Poll: Hillary Outperforms Obama Against McCain in OH, FL, PA

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:54:03 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Quinnipiac has a new poll out today (Big Tent Democrat's post on it is here.)

Results:

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a 50 - 41 percent lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters and runs better against Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

By the numbers:

In general election match ups of the three largest and most important swing states in the Electoral College, the survey finds.

Florida: Clinton 44 percent - McCain 42 percent; McCain beats Obama 46 - 37 percent;

Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 39 percent; Obama gets 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent;

Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 40 percent; Obama leads McCain 43 - 39 percent.

More...

"At least for now, Sen. Clinton's argument that she is the better general election candidate in these key battleground states appears to have some validity," said Brown. "In this survey, her strength among white voters is why she runs better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Obama.

In Florida,

In a general election match-up, McCain trails Clinton 44 - 42, too close to call, but handily defeats Obama 46 - 37 percent.

"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Brown. "She gets 38 percent to 50 percent for McCain, but Obama loses to the Arizona senator 54 - 27 among white voters. If Obama does get the nomination, how he fares with whites will be crucial to his chances."

In Pennsylvania,

"Her strength is her clear advantage among white voters - blue collar whites, less educated whites, economically hurting whites, that group known famously as Reagan Democrats in the Keystone State. Obama is marshalling all his forces, but despite his eloquent dialogue on the race issue, Pennsylvania Democrats are unmoved. So Far."

In Ohio:

"The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."

< If I Ran Hillary's Campaign . . . | 5th Cir. to Hear Skilling's Enron Appeal >

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.

Poll: Hillary Outperforms Obama Against McCain in OH, FL, PA | 80 comments (80 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

A poll so nice (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:55:17 AM EST

it's posted twice! :)

: heh (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM EST

A trend that can only increase as Wright (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by athyrio on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM EST

effect becomes more publicised.....Obama has his choice of pastors to blame for his standing IMHO...

I don't think Wright will do it (none / 0) (#15)
by dianem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:23:29 AM EST

Obama seems to have weathered that pretty well. We don't know how it will effect voting in future primaries, but polls right after his speech showed that over 80% of respondents were familiar with the controversy, so we can assume that most of the people being polled on whether they will vote for Obama or not are aware of it.


The GE is the problem. (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:26:40 AM EST

John McCain will beat the issue into the ground in the GE. Already, every ad he runs has him saluting and touting his credentials as the most patriotic American EVAH. He's already beating Obama in white voters - after he convinces them Obama hates America, it will turn into a landslide in the swing states.


: Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by nell on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:58:56 PM EST

From the moment the Wright story broke, I figured it would have very little impact in the primary but make it virtually impossible for Barack to win in the general. Fox harped on it, but CNN and MSNBC glossed over it as fast as they could...the problem is that in the general election, the republicans 527s will not hesitate for a second to make this part of the media narrative...and they will pound it so hard that MSNBC and CNN will be forced to cover it...and what makes it more damning is that they will paint a narrative of the lack of pin, Michelle's mischaracterized statement, the sermons...you can argue about whether it is unfair of the republicans or not until the cows come home, but it doesn't matter what you or I think because they will use it. Just look what they did to a VETERAN John Kerry when he was running against Bush, who was MIA during Vietnam...
This in addition to the abortion stuff they are mildly starting to push are going to provide PLENTY for the republican base... Santorum had an op-ed talking aboout some bill he characterized as "infantacide-like" that even Kennedy didn't vote for and Barack's comment about babies are punishment for young moms...
Is any of this fair? Of course not! But when have the republicans ever been fair in their attacks? That is not to say they won't be trashing Clinton at every chance they get, they will, but the attacks won't be anything new. She is what she is, most Americans already have a strong opinion of her, and it seems that more people are favorably impressed with her when they actually listen to her than the other way around...

: I also agree... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:23:50 PM EST

Plus, the next shoe to drop will be Obama's church many, many collaborations and promotions of Nation of Islam (defined by SLPC and ADL as a hate group) and Farrakhan.

OBAMA WON'T "WEATHER THE WRIGHT STORM" (1.28 / 7) (#62)
by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:19:59 PM EST

as long as he keeps lying about it, saying in The View this past week that if "Had the reverend not retired, AND HAD HE NOT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WHAT HE HAD SAID HAD DEEPLY OFFENDED PEOPLE AND WERE INAPPROPRIATE AND MISCHARACTERIZED what I believe is the greatness of this country, FOR ALL ITS FLAWS, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church." The fact is that the racist, hater of all Americans 'reverend' 'Wrong' who was MIA until this past Saturday, am sure due to pressure from Oblahblahma himself, has not, repeat, has not acknowledged anything of the sort!! If he whispered it in his ear, none of the Americans whom he has offended so deeply have heard it.

Oblahblahma for yet at least THE FOURTH TIME with this "new revisionist attempt", is making the lie bigger and bigger. His Pinocchio nose is sooooooooooooooooooooooo large, I can't figure out how he doesn't keel over! What is most offensive about this last statement is that he MUST BELIEVE WE ARE ALL STUPID MORONS, TO SWALLOW THIS TRASH AND WILL CONTINUE TO KISS HIS ROYAL BL. A..! If the people of this country keep supporting this closet-racist, deceiving, lying, Africa-centrist individual, then all of you will be just what he believes all of us to be. WAKE UP AMERICA, DON'T YOU SMELL THE MENURE BEING THROWN AT YOU?

I APPLAUD SENATOR CLINTON FOR HER INSISTENCE THAT FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN HAVE THEIR VOTES COUNTED AND BE SEATED AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION IN DENVER. I ALSO APPLAUD, ADMIRE, AND AM GRATEFUL FOR HER DECISION TO CONTINUE HER (OUR)CAMPAIGN. No voter should allow any one to ram down our throats for whom we should vote,much less our representatives whom we have elected. Contrary to their position, this campaign is not over, and to misestimate the voters' wish and choice for Senator Clinton is a grave mistake. After all, these REPRESENTATIVES, SENATORS, AND GOVERNORS ARE UP FOR ELECTION SOON. DON'T DOUBT FOR A MINUTE THAT VOTERS WILL UNEQUIVOCALLY RESPOND IN KIND. LIKE THEY SAY: "PAYBACK IS A M.F..."


BAN no2wonderboy BAN (5.00 / 3) (#63)
by waldenpond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:30:15 PM EST

BAN BAN BAN BAN

Enough is enough of this. Why is this person still allowed to post? This has gotten ridiculous.

Obama's name is being mocked, racist references, foul language references. Come on.....


THE TRUTH HURTS, DOESN'T IT? (1.00 / 1) (#84)
by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:45:04 PM EST

: Here's how it's done... (none / 0) (#87)
by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:05:35 PM EST

I am a die hard Clinton supporter that will write her name in come November if that's the way things shake out. (Factual statement of my support for my candidate without mentioning the other candidate)
The only truth here is you are an overdramatic bore. (Factual statement, again, without mentioning the other candidate)
See how simple that was? No vulgar names, no racist references, no references to any foul language and here's the best part.... no caps or exclamation points.

Maybe not Wright specifically, but I see a pattern (none / 0) (#55)
by ahazydelirium on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:32:03 PM EST

forming in which Rev. Wright is only the latest installment.

Rev. James Meeks

Rev. Donnie McClurkin


Because this has been out there (none / 0) (#65)
by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:33:07 PM EST

The Atlantic mentioned this in an article in 2006. If there was anything there, you can bet the press would have dug it up by now.

BTW - John Edwards was co-chair of this group (the Senate Prayer Group)


: the comment you are replying (none / 0) (#85)
by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:06:27 AM EST

to was way off topic. It has been erased and the commenter has been erased.

First ever comment (none / 0) (#78)
by waldenpond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:28:46 PM EST

it looks like. I checked the history. If I am using it correctly, this is your first and only comment. Nice try.


Evangelicals (none / 0) (#80)
by Donna Darko on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:34:32 PM EST

are mainstream so this church reinforces the status quo. The problem with Wright's church in the election is it challenges the status quo.


Quinnipiac University poll (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:07:59 AM EST

Any performance issues? My gut says Hillary can really clobber McCain, particularly on the economy issues. The "good talk" had played out. In the GE it's not gonna work and when Obama does it, it somehow is not credible. McCain is not credible on the economy at all.

: My gut says the same... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:12:35 AM EST

after all, he is on record as saying he "doesn't know much" about the economy. (I'm sure she's got the YouTubes ready on that one.) Plus, "it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush" is a pretty good soundbite.

: I also think it will be the women (none / 0) (#72)
by hairspray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:23:49 PM EST

who by a large majority hate the Iraq war more than men do and will vote in larger numbers for the Democrat over the Republican on this one. For all of the dismissing of the older women (by the Obama folks) who support Hillary I think that demographic is the best one the Democrats have in the November election.

This poll is exactly why (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:09:44 AM EST

I feel Obama is unelectable. He has yet to show he can win a big state with a large number of voters (except for Illinois, which is his home state.) And that's against his Democratic rival in a Democratic primary contest! Isn't it obvious that his support among Democrats is not as strong as hers, when she wins the primary in Texas but loses the caucuses?

I am looking at where and how he is winning, and I'm not liking his odds. And since the Wright videos came out, they've just decreased exponentially.

I fear an electoral disaster in November if Obama wins the nomination.

Large chunk of dems lost (5.00 / 8) (#8)
by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:13:31 AM EST

What in gods name would have been the problem with bringing in the new without pissing off the old dems? You would think that a campaign that has unity as a premise would have been able to do that. Don't destroy what you have, but work to add to it. It's a disaster.


Exactly. (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:22:38 AM EST

"Oh, I'll get her votes. I can't guarantee that she'll get mine," was a huge mistake on his part. He and his wife repeated that assertion more than once.

By contrast, Hillary stated she would wholeheartedly support Obama and that the most important thing was to elect a Democrat in November. That's what I want to hear from my candidate.


It seems somehow reminiscent of (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by alsace on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:01:03 PM EST

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."


I don't think they care (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by stillife on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:02:26 PM EST

about alienating the old Dems. I think the whole purpose of pushing Obama to run after only 2 years in the Senate was to take down that two-headed beast "the Clintons".

Perhaps they didn't expect Hillary and her supporters to fight back. The party elders seem to think we're all going to fall in line in November, but they may be in for a rude awakening.


: You're right, stillife (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by kc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:28:16 PM EST

......the answer to where can the old Dems go if not to Obama is that they will stay home.

I think it's not surprising... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:21:58 PM EST

... that Mr. Change underperforms in states where big chunks of the Democratic electorate are victims of change.


methinks it's all that talk about internets.... (none / 0) (#27)
by vicndabx on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:49:38 AM EST

there's a lot of older folks running things w/in the party who may be getting bad advice from younger folks who don't have enough experience. i.e., here's what you need to do to get group x. An example from my world - I hear IT folks wildly over-estimate the amount time things will take to get done when talking to the business folks who don't how a bit of technology really works.


Just the fact that Obama has not (none / 0) (#53)
by Josey on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:25:52 PM EST

specifically denounced Wright's disgusting remarks about Hillary from the pulpit says much about his "unity" mantra.
AND during his Race speech he referenced "Hillary playing the Race Card" which kept that meme alive.


Just the fact that Obama has not (none / 0) (#54)
by Josey on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:25:52 PM EST

I can only guess that if Hillary wins decisively (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by Anne on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:49:50 AM EST

in Pennsylvania, her numbers in these other states are going to keep going up. If that is the case - and I have to also assume that this is what the Clinton campaign is counting on and is one of the reasons she is hanging in there - I think it becomes increasingly difficult for the as-yet-uncommitted superdelegates to get behind Obama - and - I think there might even be some relatively quiet movement away from Obama by those who have announced their support for him.

I think internal polling has to have revealed just such a scenario to the Obama campaign and that is why there has been such an outcry for her to get out before the Pennsylvania primary.

I think what many of us fear is that the Obama campaign seems to be engaged in a campaign to win the battle of the nomination, only to be poised to lose the war of the general election. At some point, if the gap has been narrowed and these two are essentially tied by every other metric, I think it is incumbent upon the superdelegates to save the day - assuming that the goal is to defeat John McCain in November and take back the WH. The majority of Democrats have that as their highest priority, and have indicated they will vote for whichever one is the nominee, even though the blogs are filled with threats of not voting, or voting for McCain. Polling seems to suggest that Obama's support among Republicans and independents is not nearly as solid as Hillary's base, and that he is not closing the deal in the demographics that decide elections.

I also think it is important to remember that if Hillary is the nominee, Barack Obama and those public figures who have been supporting him, will have a choice to make that will determine whether the party fractures and hands victory to McCain, or whether it comes together and gets behind the nominee. I have to believe that if Barack Obama goes out among the groups that have been his strongest supporters and urges them to vote for Hillary, that most of them will. If, on the other hand, he chooses to retreat with his bat and his ball, we will know for certain that this was never about us, but about him.

Given the comments that Hillary has been making and continues to make about party unity, I have no doubt that if she is not the nominee, she will work as hard to get Obama elected as she has worked for herself, and will rally the party faithful to get fully behind him to defeat John McCain.


I remember during one of the debates (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:14:18 AM EST

Obama's sole electability argument was polling: he beat McCain and he had lower "negatives" than Clinton.

Now that Clinton is beating McCain and Obama's negatives are on par with hers, I wonder why he still believes he is electable?

: The other thing is his good judgment! (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:22:30 AM EST

This poll is the reason that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by TalkRight on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:22:23 AM EST

want Hillary to Quit NOW! otherwise it will be too late.. and every SD will know the truth that he just cannot clinch the GE. People no longer see him the Uniter, or the "new kind of Politics", turns out to be more an appeasing candidate, and his white support has started to erode (not significantly but still by margins that have started to appear more apparent)

Elections in the subsequent states will validate the doubts that Obama can win against Republicans ..

Lets let the primary process complete ...

: Trifecta and exacta. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:26:32 AM EST

Bingo. It's scam.

: Particularly if all Obama can (none / 0) (#75)
by hairspray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:31:37 PM EST

bring in are the GOP and Independents who may not vote for him in the November election. One thing I am certain of is that the latino vote which has been weak and sporadic in many southwestern states will probably not show up if Hillary is not the nominee. There is real devotion there for the Clintons and while Axelrod can turn the AA's away from the Clintons, he cannot do so well with the Latinos.

Lord almighty. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Radix on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:30:09 AM EST

Why not just say "the stupid"? Geez, what a crappy way of describing HRC's support. Even when she gets good news, it described down.

Turn it around: isn't it remarkable that (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:22 AM EST

a WOMAN does so well in that demographic?
She's not getting knee jerk support, IMO---she's convinced these people that she is on their side, because she's strong on the economy.


Agreed..But (none / 0) (#24)
by Radix on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM EST

that's not how it was described. "We" have to come to that conclusion. The way it was written was terrible.


Lots of blue-collar Ph.D's like Hillary too! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:52:43 AM EST

: I'm sure if they had bothered (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Radix on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:02:09 PM EST

to include "educated" in their poll break down, they would have used white as an identifier. Just so we would know that Hill has the racist vote sewn up.

I am tired of it. (5.00 / 6) (#23)
by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:45:12 AM EST

I am not stupid and I am not uneducated and I am not poor and I am not voting for Hillary "just" because she has a vagina and I am not a racist. I'm a middle-class voter who believes in core Democratic values.

I used to be considered the base of the party!

And I did not vote for Ronald Reagan or ANY Republican President, nor will I ever do so.

The stupidity and vapidity of the pundit class is staggering.


I feel the same... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Dave B on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:50:42 AM EST

Out with the old base, in with the new I guess.


Me, too. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:53:31 AM EST

: Amen (none / 0) (#71)
by Claw on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:22:32 PM EST

I support Obama. I am not a sexist, do not drive a Prius or drink lattes, and am not voting for him because he's black. I think everyone has gotten a little too caught up in labeling the other side.
Vote for Clinton=Racist
Vote for Obama=Sexist

Heh, at least they didn't include (none / 0) (#34)
by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:53:34 AM EST

or specify women there ;)


: Of course not. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:30:04 PM EST

We don't exist and we're not important, apparently...even though we make up 51% of the electorate...;-)

She grew up (none / 0) (#81)
by Donna Darko on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:38:05 PM EST

in a blue collar to middle class suburb. She has blue collar roots in Pennsylvania.


hey BTD or someone (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:48:40 AM EST

I'd like a pro-hillary person good with math to look at it also (cancels out any spin that way)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/2/12432/06181/264/488923

a daily kos diary that did the break down showing that PA could go like texas

IE. Hillary winning pop vote, Obama winning more delegates

Wow! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Dave B on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:52:02 AM EST

What a screwed up way to run a railroad!


Don't think he'd appreciate being (none / 0) (#35)
by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:55:19 AM EST

called a pro-Hillary person.


: really? oh well I haven't been (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:59:28 AM EST

here that long but it seems to be he was pretty Pro-Clinton
if I am wrong I am sorry! I haven't read that much yet and I got the wrong impression!
I just wanted to know how the numbers look and what kinda pro-obama spin there was.
sorry BTD!

I'm not BTD (none / 0) (#42)
by spit on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:19:59 PM EST

but I went and had a look. I don't know about delegate allocations in PA, but we've already seen that it's quite possible for the delegates awarded and the popular vote to be wildly different based on delegate allocations at the district level. The problem IMO is that the diarist is basically just guessing as to how each district will go. Some of it looks justifiable, but it's still based on nothing more than assumption, and it's a hard way to get numbers with any kind of solidity to them.

The diarist makes the assertion, for example, that Clinton will not break 70% in any district. I don't think that's necessarily true, or at least is a pretty big assumption to make. Clinton has broken 70% in districts favorable to her in other states, I believe -- district results are often very heavily skewed.

That said, as speculation, there's nothing wrong with it -- the diarist may well be correct. I just wish more people made clear the assumptions involved in their arguments, instead of acting like they've written an infallible proof.

My copper coinage.


The big (none / 0) (#64)
by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:26:52 PM EST

question for the data... was it based on prior turn out in districts. My guess is ...yes. I have not found a breakdown of district voter increases after March 24th. Although it may be posted somewhere on the net.

The Dem registration is over 4 mil. The areas of the biggest gains ......

The largest percentage gains were concentrated in the Philadelphia suburbs and the state's central region, mostly in counties where Republicans still outnumber Democrats.
Of the more than 8.2 million Pennsylvania voters, more than 120,000 are people who were not previously registered to vote.

Mar 24th numbers


What the elitists failed to take into account (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by athyrio on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:52:29 PM EST

is the fact, that ole school liberals, for the most part, are used to being trashed by the media (aka Fox News) and we are used to the GOP making Liberal a dirty word, which has caused a lot of us to be stubborn in our opinions and also we don't get "converted" very often...We have had to fight alot to have our "liberal values" over the years and so those abilities are honed quite nicely....so (speaking for this liberal only) the more the Obama crowd pushed against Hillary, the more rock solid I became in my support of her...I think that has happened all over this nation and ironically has given her tremendous support overall which will help her in the general election....

: Same for me (none / 0) (#74)
by Tiparillo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:31:09 PM EST

just the other way around.

Principal? (5.00 / 0) (#47)
by Radix on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:03:26 PM EST

He was for decriminalization of pot, then against it. And no I don't buy that a Harvard Law School grad and Law Professor didn't know what that word meant.

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:05:03 PM EST

Obama didn't appeal to polls

No he appealed to David Broder, Chris Matthews, and Tim Russert. After all, "both parties are bad", "if we just work together things will be great", "Social Security must be fixed", and of course, "Hillary Clinton is a dishonest and will say or do anything to win." (And she's "poll driven"!)

Principled positions, all.

x (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by CognitiveDissonance on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:06:12 PM EST

Quite frankly, I don't see any principals that Obama said he had that he has consistently had and not compromised. I could give you a long, long list of what he has compromised on, including his nuclear power bill, his lobbyist bill, and on and on. Then we have all his present votes in the Illinois legislature. And let's not forget Iraq. For someone running on his anti-Iraq stance, he has done nothing but vote for more war since he's been in the Senate. He has constantly talked against the "politics of personal destruction," but that has been his whole MO against Clinton this entire election. Hillary has attacked his positions. He has attacked her personally as a woman and he has used race-baiting against her. Basically, I don't think this man has any principles. If you don't believe me, actually read his "Audacity of Hope" book. YOu're going to be shocked at the vapid nonsense it contains, the total lack of understanding of the history of the past 30 years, and the platitudes he offers as solutions. There is nothing there there.

GO HILLARY (5.00 / 0) (#83)
by Donna Darko on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:40:19 PM EST

Don't stop! We're behind you 100%!

Ahh, Crud (1.00 / 2) (#58)
by Harley on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:21:05 PM EST

You forgot the poll, and the first one, to show Obama leading in Pennsylvania. Or the other polls that show him trending upward. Every single one. Then there's the latest superdelegate pickup. And Bubba's meltdown.

I offer these tidbits only in hopes of letting a little light shine in from the outside world.

Before, of course, heh, you delete that light and pretend it never happened.

"Bubba" (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:25:45 PM EST

That is President Clinton to you.


Regarding President Clinton, (none / 0) (#66)
by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:46:28 PM EST

according to George S on ABC just now, the account was "exaggerated". Funny, wonder if Camp O helped with that lil' "exaggeration"?


Funny (none / 0) (#77)
by 0 politico on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:49:56 PM EST

how Bill's "meltdowns" always appear to be exaggerations.

Also, the polling averages still show OB to be behind in PA. Then add WV, Kent., and now Indiana.


: isn't it though? ;) n/t (none / 0) (#79)
by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:59:17 PM EST

Not a very (none / 0) (#67)
by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:53:07 PM EST

dependable poll...

The latest survey, from Public Policy Polling, actually has Obama ahead by 2 points, although that is well within the poll's margin of error. It's hard to know what to make of this one. Two-and-a-half weeks ago, the same company had Clinton ahead by 26, which is much the largest margin recorded in any Pennsylvania poll in the last few months.

Hasn't Obama calculated he can win (none / 0) (#4)
by Josey on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:06:17 AM EST

"270" without those states?

Well he is leading in PA and OH (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by AF on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:20:36 AM EST

Just not by as much as Hillary. I'd say this poll is pretty good news for Democrats, as well as Hillary.


Not in PA (none / 0) (#21)
by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:19 AM EST

one outlier poll has him slightly leading her. Every other poll has her up by at least 10


AF was referring to the general (none / 0) (#25)
by joc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:47:03 AM EST

Where both Democrats are up against McCain.

I highlight both, because AF's wording reads (to me) as if Hillary was not one. If "as well as" had been "not only" it would have worked better for me.


: Friendly amendment (none / 0) (#41)
by AF on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:12:07 PM EST

Thanks.

Of the four most recent polls (none / 0) (#36)
by riddlerandy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:55:45 AM EST

one has Obama up one point, and the other three has Hillary up between 5, 9 and 12 points. The one showing him up is the most recent. Things are tightening up.


: I found that (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by blogtopus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:28:28 PM EST

spending enormous amounts of money can make a difference.

Up by 10? (none / 0) (#61)
by Publicus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:08:56 PM EST

Don't you mean "down to 10"?

10 or so will not be a win for Clinton.


Some electoral maps (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by joc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:39:03 AM EST

Have a look at these polls which show the 'current' state of the polling in general election match-ups, Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain. These maps don't include today's numbers, but if they did the shift would give the following base numbers for the match-ups (where leaning is a greater than 5% but less than 10% advantage).

Clinton vs. McCain

Electoral votes from states leaning or solidly Dem: 217
Electoral votes from states leaning or solidly Rep: 185
Electoral votes from swing states: 136

Obama vs. McCain

Electoral votes from states leaning or solidly Dem: 192
Electoral votes from states leaning or solidly Rep: 208
Electoral votes from swing states: 138

If McCain were to win PA and OH (which are in the swing category given today's polls), he would go into the race with about 249 electoral votes in his pocket. So, is it possible that Obama could still top 270? Yes, but it would be an uphill battle. Clinton's advantage over McCain makes it much easier for her.

Granted these are polls in March/April, and things will certainly change, but Obama doesn't want to be the one using the electoral map to justify why he should be the nominee.


I think his calculation (none / 0) (#10)
by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:14:30 AM EST

includes states like NV, VA, OH, NH (which has recently turned away from "Leans Democratic" to "Toss Up"), and MO (where he is losing ground fast).


Say...... (none / 0) (#18)
by Publicus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:27:11 AM EST

Isn't this the same topic you posted two down? Is there something new I'm missing?

Interesting they cite Ferraro. (none / 0) (#30)
by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST

Bingo ! (none / 0) (#76)
by hairspray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:43:19 PM EST

: Netroots (none / 0) (#82)
by Donna Darko on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:39:21 PM EST

I thought the netroots was full of these kinds of experts.

When Obama Falls Flat, (none / 0) (#86)
by bob h on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:23:03 AM EST

it is always described as "not yet having closed the sale", as though the sale must be inevitable.