could hurt him.

    I just don't believe that all that money could change a 16 point loss to a 10 point loss in the last 4 days, given that both candidates are so well known.

    Parent

    This is a nonsequitor to the original point (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    Why spend money in PA you asked. The obvious answer is because he has it to spare.

    I am not sure what you are trying to say.

    Parent

    Guess I'm not saying it right (none / 0) (#45)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    then.  

    Parent
    Is he really not playing? (none / 0) (#66)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:48:32 PM EST
    In the past Obama has, er, "distorted" the truth about his finances. He claims that he doens't take money from lobbyists, but he does. He claims that he makes all of his money from small donors, but he doesn't. He claimed that he would use public financing, but he won't. So... isn't it possible that Obama is announcing that he isn't going to pay to play in Philadelphia, but he will find a way to do it quietly, without publicity?

    Parent
    He'd be a fool not to pay. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:58:19 PM EST
    Most street money isn't about paying people to support you, it's about making it possible for people to take time off work, use up their expensive gas, and have a little lunch while they support you. Sure, some people will hand out flyers for whomever pays them, but voters aren't stupid, so most street money goes to real supporters who can explain their candidate's positions in a genuine and believable way.

    Parent
    Usually pull up on ads (none / 0) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:43:55 AM EST
    at the last minute because they do get annoying. Campaigns usually have diminishing returns, but if you have all that money, and his supporters are willing to keep giving, why not through hundreds of thousands to get a few more votes?  You got it, go for it.  

    Could demonstrate to superdeez, he can keep getting the money and eek out more votes.... good for the GE?

    Parent

    I think at a certain point (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:46:51 AM EST
    throwing all that money on ads starts to work against any candidate--especially one who is so distinctive.  Certain character traits, tonal variations, etc, become grating.  This would happen in the case of Clinton as well.  Or any candidate, for that matter.

    I don't see the ad buys as an act of desperation, I see them as an act of ego, the furthering of the "To know me is to love me" ethos that Obama himself has often stated.

    Not smart politicking at this point.

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#39)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:23:24 AM EST
    Spending money is one of his big advantages. He would be crazy not to press it.

    There is some risk in the money spending, but reward outweights the narrative impact by a lot.

    Parent

    Except (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    If he spends all out (which he is) and he doesn't get good results (which we have no clue about yet) then he has no narrative to explain it away. It could be damaging. But then again maybe it would be damaging no matter what, so he has nothing to loose.

    Parent
    If I lived in Pa. (none / 0) (#69)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    If I lived in Pa at this point I would be so aggravated by his not-stop ads that I would tend to either not vote or vote Clinton  because of being annoyed by it.

    By the way, he just went on air with negative. Odd, usually campaigns do do that early and switch to positive near the vote.

    Parent

    Suppressing turnout works for him. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    I would think even suppressing turnout would work for him since it would reduce popular vote gains for Clinton.

    Going negative tends to suppress votes from what I understand.

    In any case it's clear he's pulling out all the stops, and why shouldn't he. If he can hold her to single digits in PA his chances of winning increase even further.

    Parent

    Anybodys guess (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sunshine on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    I think flipping coins is more reliable than the polls in this election, they're not polling, they're spinning....  Up one day by 10, down the next by 10 means they're tied...

    Except SUSA has barely moved (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    at all.  They've been quite consistent in a Clinton lead.

    Parent
    Well not quite right (none / 0) (#74)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:46:54 PM EST
    There has been a little movement towards Obama, but I want to see their final poll. It should be a pretty good indicator of what is about to happen Tuesday.

    Parent
    Well undecides for Clinton (none / 0) (#32)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:12:10 AM EST
    Would be a safe bet for him, since they've done that almost everywhere...even in states that favored Obama.

    Massaging or not, it seems that he's in line with most polls. SUSA looks like the outlier this time around.

    Still I think the picture could come out rosy for Clinton. If SUSA turns out to be correct then that will be a powerful shift in narrative for Clinton going into the next several states.

    With Obama outspending her so dramatically and polls showing 5 point spreads the expectation game has a good chance of blowing up on him.

    Its his base line and tonight they will start (none / 0) (#52)
    by Salt on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:46:48 AM EST
    moving turning away from Clinton and towards  Obama with Obama overtaking her on Monday what else...  How about that completely pitiful Newsweek poll, they are moving themselves well beyond rag status to pitiful  KO-Kos status.

    I can't even read (none / 0) (#54)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:54:47 AM EST
    most of Newsweek anymore.  The first ten to fifteen pages get flipped through quickly to find the actual reporting on issues.  And then I find myself wondering: if I can't trust the first part, how can I trust the last part?  I've been a subscriber for a decade and a half.  It's turned me against them, especially when they print something from Kos pretending to be partisan.  On the other hand, giving him that much space to drivel shows what a poor writer he really is.  I suppose that's its own reward, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    Parent
    I canceled my sub when they hired Rove (none / 0) (#83)
    by Salt on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:12:03 PM EST
    never read them now the quality is really old school now they need some real new blood.

    Parent
    I get the feeling (none / 0) (#57)
    by Serene1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:06:24 PM EST
    that the reason most of the pro Obama pollsters are now changing their story and poll numbers is so that they set the bar very high for Clinton.

    Then if she wins anything lesser than that they can tout it as a loss for her and then again renew calls for her withdrawal because of Math.

    True But Hillary Hate Stops Them (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cdalygo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:28:15 PM EST
    They are making the same mistake as California where most are stating or intimating an Obama victory. He can't deliver on it.

    As for Zogby, he may actually have it this time. I do believe that SUSA has it right, plus she will get undecideds. But no one will care. He looked too stupid in the other states. Plus the Obama folks will never forgive him for speaking against their candidate. (Reporters/pollsters are not supposed to be objective.)

    After reading that the press overplayed Dean's call for super delegate decision finality -- it was end of July not now -- I see this latest poll playing as entirely media driven. They will soon look pretty stupid if she pulls it out. Plus she will have the proverbial "whip hand" over them when she wins in November.

    As for the ad buy. Shrug. Watching Obama's disgraceful performance last week with his whining over debate and what I truly believe was a bird flip, I see it as a genuine buy on his part. He firmly believes that the more people see and hear him, the more they like him. Actually for a significant number of us it's the exact opposite - especially when he's talking off the cuff.

    Parent

    i don't follow. isn't serene saying (none / 0) (#85)
    by kangeroo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:50:57 PM EST
    that zogby is setting the bar especially high for clinton so that no matter how things turn out (e.g., whether she wins by a small or by a larger margin), he can spin it as a defeat for her--because she was supposed to win anyway?

    Parent
    I think Zogby et al (none / 0) (#87)
    by tnjen on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:39:50 PM EST
    were trying to drive down her supporters and demoralize them by showing a tight race but now since it didn't work he's trying to soften the blow to come.

    also (none / 0) (#88)
    by tnjen on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:43:00 PM EST
    If you look at all of the polls one thing hasn't changed at all and that's Obama's numbers hover in the 40-42 range. Clinton's numbers are the ones that vary and SUSA's polls have fewer undecideds. What it looks like is SUSA pushes leaners a little harder to choose in their polling so they have fewer undecideds where other pollsters are leaving much larger numbers of undecideds to make the race look close. You can go to pollster.com and see what I mean.

    Parent
    Bad News For Hillary: Zogby Has Clinton PA Lead Growing | 86 comments (86 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment