Quinnipiac Poll: Hillary Gains in Pennsylvania

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:00:00 PM EST
Tags: Pennsylvania '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A Quinnipiac poll out today shows Hillary Clinton has expanded her lead over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania over the past three weeks.

Among likely Democratic primary voters, she now has a 12 point lead, 53 to 41%. On Feb. 27, she led Obama 49% to 43%.

Hillary increased her lead among women while narrowing Obama's lead among men. The numbers:

White voters go with Clinton 61 - 33 percent, compared to 56 - 37 percent February 27.
Black voters back Obama 76 - 18 percent, compared to 69 - 23 percent February 27.
Women back Clinton 59 - 35 percent.
Men go 48 percent for Obama to 45 percent for Clinton, compared to February 27 when men backed him 50 - 43 percent.
Obama gets 50 percent of Democrats with a college degree, to Clinton's 45 percent.
Among voters with no college degree, Clinton leads 57 - 37 percent.
Voters under 45 back Obama 57 - 39 percent while voters over 45 back Clinton 60 - 34 percent.

Quinnipiac says the momentum is with Hillary. As to race: [More...]

Her endorsement by Philadelphia's black Mayor, Michael Nutter, is cutting slightly into Obama's overwhelming edge among black voters, but clearly the split among black and white voters is growing," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

On favorability, she has a 10 point lead on Obama:

By a 71 - 23 percent margin, Pennsylvania likely Democratic primary voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton, compared to 61 - 19 percent for Obama, contributing to Clinton's lead in the primary.

On the economy and the war in Iraq:

The economy is the single most important issue in their Democratic primary vote, 48 percent of likely voters say, while 23 percent list the war in Iraq and 18 percent list health care. Voters who list the economy favor Clinton 55 - 40 percent, while voters who list the war are split, with 47 percent for Clinton and 46 percent for Obama.

< NORML to Challenge Mass. Pot Law | Abandoning The Clinton Uncertainty/Revote Theory >

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.

Quinnipiac Poll: Hillary Gains in Pennsylvania | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

the only baseline she needs is (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:16:35 PM EST

one to convince the superdelegates that she, rather than Obama, is best able to carry the big states against John McCain in November.

: The superdelegates (none / 0) (#7)
by txchicanoforhillary on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:49:50 PM EST

must know that it is quite telling that she is the won who can carry the big states. He's won IL (no brainer) and WI (kudos to BHO). However, I will quote George Will from ABC This Week: Barack can win Utah and Wyoming all he wants, but he will not take them in the general.
Ohio is always the lynch-pin of the general election. HRC did very well there. I hope that the SD's see the writing on the wall. HRC can take Arkansas in the general, as well as NM and possibly Missouri. When I first started commenting here I mentioned that MO could very well be the new Ohio, or a smaller version of it. Maybe those rural voters in MO will go HRC. Her margin of loss was there 1% to BHO

: I think that's very doable (none / 0) (#8)
by RalphB on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:54:29 PM EST

considering the last week. Indiana may really count for a lot this year.

Clinton's leading by an even greater margin (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Dawn Davenport on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:45:47 PM EST

...in the latest PPP poll, per the RCP website: 56-30.

The Quinnipac poll was based on surveys taken March 10-17, while the PPP poll was based on surveys taken March 15-17.

Clinton's lead seems (none / 0) (#13)
by PennProgressive on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:16:27 PM EST

to be greater than what the poll suggests.She has tremendous support in Scranton (where her father was from) and the entire northeastern PA, which is enough to compensate for Philadelphia. She is also expected to win by a significant margin in Pittsburgh--in spite of the universities. The entire Clinton family is campaigning very hard in Pennsylvania. On the other hand, Obama is not cappaigning everywhere in PA. He came to Scranton last night to attend a dinner where he spoke for nine minutes and did not hold any public rally. Prior to that he met with a few Iraq war veterans in an event which was not open to the public or the media. He has some support in northeastern PA, make no mistake about it but the camppaign does not seem to be trying to build on it. If a new local poll comes out in a day or two, I will post it.


I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:19:27 PM EST

is he still doing stadium stuff? I heard that his crowds were getting smaller, but considering where I heard it, I take that with a grain of salt. We don't want wishful thinking to turn into fact, nor do we want complacency to make us stupid.


strategy (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:27:44 PM EST

It was reported that he was going to spend less time in Universities and more time in townhalls to appeal to Clinton's working class crowd.


: Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:30:26 PM EST

thanks for the info, though I am dubious. I wonder if he could still pull those crowds in those sizes now. I think the shine has worn off.
Of course, I'm inclined to think that anyway, so take it with a grain of rezko. I mean salt!

A GREAT speech on religion: (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:12:03 PM EST

Many people were teared up when they heard or read Obama's speech today. I read it, and thought there were good moments, but it suffered two faults: It was far too long, and it was too much about Obama---WAY too much.

His rhetoric was good, but did it soar like this?

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
....
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
...
This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

Compare that to "My grandmother was a racist, but I loved her anyway".
or "Ferraro started it"

Obama totally failed to rise above the moment. Instead he used his gifts at speechmaking to muddy the waters and take cheap shots.

Here's a link to JFK's speech. I think if you read it next to Obama's, you really will cry---I almost did. JFK had many flaws, but what a great leader he was!
The real deal

Many people

Although some of the specifics ... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:39:05 PM EST

were different Obama gave the same speech he's given since he first ran for office.

It works like this: "My friends aren't always right, my enemies aren't always wrong, and because I see this you should vote for me."

It's a logic that seems to impress a lot of people. It doesn't work for me. Because, frankly, it's no logic at all.

JFK, on the other hand, had the lofty rhetoric but also spoke specifically about policy. And he didn't always give the same speech.


: Right.. "The autobiography of (none / 0) (#26)
by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:40:55 PM EST

President Barack Obama" is what it sounds like.

Maybe remembering the original (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by RalphB on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:13:10 PM EST

is why I'm not impressed by Obama. Frankly, I'm waiting for one speech where he is not the topic.


good points! folks want to hear what (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by hellothere on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:29:55 PM EST

you can do to help them. talking about yourself doesn't win votes. a good speech uses you and not i so much. also blaming them for your problems is a non winner as well.


: Bill Clinton has said (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by RalphB on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:48:20 PM EST

that it's winning politics to make an election about the voters, not the politician. A truism I would think.
Dave Letterman just did a bit called the "Barack Obama Uh Count". Hilarious. Kind of like his Bush speech bits.

Wish (none / 0) (#24)
by jen on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:38:17 PM EST

I could give you more than one 5 for this one. Thanks! ;)


Obama should step down for his sexual trysts . (1.00 / 2) (#37)
by mike and mattie on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:52:36 PM EST

Obama was not able to explain exactly what else his preacher said that we do not know at this time. When Imus made those racial remarks about the nappy head ho's, Obama was the first to come forth about asking for his termination.
This Rev Wright has really scarred the white people so badly, it's like u can't take
the hurt back. I believe that freedom of speech does not mean you can say any invectives you want, even if you are conveying a racial hurt.
Now we are on with the race war: the hopes that so many had hoped to avoid.
We wonder if there are other black preachers and blacks in general who feel
the same way against whites. Now every media outlet would be looking for
more dirt on Obama and Rev Wright.
Someone sent us a link to a U-tube video about Obama's sexual trysts with a Larry Sinclair. Now the new governor has admitted to having several affairs.
Why was he not vetted before he took office? I thought we took down Spitzer for the same poor judgment. This also shows that Obama does not have the good judgment to be president allowing the video relating his sexual trysts for all the
world to see and judge. We never thought that this election will take such a turn. Obama really needs to step down unless his advisors had thought they would pass him through the process as being the first gay president.
There are sorts of thing on the web that you can read and make your own judgment.

Did I hear a blogger say recently that (none / 0) (#1)
by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:44:07 PM EST

the "baseline" that Hillary has to beat is 17 points?

: That low? (none / 0) (#5)
by lambert on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:29:01 PM EST

I would have thought it was more like 20.
Maybe 30.

Clinton needs (none / 0) (#2)
by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:59:42 PM EST

ideally 20 pts on a vote of 2.5 mill in Penn to get about 500k votes. I'm still waiting on the polls to shift some more. So far the change in Obama's favorability seems consistent. But Clinton was up 16 and there are several weeks yet. The national polls are still all over because they go over several days. I want to see several polls from this week.

hillary is toast (none / 0) (#3)
by TheRefugee on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:13:57 PM EST

kos and chuck todd say so. she's an evil Clinton who, along with 2 term hubby, ruined the Dem party. As soon as they tell PA that Hillary was the first lady from 92 to 00 and that she has the last name Clinton, and that she is a slimy two-faced, DLC centrist...well the jig will be up. She'll be lucky to lose by as few as fifty.

Oh yeah, not to mention, she cost FL and MI their delegates, singlehandedly, just would not play ball with Dean and Obama to equitably split the delegates right down the middle. But, 'she's a nice woman'.

I want a landslide. I want Obama asking what da...just happened? Then I want Dean to man up and make sure FL and MI get heard in some form or another, a manner consistent with Democracy and not a back room delegate split. Then I want Indiana to climb on board, then I want PR and Guam on board. Heck, why not North Carolina? At this point I don't give Hillary much chance but I'd like to see her close the gap and make Obama sweat all the way to Denver. I want her to close the gap so if Dean and the Rules Cmte allow FL and MI to be left out she has a righteous reason to bemoan the results.

Overdrive Hillary. Overdrive.

I saw a poll (none / 0) (#9)
by facta non verba on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:56:09 PM EST

that gave Hillary 26 point lead 58% to 32% from yesterday, though I can't remember the poll name. Most polls have been in 12 to 18 point differential, so this one strikes me a suspect being at the low end of that range with the momentum in Hillary's direction. Of course, who the sample is of greatest importance.

If by looking at the Huffington Post front page I can detect a panic, then yes Obama camp is clearly in a panic. Look at how many "glowing" reviews there are and by whom: Gov. Deval Patrick on "Obama's Challenge to American Voters," Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. on "Moving Beyond Talk and Race Entertainment," Trey Ellis on "Obama Rising Again," Ferentz LaFargue "A Sermon of Obama's Own," Jay Rosen "Obama Tells the Best Political Team on TV: You Have a Choice," Chris Durang "Obama's Speech: He Offers Real Change, We Should Take It," Julie Bergman Sender on "Obama on Black & White in Color," plus the requisite hit piece by Arianna Huffington attacking Clinton's ethics. So if the seven hooks don't get you, there's always one crook with which to club you. That many posts is clearly a sign of desperation. There is but one issue post, one by Jeremy Scahill on Blackwater but even this is an attack piece on Clinton. He is questioning her motives on why she wants to end the use of private security guards in Iraq and elsewhere. That is the Huffington Obama. And whither not just Brand Obama but also brands like the DailyKos, TPM and the Huff Obama. Bye-bye Markos, Josh and Arianna.

I was shocked, yes shocked, to learn (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:59:53 PM EST

Gov. Patrick like The Speech.


maybe he thought it was really his :-) (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by RalphB on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:07:47 PM EST

ABC and NBC news basically said (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:18:13 PM EST

people in Manhattan and in broadcasting (you know, the smart people) would be wooed by Obama's speech, but the average working class American would not.

Who knew I was working class?


I saw an interesting take on the speech (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:23:10 PM EST

in a comment at Larry Johnson's blog, No Quarter, to the effect that Obama used people's discomfort with talking about race to deflect attention from what Wright actually said. I think that nails what I disliked about the speech. If you really want to transcend race, then you should be able to condemn remarks of someone like Wright no without regard to race.


You mean that (none / 0) (#20)
by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:34:52 PM EST

some are noticing he never actually answered like 8 questions? He did a poor job explaining the situation. He was inconsistent in what he heard, he never addressed the ridiculous statements that Wright made. It has gone beyond bad judgment. He came across as weak.


I've noticed (none / 0) (#22)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:36:13 PM EST

that the stations have stopped playing the audio when they show the video. Charlie Gibson said Wright "cursed" America, but that was about it. Another big coddling for Obama, but people can go to the internet to find them easily enough.

I wonder if PA repubs are crossing over to vote against him? Speaking only for myself, anyone who in any context--though especially a handful of days after 9-11--who says G-D America needs to either have a D good reason or explain to me why they said it. I have relatives serving right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the same kind of hate speech they meet every day from our enemies. No, of course they should not be over there, but that does not negate the fact that they are, and this sort of public hate speech is absolutely inexcusable to me. Reminds me of the disgusting way vets were treated when they came home from Vietnam; an appalling bit of American history. You know, those fights from the 60s Obama doesn't feel any connection to.


OBAMA LIES, LIES, LIES (none / 0) (#39)
by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:57:09 PM EST

Barack Obama: 1.has repeatedly said he was and is against the war, and promises to get us out of there as soon as he becomes president, but he voted against establishing a time for withdrawal of the troops:LIE!

In one of the debates he said he had only billed 5 hours to Rezko, then it was discovered Rezko and Obama had a much closer relationship, then it turned out he contributed $25,000 to his senatorial campaign. This past Friday, he disclosed Rezko's contributions exceeded $250,000:LIE!
This past Friday, he knowingly denied being present at church during any of the racist barrages of Rev. Wright, today he acknowledged he was present AT MANY OF WRIGHT'S SERMONS,20 YEARS WORTH: LIE!

Today, in North Carolina, he asked his audience to TRUST him about how he would handle the war!! Can you believe this guy?
CREDIBILITY: ZERO!
JUDGEMENT TO LEAD: ZILCH
TRUSTWORTHY: NOT A CHANCE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: NEVER
BARACK'S"CLOSET-RACIST"AGENDA EXPOSED: PRICELESS!


I've been watching you lately and I'll say you got (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by plf1953 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:30:53 PM EST

the "class" part down cold ...

Can't speak to the "working" part though.


Let's not forget (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by caseyOR on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:37:54 PM EST

that if you don't support Obama you are an ill-educated, lower class racist. I saw NBC and ABC, and I really do think that is the point they were making.


: well...I wasn't gonna say it, but, yeah (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:43:55 PM EST

I saw NBC and ABC, and I really do think that is the point they were making.

: That's exactly (none / 0) (#28)
by jen on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:44:38 PM EST

the feeling I was left with after listening to the report on NPR this afternoon. They may as well have come right out and said it because that was definitely the slant they put on it.

Kathy ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:49:52 PM EST

yup ... it's all so silly and transparent.

Those of us who support Hillary are just a bunch of dumb rubes.

I think pragmatic Americas (of any race or class) saw the speech for what it was. A giant dud.

I cannot get over the fact that in the speech he had the gall to claim that if we didn't support him we'd be holding back the cause of racial reconciliation.

To paraphrase another famous Democrat: "[Senator Obama] you're not the final authority on this."

(A glorious, gleaming no-prize to the first person to recognize that quote.)


Beer (none / 0) (#21)
by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:35:56 PM EST

I hate to belabour the point but beer drinker is still mine. You can have working class.


I didn't get it so I must be one of the (none / 0) (#32)
by RalphB on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:14:29 PM EST

great unwashed.


last time i looked the working guy/gal (none / 0) (#34)
by hellothere on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:32:07 PM EST

was over 50% of the population. with that in mind it would sound like it was a good speech that didn't sell.


Perspective: (none / 0) (#30)
by NJDem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:03:56 PM EST

if everyone believed how the media spinned things, HRC wouldn't have won OH and TX.

And yeah, this HRC supporters are uneducated thing is really getting old. Why can't she be getting support from the lunch-bucket crowd and from the 'creative class'--whatever that means.

p.s. "grain of rezko"...you crack my up Kathy!

: let's hear it for common sense! (none / 0) (#35)
by hellothere on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:32:34 PM EST

Yes, she's gaining traction (holding my nose) (none / 0) (#38)
by JoeWAtlanta on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:44:26 AM EST

I'm a typical, white, Iowa-esque type white guy, who had been very encouraged and energized to vote Obama. The message of 'hope' and unity (and my personal hunger for it) trumped all else. Then...
"the government gave us drugs", "they invented AIDS to kill us", etc. If these were the isolated rantings of a single whacko, we could write it off, but we now are learning from AfAms that this is, in fact, typical "liberation theology", and is representative of mainstream black churches. Yes, these were not Barack's direct words, but he & his family have voluntarily been exposing their kids to this for 20 years?
My alternative: now choose the candidate with the corrupt, hypocritical, self-serving, petty, win-at-all-costs worldview.
Seems the only route out of this toxic pool we are wading in is somewhere to the right of us. Really, has it come to this?