Hillary with a 12 point spread over Obama

[hell-bent]

in the latest Pennsylvania poll by Survey,USA. Now her average lead is 14 points according the Real Clear Politics. This lead if it holds will cut deeply in BO's lead in the popular vote. How do you think the SDs will look at this if she happens to end up with the most popular votes?http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

[CountAllVotes]

1. is this a "wide stance"?

:evilgrin:

[hell-bent]

12. Is your comment an "out of body" experience?

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rodeodance]

10. Silly--this is how threads work--Go post the one you are crying about.

[NoodleyAppendage]

11. Ah...Rodeodance. How I miss your pithy retorts. n/t

J

[rodeodance]

17. I do not miss your hillary hate

[mkultra]

61. Hes only a ghost that says "IgnooOOOoooooored"

[MadBadger]

3. Actually, its 14.2 now, and her lead has closed from 19 points in that SUSA poll

Nice spin though.

[Adelante]

42. Geographics are interesting

Exclusive Poll: Clinton's Lead Shrinks In Pa.

-snip

In southeast Pennsylvania, which includes Philadelphia and makes up 43 percent of likely Democratic voters, the candidates have traded places: Clinton had been up two points but is now down three. In southwest Pennsylvania, which includes Pittsburgh, Clinton had led by 31, but now is at 17, a 14-point swing to Obama.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/15759420/detail.html


Also interesting, on the issue of Terrorism, he's climbed 25 points in a month.




I wonder what that relates to?

[LakeSamish706]

4. We have 3 weeks to go, so I doubt that the lead will even hold up (if true in the first place). n/t

[olkaz]

5. The SD's are ready to finish this thing.

Pennsylvania isn't enough, even if Hillary wins it big.

But keep it up, it's going to make the concession speech more interesting.

[Adelante]

6. 12 points is great

He just needs a few more to get into single digits and survive PA respectably even if he doesn't win it. Rasmussen has that 12 points down to 5 points today, so he may already be where he needed to be by primary day. And if he is, baby, look out!

[rodeodance]

7. K and R

[gabeana]

20. Why are you K and R

this is not good for Hillary?

her lead dropped 7 points since the last poll

If I was you I would try to ignore it

[rodeodance]

57. because I wanted to

[snooper2]

26. Here rodeodance...

I'll K&R it for you


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Cant trust em]

8. He keeps chipping into that lead.

It was a few points higher than that last week.

[meow mix]

9. 12? More bad news for Hillary, Thanks for the Great post!! K&R

:rofl:

[hell-bent]

16. No, thank you for your rather inane

post. The average according to RCP is 14! You Obama surrogates just don't like to hear any bad news for the Messiah,right? :>)P.S. Go change the cat litter, I can detect an odor through the Internet,eh. Cheers!

[slinkerwink]

31. She has to win by 20 points to gain ten delegates out of Pennsylvania

to counteract Obama's lead of 169 delegates,

[FatDave]

35. See a trend?

And umm, he didn't even start campaigning in Pennsylvania until friday.

[ekwhite]

48. It's interesting how much the two poll aggregating sites differ

Pollster.com has her leading 51.4% to 40.2%, an 11-point spread, while RCP has her leading 52.0% to 37.8%, a 14-point spread. RCP takes an average of the last 5 polls. I am not certain of the methodology of Pollster.com. Would any math geeks out there care to comment?

[bhikkhu]

69. Taking the average of 5 polls reduces the margin of error

Every poll has an assumed range of possible error. By lumping polls together you can effectively increase the sample size and so decrease the error.

Where polls are taken over a time period, this also has the effect of flattening trends out. That is, a candidate's popularity can be rising or falling for a time before it is clear in an averaged number.

[TheDoorbellRang]

13. Here's an odd factoid from SUSA's explanation of the pop. sample

"The survey data was collected from March 29 to March 31 in Pennsylvania. Of the 1,600 Pennsylvania adults interviewed, 1,405 of them were registered to vote."

I thought cut-off date for vote registration was March 24th? So how were 195 of those surveyed -- 12% of the sample -- considered as likely voters?

Anybody got any ideas on this?

[democrattotheend]

15. I think they eliminate the people who are not registered

I believe that if someone is not registered, they either stop the interview or don't use the data. They screen for registration at the beginning of the poll. That's why the number of people interviewed is usually larger than the sample size. The sample size for the poll is probably around 500.

[TheDoorbellRang]

21. Ah, that's reassuring

Oddly, RealClearPolitics doesn't list the sample size with the SUSA survey. It just says "LV."

[ekwhite]

45. That is one of the reasons I prefer Pollster.com

Here is a link to the PA polls.

Edit: You actually have to go to the SUSA site to get the number of likely voters they selected. They selected 588 likely voters out of 1600 surveyed.

[TheDoorbellRang]

50. Thanks for the link and the explanation

A little more insight into the mysterious world of pollsters.:-)

[ekwhite]

49. See my post above

They selected 588 Likely Voters out of that sample. The key to the accuracy of any of these polls is how they select Likely Voters. Those formulas, AFAIK, are proprietary to the pollsters.

[democrattotheend]

14. Down from 19 in the same poll 2 weeks ago

Not too shabby, IMO! If he can cut that down 4 more points he's in great shape.

[backscatter712]

18. 12 isn't enough.

Even back in Ohio and Texas, she needed to win both states by landslides, but didn't.

The margin of victory would have to be pretty damned extreme just for Hillary to put a dent in Obama's delegate lead.

12 isn't enough to do that - she'll have to win by at least 30 points to reduce the delegate lead and reclaim some media buzz. If she can't pull that off, she's toast.

When Oregon and Kentucky have their contests on May 20th, that's when Obama will cross the magic threshold of 1627 pledged delegates, thus claiming the majority and making it mathematically impossible for Hillary to catch up. I highly doubt that Hillary will be able to convince the superdelegates to override that - in fact, that's probably when they'll jump to Obama en-masse - none of the superdelegates wants to be number 2025 when it takes 2024 for a victory.

[hell-bent]

22. Since you BO surrogates like to throw around present

and past point spreads, let's take a look at the Democratic Nomination polls. Presently, Obama has a +2.6 spread over Hillary; however, back on 3-22 Pew Research had him with a +10, and on 3-16 CNN and USAToday-Gallup poll both had BO with a +7 spread. My, have things gone astray in his campaign? :rofl:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

[democrattotheend]

23. Pew was one poll, and probably an outlier

But yes, the national tracking polls seem to have tightened a bit over the past day or two, probably because the press got tired of talking about Clinton lying about Bosnia and seem to find Obama's lack of bowling skills more interesting.

[hell-bent]

27. Well, how long did you expect to milk that

story? Just like a cow, only so much milk in a given period.

[backscatter712]

39. My respect for people in general may go down a notch.

What kind of idiot would vote against Obama just because he isn't good at bowling?

They stop running Tuzlagate, and run that clip of him bowling a 37. And the polls actually close up?

Never underestimate the amount of idiocy in this world...

[ekwhite]

51. From looking at the trend in the link to RCP you posted

Obama has leveled off at about 3% above Clinton in the national polls. It appears there was a blip in February where Obama led by 7%, but now it is back to where it was before. I would say that Pollster's trend shows a tendency for them to merge together more. The bottom line is that both of them are very close in the national polls.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. I heard the latest criteria is rally turn-out. The super delegates will be going over photos, video

and news reports to determine who had the most people turn out to see them.

Then they will use that information in considering who to vote for. I think it's why Barack keeps getting the lion's share of the supers. It's those big rallies and speeches. That's what the Supers really care about.

i just don't see Hillary catching up in the number of people who show up.

And everyone knows that's the most important criteria. I mean other than the amount of elected pledged delegates a candidate has won.

[grantcart]

24. and what did Survey USA have before ??

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Keep dreaming

[Milo_Bloom]

28. 12 points isn't even close to enough...

She would need, at minimum a 20 point victory to even begin to swing opinions, since she is expected to win big here... anything under 10 points and she is completely done.

[hell-bent]

29. I'll bet the Hillary fans don't have the monopoly

on dreaming! It appears to some that BO's total campaign is based on dreaming and hope. Nice man,excellent orator, AND?

[Hepburn]

33. And???

His not that lying piece of shit Hillary Clinton. IMO, he needs nothing more in my book than NOT being Hillary to get my support.

JMHO

[olkaz]

37. I don't agree with you, but...

Almost all of the Democrats and independents I know say that. There is a deep, deep rift here.

[hell-bent]

44. Thank you for your nice, pleasant reply about the former First Lady.

Aren't those Scotties rather nasty, little canines? Perhaps, that is why some individuals have them as pets,right?

[ekwhite]

55. Let's keep it civil here, por favor

We can discuss the polling data, but insulting Senator Clinton doesn't help us a bit.

[RiverStone]

30. Ask the same question after North Carolina....

My guess is at worst, it will be close to a wash - at best, Obama grows his lead when you combine both states voting totals.

[goldcanyonaz]

36. When was the last time a Democrat won North Carolina in the GE?

It was in 1976, by Carter. Never once since.

[GoneOffShore]

32. Let's see - Rasmussen has a slightly different pic, bucko.

Rasmussen Reports Pennsylvania: Clinton 47% Obama 42%

Senator Hillary Clinton's lead in the Pennsylvania Primary is shrinking.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania shows Clinton leading Barack Obama by just five percentage points, 47% to 42%. For Clinton, that five-point edge is down from a ten-point lead a week ago, a thirteen-point lead in mid-March and a fifteen-point advantage in early March.

Support for Clinton slipped from 52% early in March, to 51% in mid-month, 49% a week ago, and 47% today. During that same time frame, support for Obama has increased from 37% to 42%.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080401/pl_rasmussen/paprimary20080401

Of course, after 22 April and Hillary's loss here -

Pennsylvania Won't Matter!

:rofl:

Oh, yes and then there's Texas

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
NBC News has allocated the remaining nine Texas caucus delegates, 7-2, in favor of Obama. That means the Illinois senator has won the most delegates, 99-94, as a result of both the Texas primary and caucuses.

Obama now leads by 129 in the overall delegate count, 1637-1508. Obama leads by 162 pledged delegates, 1415-1253. (There remains just one delegate unallocated from Democrats Abroad.) Clinton leads among superdelegates, 255-222, per the NBC News Political Unit count.

Also note, the Obama campaign has passed around that it has picked up two delegates in Mississippi, showing Obama with a 20-13 lead. NBC News' count remains 19-14 for Obama so far.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/01/846611.aspx

[hell-bent]

46. Little Beaver, I now understand how you Obama surrogates

think what is a democratic voting process. It's not what the majority of voters in Texas wanted as their nominee; it is how clever and shrewd the Obama people are in acquiring the delegates, right? 100,000+ more voters wanted Hillary to be the nominee in Texas, but oh no it's the fucking caucus voters that should decide who the nominee is in Denver. Now, that's democracy in action!!!!! Screw the working people that couldn't attend, and screw those elderly voters that didn't want to be subjected to the bickering(reported fist fights in Texas)and harassment. P.S. Hillary still leads in Pennsylvania by 14 points as an average according to RCP. So sorry.....

[GoneOffShore]

58. Dream on -

And why are you so happy to sell yourself out to corporatists like Hillsnbill?

I just don't get it.

Billsnhill have proven time and again that they are far more interested in the corporations than people like you and me. Plus all that DOMA stuff and that pesky Telecommunications Act which allowed Rupert an even bigger share in the media markets.

Do you like getting screwed by the DLC?


:shrug:

[ekwhite]

60. Your tone is starting to get a bit nasty sir.

Can the f-word please. Under the Democratic Party and state rules, it is the pledged delegates, not the popular vote, that decides. You have pointed out some valid concerns that should be discussed before the 2008 campaign. But for now, the rules are the rules. We can't change them when the campaign is 80% over.

As far as the popular vote, Obama currently leads in the popular vote and pledged delegates nationwide, even when you add in Michigan and Florida. Even if he did not lead, comparing caucus states to primary states is difficult, considering the different nature of the processes.

As to whether caucuses are more or less democratic than primaries, that is a valid point for discussion within the party. On one hand, primaries are easier to vote in and sample the voice of a larger portion of the population. Caucuses, on the other hand reward organizational skills and commitment to your candidate. To be honest, I would prefer if we had decided to hold primaries up front, but it is too late to do anything about it now.

[ekwhite]

56. I would call Rassmussen an outlier.

Unless it is supported by another poll in that range. Right now, I would guess Senator Clinton's lead to be somewhere around 10%

[CTD]

34. She needs to win by 50+% to stay alive mathematically. 75+% of the vote.

Winning by 12 or 14% won't do it.

[hell-bent]

41. Well, let's consider another scenario.

If she wins Pennsylvania by 10% points(as she did in Ohio)and 3 million votes are cast; then, she would have 300,000 more popular votes from this contest than BO. Counting Florida,(since his name was on the ballot, and I saw his ads on TV)his lead in the popular vote is now down to 232,536 including the caucus states. I believe she can overcome that lead in Kentucky, Indiana, and a few other states. Check out the facts on: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html Screw the delegate lead from the "stinking caucuses" because the total popular vote will count the most. Isn't that the most democratic determiner?

[CTD]

54. Which could be called the "Changing the rules in the middle of the game" scenario

Just like the popular vote does not elect a president in the general election, the popular vote is irrelevant in the primaries.

But you knew that.

If the rules going in said "popular vote", both candidates would have waged vastly different campaigns.

You can tell the loser by who is trying to change the determinant of victory.

[ekwhite]

62. No it isn't

Because you are proposing we change the rules after 80% of the primary is over. That is patently unfair and undemocratic. That is telling the caucus states that we don't care what they think.

[hell-bent]

68. Sir, I appreciate your civil tone. However,

you talk about changing the rules in midstream. So, from what I understand about the role of the super delegates and why they were put into place gives them the discretion to vote for a nominee without any binding primary results. They are free to vote for the person that will give the Party the best chance to win in the GE. It may be that they will see the caucuses as being innately undemocratic and not representing the will of the voters. Say like the state of Wyoming, which Obama won by 1400+ votes. Or, like Hillary getting more votes from the people in Texas and Nevada and not receiving as many delegates. Or, they may look at which states the candidates won and determine which can be in the win column in November. I am sure you wouldn't want to change the rules governing those SDs and how they should vote now,right? I wonder if Kerry and Kennedy are obligated to vote for Hillary as she took their state easily? I am sure if the super delegates choose Hillary per the present rules you Obama supporters will accept the results. Yes, we can't change the rules to fit our desires. P.S. Sometimes the F-bomb is such a tension and anger releasing word. :>)

The Democratic Party established this system in part in response to the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. McGovern took only one state and had only 37.5 percent of the popular vote. Then in 1976, Jimmy Carter was a dark-horse candidate with little national experience.

The purpose of the super-delegate system is to act as a check on ideologically extreme or inexperienced candidates. It also gives power to people who have a vested interested in party policies: elected leaders. Because the primary and caucus voters do not have to be active members of the party (in New Hampshire they can sign up and sign out going-and-coming at the polls), the super-delegate system has been called a safety-value."

SOURCE:http://uspolitics.about.com/od/2008elections/tp/
super_delegates.htm

Sorry, those are the rules for the super-delegates......Can't change them now in mid-stream!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

38. Even if she does win by 14 points, Obama will still have 400-500k votes more than her

She needs to win by 30 points in every remaining state, including Pennsylvania, just to tie up the pledged delegate count.

[hell-bent]

43. Excuse me, you had better check my last post.

Hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters including myself wanted Hillary over Obama in the state of Florida. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[SeaLyons]

40. K&R

Go Hillary

:kick:

[TheWraith]

47. You do know that she can't end up with the popular vote lead, right?

She'd have to win, well, pretty much every remaining state by 30 points in order to do that.

[hell-bent]

67. Well, one columnist at U.S. News and World Report thinks

she can.......http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/4/1/defending-my-projection-clinton-can-win-the-popular-vote.html So do I and other political pundits.

[DemGa]

52. The Obama's say "who needs PA, OH, FLA?" --- NT

[krawhitham]

53. ONLY a 5 point lead in PA

Rasmussen 47 - 42

[RamboLiberal]

59. Obama's now grabbed Men in PA and in SW PA 14 Point Swing

This is SurveyUSA from KDKA TV station in Pittsburgh.

But, compared to our poll conducted three weeks ago, Clinton is down two points and Obama is up five points, almost entirely because of a switch of men to the Obama camp.

Clinton had led by 19, but that lead has now narrowed to 12.

When it comes to support from men, Clinton had led by 5, now trails by 7, which is a 12-point swing to Obama.

-----

Among voters under 50, Clinton had led by 12, now leads by 2, a 10-point swing to Obama.

In Southwest Pa., which includes Pittsburgh, Clinton had led by 31, now by 17, a 14-point swing to Obama.

Among Conservative Democrats, and among Pro-Life Democrats, there is movement to Obama.

http://kdka.com/local/KDKA.poll.campaign.2.689536.html

My area of PA was supposed to be one of her bastions. I think as voters are getting to know him here they are liking him.

[MethuenProgressive]

63. "Obama's now grabbed Men in PA" He'll do anything, *anything* to win.

Including grabbing men in PA.





















:rofl:

[book_worm]

64. It's five in Rasmussen but I think she'll win PA overwhelmingly.

[FlyingSquirrel]

65. Bad news for Hillary, really.

'Cause what happens if all the polls show her with a 12-14 point lead and then she only wins the state 53-47?

It'll be spun as a late surge for Obama. You might even hear his campaign utter the words, "Buyer's remorse."

:think:

[GoesTo11]

66. What if she ends up w/most popular votes?

There are so many ways of counting things here. Count FL & MI w/no MI votes for O, don't count them. Count caucus votes 1 for 1 with primary votes, count them as more, don't count them at all.

If there was one unique definition for ending up with the most popular votes, and she won on that definition, then I could see this having significant weight. Or if she won under all possible definitions.

In reality, if things go really well for her, she might win popular vote according to the definition that is most favorable to her, but O would win popular vote using other definitions. Then that consideration becomes just noise, and we're back with delegates, or who won the most big states or states starting with N or whatever.