Rasmussen PA Poll: Hillary Better to Beat McCain

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:27:02 PM EST
Tags: Pennsylvania '08, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A new Rasmussen Pennsylvania poll finds Hillary Clinton still more likely than Barack Obama to beat John McCain in in November.

Key points:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania finds McCain with a statistically insignificant 44% to 43% advantage over Obama. Clinton attracts 47% of the vote against McCain while the Republican earns 42%.

Two weeks ago, in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a nine-point lead over McCain and Barack Obama had an eight-point edge over the Republican hopeful. Now, however, Clinton’s lead is down to five points and Obama trails McCain by a point.

More results:

....Clinton is currently supported by 78% of Democrats, Obama by 65%. Among unaffiliated voters in the state, McCain leads Clinton by twelve and Obama by five.

Obama's favorability ratings are down in the state: [More...]

McCain and Obama are each viewed favorably by 51% of the state’s voters, Clinton by 49%. For Obama, that’s a six-point decline over the past two weeks. Clinton’s numbers are down four points. McCain has gained a point during the same two week period.

Pennsylvania is a key state for Dems to win. While Kerry-Edwards won PA in 2004, it was only by 3 points, 51% to 48%. Gore only won the state by 4 points.

Electability in PA, like Ohio and FL, hopefully will be key considerations for the superdelegates.

< ARG Indiana Poll: Hillary 5 Points Ahead of Obama | Dean on Final Primaries and Superdelegates >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Rasmussen PA Poll: Hillary Better to Beat McCain | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

We need to (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:28:26 PM EST

all copy this and flood the SD's email boxes - every time something like this comes out!

: if the SD's... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:38:05 PM EST

are low information voters, then the Democrats are in bigger trouble than we realize

Hint: they're both in danger (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:31:39 PM EST

in PA. The people who voted for both of them last tuesday will need to turn out for either one in order to produce a win.

: Not for Hillary (4.50 / 2) (#19)
by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:39:33 PM EST

because of the following:
She will have Gov. Rendel and Mayor Nutter and the other 100 mayors in Pennsylvania plus the moderate Republican women and whatever constituencies she could bring to her circle. Hillary is an excellent campaigner as we all have seen. She could not have come back from the almost dead if she were not. She built her support without pretending to be anything but herself: her attention to the details of policis which she can talk about backwards, forwards and anywhere in between. That is why she is so good at townhall meetings.

Well After Clyburn and Wright Complete Their (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:33:50 PM EST

media circuits, both Clinton and Obama will lose support from Democratic voters. IMO Obama will lose more because he has a smaller share of the pie.

: All True, but Hillary can win with high negatives (5.00 / 5) (#11)
by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:53:54 PM EST

Because she has a record of public service and competence and is an empowering leader.

Many of them know this already. (5.00 / 5) (#16)
by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:29:46 PM EST

But they blame it on Hillary for not quitting because she is forcing his baggage to be exposed for all the American people to see; they don't blame Obama for having them; just Hillary for causing them to be exposed, even if through no action on her part at all.

These guys must be suffering from the Tucker C. syndrom (the involuntary tendency to cross their legs when Hillary Clinton is around; or in their case, the mere mention of her name.

: Let's See (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:27:31 PM EST

If the establishment Dems blame Hillary, then they relieve themselves of the responsibility for encouraging an inexperienced, poorly vetted candidate to run for president in a very critical year. BTW, this is the group I blame the most for the current debacle.
If Obama blames Hillary, he can overlook his own shortfalls, his poor judgement in friends and his glaring obvious lack of qualifications for the job. He can also ignore the fact that he is just not likable enough for half the primary voters to be willing to overlook these shortfalls or be enamored enough to appreciate being call racist.
I will omit the paragraph on Obama's supporters in the interest of community harmony.

: All Presidential candidates should be exposed (4.50 / 2) (#22)
by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:07:19 PM EST

My preference: Put all the facts on the table and let's let the chips fall where they may.
Lots of insecurity coming from the Obama camp lately.

IMO there is no way that Clinton will (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by athyrio on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:07:59 PM EST

totally lose the AA Vote....A percentage of it, maybe, but not the total vote....I wonder what the age differencial is in the black voting populace....the older ones will remember the Clintons fondly...

: Who did you see making that claim? (none / 0) (#25)
by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:15:31 PM EST

However isn't it troubling that we are seeing massive bloc-voting to the degree of 90% at this point in the campaign? It would have made more sense earlier, imo.
So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a similar thing could happen if there is enough media driven resentment. Let's say at least 50% defection is likely under the nightmare scenario; demonstrations, protests, etc.
By the way athyrio, in Pennsylvania it didn't matter what age the voters were in that regard...

How did all that time and money in PA (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Marvin42 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:11:18 PM EST

Turn into him falling against McCain? That is insane. I understand he lost to Sen Clinton, but he has spent resources and time. Isn't the basic message "to know him is to love him?"

Is this going to happen across the nation if he is the nominee?

After (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by sas on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:00:21 PM EST

Obama's humiliating loss in PA ( he won 5 counties folks), is anyone surprised at this?

I'm a resident of PA and I have said it all along.

He lost a ton of counties and entire regions by 75-25. Even my county, (Bucks) which is basically a Philly 'burb, he lost 63-37.

He can't win the Democratic base!!!!!!!!! He can't win anything that will keep the Republicans at bay. He can't win the people the Democrats need to win in November.

And yet, he may be the nominee. Did you ever think Democrats were SO FRIGGIN' STUPID?

Gee, ya think? (none / 0) (#3)
by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:33:41 PM EST

Which is what she was saying all along when she compared her experience to hers, and the Obama people went wild.

On an OT note, Fred Jowls Thompson was interviewed about McCain's anger and he said he only does that with colleagues, so no prob.

I guess calling his wife disgusting names doesn't count.

: When she compared her experience (none / 0) (#5)
by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:37:58 PM EST

to HIS.
Sorry, I've been yelling at the teevee.

RE : (none / 0) (#6)
by az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:38:43 PM EST

Obama can expand the map to places like CO , NV , WI, NC where Clinton is having trouble

No way with NC. If we couldn't win it with (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by tigercourse on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:41:29 PM EST

Edwards on the ticket, we won't win it with him off it. And I seriously doubt CO as well.


As I Recall, Clinton Won Nevada (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:43:11 PM EST

: Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by IzikLA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:42:41 PM EST

why does this point keep getting uttered and not debunked? Clinton won NV, there is no reason to assume he would do better there, in fact, quite the opposite.

Obama has dropped precipitously in WI (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:19:36 PM EST

as predicted by those of us who knew what was going on in the primary here.

He's ahead of Clinton, for now. But some GOP ads about Rev. Wright, about bitter and clinging Midwesterners who like God and guns in one of the most churchgoing and happy hunting states, about Ayers and Dohrn who came from Wisconsin and still is a hot button here, where antiwar protest bombs also led to the death of a student, husband, and young father -- bring that all back, and I wouldn't count on Obama doing well in Wisconsin again.

He didn't face a good Clinton campaign here. Up against a Repub campaign, it could be a loss.


While compressing (none / 0) (#10)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:51:23 PM EST

the map in places like FL and Massachusetts


Hillary (none / 0) (#31)
by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:57:32 AM EST

won Nevada. He's claiming it because of 1 more delegate, but she won.

CO and NC are both Red states. Wisconsin is flukey.

I DO think he'd carry Washington and turn that one blue.


will Big Tent "endorse" Hillary (none / 0) (#12)
by dem08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:55:51 PM EST

if the evidence looks like she is the stronger candidate now nation-wide?

I do not know if changing his endorsement would make a difference, but it might since he has supported Obam over electability.

He doesn't have to endorse. (none / 0) (#13)
by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:08:31 PM EST

He's doing just fine here.


My similar question is this: (none / 0) (#17)
by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:34:25 PM EST

When it becomes obvious that Obama no longer is the 'media darling' as you put it, will you still support him?


: Fair-minded people will accept the new reality (none / 0) (#24)
by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:10:02 PM EST

But stubborn ones tend to cling to weak arguments

Dean on electability - 4/25 (none / 0) (#15)
by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:27:50 PM EST

"I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else," said Dean.

Dean added that he thinks it is "very unlikely" that the superdelegates will elevate a candidate who is trailing in pledged delegates and the popular vote before adding that "it is possible" and that superdelegates have "every right to do it."

http://tinyurl.com/4lbxhr

: Hmmm (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:38:33 PM EST

It won't come down to popular vote or anything else, they'll make the choice based on who can bet McCain.......but the SD's won't elevate a candidate who is trailing in popular vote or delegate count.
This man made it through medical school with that logic?