home

Mason Dixon PA Poll: Clinton 48 Obama 43

By Big Tent Democrat

The McClatchy Newspapers, MSNBC and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette poll conducted by Mason Dixon polls PA at 48-43 Clinton. This is similar to M-D's Ohio poll, which had Clinton up 4. Clinton won Ohio by 10.

Key finding - "Obama pulled just 33 percent of the white vote, but 83 percent of the black vote." Roughly using my SUSA conversion calculation, this gets me to a 56-44 Clinton win.

Chuck Todd's take:

So what happens on Tuesday? Well, let's take a look at the undecided vote. Going inside the poll's demographics, one finds the highest undec. totals in the more rural parts of the state; that's not good news for Obama. In the so-called "T" region of the state (i.e., almost everything between Philly and Pittsburgh), Clinton leads 51-37 with 11% undecided; this is one of the few demographic groups sporting double-digit undecided.

. . . So while the poll shows Clinton with a narrow lead (and arguably a narrowing lead), the clues inside the numbers indicate this is her race to lose and that her lead could expand. Should this race end up as close as this poll indicates (i.e. 5 points or less), then this means many of these undec. potential Clinton voters decided to stay home; If the come to the polls, she could see her lead climb to over 5 points. . . .

< HuffPo Clinton/Move On Report Comes Under Fire | Electability Again >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Also, Hillary might get (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:02:53 AM EST
    a bumber croup of delegates with so much of the white vote. This will be the impact of the Republican racial gerrymander.

    Can you talk about that more. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:04:23 AM EST
    I keep hearing that there will not be a big delegate swing. OF course it comes from the usual suspects so I am skeptical.

    Parent
    Essentially, Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:17:03 AM EST
    like 40% black districts, and Republicans like 60% black districts, for obvious reasons. Well, in 2001, the Republicans had exclusive control over the current map.

    District 1 is about 60% black, and district 2 is about 50% black. other than that, only districts 13 and 14 have appreciable black populations, but no where near a majority. You can get the exact figures for all o the districts here.

    I don't remember exactly how many delegates each district gets, but Hillary is pretty close to the 2/3 mark in lots of them. Assuming the demographics hold.

    Parent

    Pennsylvania should be like Texas (none / 0) (#42)
    by solon on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:58:54 AM EST
    According to CQ Politics the delegate allocations for Pennsylvania seems like Texas, where the congressional districts in which Senator Obama will win will be worth more than the districts Senator Clinton will win. CQ Politics argues that Clinton will only net 3 more than Senator Obama from the Congressional Districts. In considering all of the delegates from Pennsylvania, Clinton may net 25 from the four types of delegates (congressional districts, at large, PLEO, and Supers) in the state.

    But, it is unlikely Clinton will make her case to the Super Delegates through the pledged delegates, just the popular vote.

    Parent

    I suspect that in many of those districts (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    Hillary will get one more delegate than CQ predicts. With barely  any blacks, she stands a very good chance of hitting 65% in every district west of Paoli, with the exception of 14, which is inner city Pittsburgh.  

    Parent
    The remaning questions (none / 0) (#57)
    by solon on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    revolve around how many people vote on Tuesday and what for whom will the new Democrats (those who registered this year) vote.

    It will be very surprising if Obama wins, those these factors may adjust margin of victory for Senator CLinton.

    As for the proportional design, it seems that in Penn. and Texas, the goal is to reward those who vote Democrat election after election. it certainly leads to a few surprises.

    Parent

    Another reason to change (none / 0) (#46)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:07:11 AM EST
    the silly allocation schemes used by democrats for the delegates.  Allocating by population would be so much more (small d) democratic.

    Parent
    don't they usually explain away their... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:19:05 AM EST
    variance in their polls to the actual results as all the late breakers go for Hillary?

    OK, then a whole lot of late breakers will have broken for Hillary as long as you ignore Survey USA who probably has had this right all along.

    Survey USA (none / 0) (#31)
    by nell on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:24:25 AM EST
    Are they planning to release one last poll before the primary?

    Parent
    I went to the Hillary Campaign Stop (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Mrwirez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:33:33 AM EST
    last night. In the POURING DOWN RAIN at 10:00pm in Mckeesport PA. There was probably 3000-4000 people, soaked to the bone. Most of the over 65+ people had left. It was a lot of women, white men, and Penn State at Mckeesport campus younger people. Amazingly in a town like Mckeesport only a handful of minorities. The list of politicians speaking was amazing though. Governor Ed Rendell, Allegheny County Executive-Dan Onorato (The County Pittsburgh is in), long time Congressman Jack Murtha, Lieutenant Governor Catherine Baker Knoll. Hillary was pumped up, even after her long day and the weather conditions, she came out to shake our hands. Nothing like a political rally, we really had a ball.....

    GOOOOO Hillary!!

    GOOOOO Hillary! (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:37:33 AM EST
    I predict that Hillary will win by 10+ (none / 0) (#1)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:31:24 AM EST
    because the OFB are yammering that she needs to win by 20.

    They only set the bar that high because they are worried she will get close to 15 points as a winning margin.

    My feeling is "run up the score Hillary - remove all doubt."

    Margin (none / 0) (#43)
    by Athena on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:01:43 AM EST
    I've had a gut sense of 12-13 points.

    Parent
    Polls (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dave B on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:36:30 AM EST
    The only poll I care about is the one on Tuesday.  I don't like getting my hopes high, so I'll choose to believe it's close...

    On another note, I can't believe how Axelrod can with a straight face be so negative while claiming that he's being positive.  Glad at least Tim called him on it.  Axelrod gives me the willies.  

    the polls interest me (none / 0) (#5)
    by miguelito on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:47:01 AM EST
    only in their patterns.  We've all noticed how the polls are  so "off"  this primary.  I think it must have something to do with the Rove style campaign and the MSM attack on the Clinton campaign.  My feeling is that when she is up, and expected to win, the polls have come out and said he was up, winning by couple points or constantly gaining.  I just think of Cali, TX, OH, NH and quite a few others.  Polls make news, and when people see him gaining, the might see momentum and try to join a winning team or movement.  The false polls are at least trying to perpetuate themselves.  That or I need one of those shiny hats.

    Parent
    Yeah. (none / 0) (#8)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:50:21 AM EST
    The whole "bandwagon" effect.  People hop on the winning team if the polls show him/her winning.  I've seen it happen every time with this primary. NH, CA, NV, TX, OH, and now PA.

    Parent
    Bandwagon (none / 0) (#22)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:13:45 AM EST
    explains why people tell surveyors they think Obama will win, but believe Clinton would be the better candidate.

    His whole campaign is built on sand.  OH, TX, PA...let the waves come crashing down!

    Parent

    Is that what the exit polls showed? (none / 0) (#51)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:26:25 AM EST
    I thought it was the opposite?

    Parent
    I am sorry (none / 0) (#21)
    by magisterludi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:08:27 AM EST
    but he does look a bit like Snidely Whiplash.

    Parent
    Or reaching back a little further.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Pianobuff on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    He does resemble the carpetbagger in "Gone With the Wind", no?

    Parent
    Axelrod = Mark Penn (none / 0) (#40)
    by Mrwirez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:46:17 AM EST
    I really dislike both of them.

    Parent
    My prediction (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:39:06 AM EST
    There is no scenario where Obama can break 45% of the vote overall.

    I agree (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:42:05 AM EST
    I have been doing the math on the demos and I am now hard pressed to how he keeps it within 5.

    My floor now is 8 for Clinton.

    Parent

    Funny you should say that (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:47:33 AM EST
    because I've had 9 points in the back of my mind as the number below which Hillary will probably have to get out of the race.

    Parent
    Man you two luv the game (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:51:11 AM EST
    I wish I had that sort of fascination with it all because sometimes this stuff just makes me feel tired.  Worst president ever!  Husband in Iraq!  Grueling primary, but reading the "figurings" of you two does at least distract me.

    Parent
    The game has become simple (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:52:31 AM EST
    The demos drive everything.

    Parent
    How come they didn't drive us out of (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:54:11 AM EST
    Iraq ;)?  Different vehicle?

    Parent
    They did help reelect GWB. . . (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:55:50 AM EST
    funny kid (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:27:57 AM EST
    Because The Pols Decided To Go Against The Polls n (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:57:29 AM EST
    BTD-- (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:14:42 AM EST
    what's the top end of Obama's white vote?  There was a discussion about it the other day, and then I got distracted and forgot where it was.  I thought O had never gotten over 40% of the white vote except in WI.  How wrong was I?

    Parent
    Very wrong (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:16:47 AM EST
    In Iowa, CA, Virginia and many other states, Obama WON the white vote.

    In MOST states, ESPECIALLY the big contested states, Obama's white voter ceiling has been in the 35-38%.

    He has gone as low as 27% among white Dems (in Ohio.)

    Parent

    Correction (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:19:31 AM EST
    Hillary won white in CA by 46-45.

    Parent
    And there aren't enough latte liberals (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:21:06 AM EST
    in PA or IN for that to happen again.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#52)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    But of course I'm not a latte liberal, and my husband and I will be voting for Obama in Indiana in the primary.  Of course we will vote for Hillary in the GE if she is the nominee.  

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:21:57 AM EST
    Obama has depended on white independents for the bulk of his white vote. White dems have never voted by more than 35% for him.  

    Parent
    35% cap on white voters (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:27:35 AM EST
    means that closed primaries are an even bigger problem for him.

    Someone, somewhere, has to be looking at these numbers with a cold eye and should be coming to the realization that Obama has a huge electability problem.  BTD, you pointed this out when Miss. confirmed the demographics.  All of the positive media in the world is not going to change this.  Do you really think that Obama could surmount this cap in the ge against McCain?  

    If Clinton has shown one thing to us this primary season, it's that she keeps fighting no matter what.  Even with the press in full force against her, she still keeps popping back up.

    Parent

    I would bet he does (none / 0) (#62)
    by Mrwirez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:34:27 AM EST
    NOT get 30% of the white vote here in PA.  I am in the electricians union and I know of only three Obama supporters on a job site of 1000 construction workers. In Fact the white people I know around Pittsburgh are mad as hell at him and voting Hillary. That lint flicking amongst other things has just not resonated well here. He really does seem like a black snob. PA dems are mostly blue collar working class, for the most part. I TRULY believe Hillary by 14%. I am no expert though.

    Parent
    union (none / 0) (#66)
    by bigbay on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:07:07 PM EST
    you should post more...we don't get much 1st hand  blue collar perspective on the blogs

    Parent
    well, you don't have to say "very" wrong (none / 0) (#32)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:25:24 AM EST
    maybe slightly wrong?  Would it kill you to sugar coat a little?

    Okay, but, PA is a contested state, so saying that O has a white voter problem in contested states would be accurate, right?  And, as we know, the contested states are the key states to win the election, ergo...

    (and that's what I meant before when I was wrong, so now I am right.  Haha!)

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:29:21 AM EST
    Even more than that, in Ohio, the state most like PA imo, Obama lost white Dems by 70-27.

    IF it is that bad, clinton wins by 20.

    Parent

    from your lips to PA's ears (none / 0) (#38)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:34:03 AM EST
    Ha. You had best (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:16:52 AM EST
    look elsewhere for sugarcoating.

    Parent
    but-but-but... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    he loves me best!

    Parent
    Andgarden wins, hands down. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:40:26 AM EST
    Of course, he "gets" all that polling data stuff.

    Parent
    if you cut me... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    do I not spread rumors that you are an angry hermaphrodite?  

    Parent
    Is that the same as a centaur? Seen way (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:43:07 AM EST
    way too many of them here.  

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:54:48 AM EST
    So, below 9 (none / 0) (#11)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:52:37 AM EST
    ok. thanks

    Parent
    Win (none / 0) (#56)
    by sas on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:45:45 AM EST
    by 9 and get out of the race?

    So winning by 9 is losing?

    What spin.  Winning is winning is winning.

    Parent

    Yes, winning is winning (none / 0) (#59)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:13:07 AM EST
    If she wins by 1 vote, she can claim she won the state.  But she is behind in the pledged delegate count the margins are important.  She can't win states by 5/6 points and catch up with him. That isn't spin, that's reality.   Plus in the remaining primaries there are states that look like wins for Obama.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#61)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:22:16 AM EST
    But right now, he looks to only win 2 of the last 10.

    That doesn't say strength to me.

    Parent

    That may be true (none / 0) (#63)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:44:04 AM EST
    but "strength" is another argument - one that will be debated by the supers.    I was just making the simple point about the margins of wins being important when trying to play "catch up."

    And I assume you mean NC and OR for his column.  Though I wouldn't be too sure who will win Montana, SD and is it Nebraska.  I haven't heard too much about them.   Even my state Indiana, while certainly more likely for Clinton, isn't a sure thing for her.  And again, ONLY speaking of the pledged delegates, she'll need a big margin in Indiana to offset NC.  

    Again, the supers will decide on strength after all the primaries are done and they may agree It sure is going to be exciting, yes?

    Parent

    Is that enough (none / 0) (#7)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:49:12 AM EST
    or is the 8 too little?  Does she have to win by double digits still?

    What I want you to do is tell me that a win is good even if it is single digits.

    Parent

    8 is a floor (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:53:11 AM EST
    As I said above, my rough SUSA calculation makes it 56-44.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:55:16 AM EST
    I'll think the 56-44 too. :-)

    Parent
    I like even numbers so I am going (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:04:07 AM EST
    to root for 60-40..hehehe. Wouldn't that be a blow to Obama's ego?? Personally, I hope she grinds him into dust...figuratively speaking, of course.

    Parent
    Q to BTD re college vote (none / 0) (#29)
    by Munibond on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:21:09 AM EST
    I keep hearing/reading that there is a large student population in PA that accounts for much of the last minute Dem voter registration.  Do you think this is insignificant from a polling standpoint or might it be something that differentiates PA from OH?

    From (none / 0) (#58)
    by sas on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    what I have read here in PA, the student vote is about even clinton/obama.  He doesn't have that vote by much if at all.

    Parent
    Wouldn't that indicate she (none / 0) (#68)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:11:07 PM EST
    is cutting in to one of his key demographics?  One of the reasons I can't wait to see the Penn results is to see if either cuts in to the others demographics. Obama is out trying to meet the elderly and working class (ignoring his base a little).  Clinton staying with her base and trying for the youth at Universities etc.

    Two days of nail biting....tick,tock  :)

    Parent

    How will these demographics play in the GE? (none / 0) (#41)
    by barryluda on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:49:12 AM EST
    When BTD says:

    Obama has depended on white independents for the bulk of his white vote. White dems have never voted by more than 35% for him.
     

    I gather this means that white dems prefer Clinton over Obama while white independents are more favorable toward Obama.  In the GE, how might this translate should Obama win the nomination?

    I can't imagine that the white dems -- other than those on this blog :) -- will go with McCain over Obama.  At least I'd like to think that won't happen.  Or, as I keep wondering, since the demos are driving the democratic primary, how will they (or will they) drive the GE?  If they do, does that mean -- as my father fears -- that Obama doesn't have a chance since all of the repubs go for McCain in a GE, while the same demos that have the democrats split between Clinton and Obama will drive a split in the democrats between Obama and McCain?


    the problem will not be (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:03:44 AM EST
    dems voting McCain, but dems who stay home.  This is the same thing that hurt both Kerry and Gore: they could not energize the base.

    Parent
    Dems who stay home.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Rainsong on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:40:01 PM EST
    .. I call them members of the Great American Apathy Party, with a strong "Rather Watch The Game" faction dominating it, but they never got up enough energy to register for it, as they were too busy watching the game.

    Parent
    Polls have indicate that 23% of Clinton (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    supporters will not support Obama in the GE. 18% of Obama supporters wouldn't back Clinton. There was a poll a few months back indicating a third of each candidates supporters wouldn't back the nominee if it was their nominee.

    Parent
    Independents (none / 0) (#48)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:09:49 AM EST
    probably will have no problem voting for McCain.  They're almost his natural constituency, by reputation at any rate.  Depending on Independents to elect a democrat this cycle is a very bad idea.

    Parent
    Quite a few polls (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:16:55 AM EST
    have shown that against McCain, Obama bleeds indys.

    Parent
    Too many demos Obama looses (none / 0) (#64)
    by DaleA on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:45:23 AM EST
    The groups that do not find Obama attractive seem to be: Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Gays and Lesbians, white non college, working class white. With the Wright revelations, probably add Jews to the list. How can a Dem who is not strong with these groups get elected?

    Hope! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    After reading Chuck Todd (none / 0) (#67)
    by Lil on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    I found myself wondering if anyone really believes there will be less than 2 million voters, or am I just buying into all the hype about the excitement building for Tuesday? Also, is it automatic that the more turnout the more it favors Hillary, or would it favor Obama?