Clinton rising: gains 7 and 5 points in two new PA polls despite being outspent 3:1

[jackson_dem]

Obama was rapidly gaining again due to flooding the airwaves with ads but 1) Clinton got on the air about a week ago (although at a much lower rate) 2) at some point you "max out" of what you can get solely from ads. The people most swayed by ads switch early and that is reflected immediately in polls. We saw this with Obama in Ohio and Texas, as well as with Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney skyrocketed into the lead in both IA and NH in the middle of 2007 when he flooded those states with ads but then hit a ceiling of 30-35% and never got higher than that, despite outspending his opponents by obscene amounts the race of the way.

Eight PA polls have come out in the last two days: 4 show Clinton gaining, one showed no change, and three showed Obama gaining only 3, which is within the margin of error. It is clear that Obama's momentum in PA has stalled. The classic Obamite spin is "he was down 20" a few weeks ago. That is misleading in two ways. At worst he was about 15 points down in the poll average in March. The "20" comes from cherry picking the worst polls for him. Moreover that conveniently ignores that Obama pulled within 4-6 points in Pennsylvania before falling back after losing Ohio and Texas. You can spin it based on which data point you cherry pick. Either he has made a heruclaen comeback from 20 points down by cherry picking the worst March polls for him and then, perversely, cherry picking his best April poll or you can say he is now right back where he was at the end of February. In the end none of this spin will matter. If the "inevitable" Obama loses Pennsylvania that will be a key moment in the race and put an exclamation point on Clinton's big swing state argument, especially since Obama is managing to lose these states with 3:1 spending advantages and the msm behind him. What would he do in the general, especially without the msm? Or so that will by the Clinton argument to superdelegates.

The polls

PPP

Previous: Obama 45, Clinton 43
Current: Clinton 46, Obama 43 (net gain of 5 for Clinton)

This is the only firm that ever had Obama leading. No more.

Obama is at 36% with whites. This is very dangerous for Obama because a narrative could emerge that he can't do well with white voters. No Democrat since LBJ has won the white vote and that will not change in 2008. However, for any Democrat to have a shot at winning h/she will need to get a decent share of the white vote due to its massive size (about three out of four voters). There was a thread up yesterday hailing how great it would be if Obama got 27-30% of the white vote in the general election. :wtf: Mondale got 37%. You remember what happened to him, even with 90% of the black vote and a majority of the Latino vote? He won one state--his home state.

Obamites will respond to this by cherry picking a few states, especially sham caucus states. First, there will be no sham caucuses in the general election with 1.9% turnout. Secondly the cherry picking is again revealing. It indicates an overall weakness. The fact is Obama has lost the white vote nationally, just as he has lost the Latino, Asian, and Native American vote. Use common sense and do the math. His popular vote lead, excluding FL and MI, is 2.6%. He wins black voters 85-15 and recently did so 90-10 in the last primary (during Ferrarogate). 85% of 20% is 17%. He gets a net 14% from his ethnic group alone. Do the math. That means he loses everyone else by 11%...Why does this matter? Primary demographics are not general election demographics (this holds for both parties. The Rethug primaries are almost all white). The black share of the general election is half of what it is in the primaries. This is something superdelegates are aware of and Obama has to have a respectable showing with whites in Pennsylvania, even if he loses. If he can get something like 45% that would be a "win" in a way as far as the superdelegate wars go.

I understand this is disconcerting to many and for other Obamites it is an easy opportunity to play the race card but we can't bury our head into the sand and impose a de facto gag order enforced by an Obamite mob on an issue that is crucial to how superdelegates will decide this. Let's face it: Clinton's electability argument is twofold, 1) she wins the key swing states 2) she can win whites and win a substantially higher percentage of Latinos than Obama.

-snip- (Political Insider)

"Clinton has moved back into the lead in Pennsylvania after trailing by two points in our poll last week. Still, this result is further confirmation that it's likely to be a close race in the Keystone state."

Key finding: "Clinton's rebound in the last week has come almost entirely from improving her standing with her core demographics of women, whites, and senior citizens. Her lead with woman went from 10 points to 16, with white voters it went from 11 to 17, and with voters over 65 from 16 to 21."

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_040908.pdf

PPP is the only firm that ever had Obama leading in Pennsylvania. No more.

InsiderAdvantage

Previous: Clinton 45, Obama 42
Current: Clinton 48, Obama 38 (net gain of 7 for Clinton)

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_49_328.aspx

This polls is even scarier for Obama. He gets a scant 33% of the white vote. That is Jesse Jackson territory, and this was a big reason Jackson was not given the VP position he otherwise probably would have gotten. He also sucks with women (30%) and seniors (30%). Women are the majority of voters. No Democrat is going to win the White House without comfortably carrying the female vote.

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/downloads/uploaded/38_InsiderAdvantage_Majority%20Opinion%20PA%20DEM%20Poll%20_(4-9-2008).pdf

[GarbagemanLB]

1. and yet Hillary still has no shot at winning the primary...

[jackson_dem]

3. Superdelegates are unaware of this netroots "fact"

They could end this tomorrow if they got behind O. ;)

[GarbagemanLB]

8. and allow Hillary a chance to scream that she is being 'forced out'? Not a chance. They will announc

e after the last primary has been done, and Obama will still have a nice lead in delegates.

[Hawkeye-X]

9. SD's could end it today if it wasn't for Clinton threatening them..

:eyes:

[rodeodance]

39. you folks do go for overkill. She is telling them the facts--not Threatening!==how silly of you.

[Texas Hill Country]

10. they dont get behind obama because they wanna see what happens in PA

if he get like 30-35% of the white vote and that's all... you are gonna see a lot of hillary endorsements.



Its about winning the white house. that's the game.

[GarbagemanLB]

13. and you can't do that with a dramatic drop in black and young support. No overturning of the pledged

delegates here, sorry Hillary! Try again in 2016.

[Texas Hill Country]

24. you guys are hilarious.

[GarbagemanLB]

26. LOL. Do you argue that there won't be a decrease in the black and youth vote? Especially if the SDs

give the nomination to the person who didn't gain the most pledged delegates?

[Texas Hill Country]

52. I will say this... I would bet you will see a decrease in both demographics by November

especially in the youth vote.

[jackson_dem]

28. True but the data shows there will not be a dramatic drop in these groups if Hill wins

[GarbagemanLB]

33. Oh, you mean one poll? lol. Yeah, just watch the SDs go AGAINST the pledged delegate winner and forc

e out the first black person with a shot at the presidency. Yeah, that'll go over real well. :rofl: :rofl:

[jackson_dem]

70. And? So they will vote for McSame? Clinton has the same policies toward black issues that Obama has

[lastliberalintexas]

40. Actually, both parties usually win elections without the youth vote

I agree that Dems need the Black vote to win, but we don't necessarily need the youth vote. It would be nice, but since the youth rarely vote they have pushed themselves into demographic irrelevance.

Yes, I know that some 18 year olds vote, and I was one of them not too many years ago. But not like the 67 year olds vote.

[GarbagemanLB]

41. The numbers show a record turnout, and a turnout that is 2-1 in favor of Obama. Their energy and

enthusiasm will help a lot in terms of volunteering for the GE.

[lastliberalintexas]

46. I agree, if they hold on and continue to support him

The youth vote is quite fickle, though, so you never know. And again, I would love to see a much higher than normal turnout in the GE from those under 40 even, I just don't know if it will actually happen, and we don't really need it to win. That's all.

[jackson_dem]

71. Yes, and they will be voting for Clinton if she is the nominee

[Hawkeye-X]

15. Since Super Tuesday, Clinton has NEGATIVE 1 SD endorsements

and that has been over a month, and Obama has over 70. Your point?

[GarbagemanLB]

20. i think it is -4.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

43. The white vote doesn't MATTER at this point

because this is not the general. Just because some white democrats will vote for Clinton over Obama does not mean they'll vote for McCain in the general. They will support whoever the nominee is in order to avoid a continuation of the Republican legacy. No matter what the spin may be from the pundits or Hillary supporters, Obama will not lose the general. Why do you think the Republicans are pushing so hard for Hillary to take the primary?

I hear a lot of strange things on this forum, but let's look it it all rationally. 80% of America thinks the Republicans have taken us down the wrong path. Do you seriously think they're going to give the keys to a Republican -- or to someone who has endorsed the Bush foreign policy? Do you think they're going to turn over the economy to a guy who claims to know nothing about economics?

People need to step back for a moment and take a deep breath. When you look at the WHOLE picture, objectively, it's fairly obvious that, barring a major disaster, Obama is our next President.

[lastliberalintexas]

50. But that's also true of the Black vote if Clinton wins

Blacks aren't going to vote for the republican either. It's disingenuous of either side to argue that their candidate is the only one who can keep the traditional Dem strongholds coming to the polls.

[jackson_dem]

74. A loss of an extra 10% matters

Especially regarding the white vote. Whites are something like 65% of the Democratic Party. Lose 10% of that and you lose 6.5% of your base. Where does Obama make it up? The most he can realistically gain with blacks is to go from Kerry's 89% to 95%. 6% of 10% of the electorate is 0.6%. Where does Obama make up the lost ground? Latinos? Hell no. He will lose far more Latino votes than Clinton against McSame. This would not be the case against Romney or Huckabee but it will be against McSame.

[jackson_dem]

72. Polls show 20-23% of white Dems will vote against Obama. You do the math

These are Mondaleeqsue numbers.

[Moochy]

79. Sounds a bit more David Dukesque

[Clintonista2]

12. Wrong

They could end this TODAY if they got behind O. Funny how Obama supporters always tend to ignore that simple truth.

[goldcanyonaz]

2. YAY!!

[Texas Hill Country]

4. eye opening. thank you.

[Hawkeye-X]

5. I checked PPP. Their margin of error is 2.9%

It's a dead heat. Clinton started PA with 20% lead. The trend is leading Obama, not Clinton. Sorry, jackson_dem, but what you are spouting is total bullshit.

Hawkeye-X

[Texas Hill Country]

14. which cuts both ways Hawkeye... but other polls have HUGE differences, this one is the closest.

[Hawkeye-X]

54. OK, exploring PPP's last release before this one..

Obama 45-43 (4/2)
Clinton 53-30 (3/15)

I'd say the margin of error is pointing Obama's way. It could still very well be 45-43 Obama.

Hawkeye-X

[Jane Austin]

6. About Obama and white voters - keep in mind that Bill Clinton

got only 36% of white men the first time and 38% in 1996.

I believe Dukakis got only 37% of white men.

I'm working from memory here, but I heard this on Rachel Maddow's show.

I think it's Democrats in general who haven't done well with white men in the recent past.

[jackson_dem]

Yeah, with perot taking 20-25% in a three candidate race

Maddow is being misleading. Clinton got 43% of the white vote to 46% for Dole and won big. The minimum you need to win is about 42%, which is what Gore got.

White women are more important a voting group for Dems than white men. That is a group we must win, like Clinton did, if we are to win the general. Obama does far worse with white women than white men...As to white men we won't win them but if we win only 27-30%, even under a rosy scenario where Obama takes 45% of white women, 70% of Latinos, 63% of Asians he loses by 12 points...

[jbnow]

42. That's between Democrats where Clinton wins white women

Do you think they will go to McCain or that a white man would steal female votes from Clinton in the primary?

Among Independent women he is much stronger against McCain than Clinton is.
For instance here http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254

They both get more Independent women than McCain does but Obama's margin is 57-37 (up 20) while Clinton's is 50-47 (up 3)
Then the fact that she loses so badly among Independent men is what hurts. McCain beats both in that category but Obama is down 3, 44-47 while Clinton is down 13, 39-52

[galaxy21]

17. So, 2/3 of white men picked Bob Dole or Perot?!

But Bill was so cool!

[jackson_dem]

27. That means he basically got as much as Bush did

While beating him among blacks, white women, Latinos. What Bill did was damn good. Keep in mind no Dem has won the white vote since LBJ. The closest was Clinton in 96' when he lost that group by only 3% and won by 8% nationally.

[woolldog]

18. jd is conflating the "white vote" with the "white male vote" in his OP.

[ericgtr]

7. Tomorrow's news - If he doesn't win by 20 points in PA it's over

eom

[MADem]

11. Theme prediction for this forum's analysis of PA results....

If Obama wins PA, the reason will be because "PA is turning BLUE for REAL! Hope!!! CHANGE!!! Kool Aid!"

If Clinton wins PA, the reason will be because "Republicans switched parties to vote for her; it's all about RushBo's CHAOS!"

It is written!!!

[goldcanyonaz]

21. Or Diebold if Clinton wins. Diebold is only a factor when Clinton wins.

[MADem]

23. Recount, recount, recount! Cheeeeeeeet, cheat, cheat!!!!

Then it's all "Oh, they must have screwed with the ballots" when the margin gets bigger, not smaller....

[Cant trust em]

51. Like the Clintophiles are any better

"Caucuses are so undemocratic." I didn't hear any complaining about them before Obama started winning them.

Disclaimer - when I say Clintophiles, I don't mean all of her supporters. Just the partisan apologists.

[MADem]

57. Well, caucuses ARE undemocratic. If you are a shift worker, elderly, in hospital, or deployed on

active duty.

So your example isn't very good, now, is it?

If you "didn't hear any complaining" before Obama hit the scene, then you were brain-dead or at least VERY inattentive when Dean was running. He was getting his ass handed to him for saying, in a Canadian TV interview that, er, caucuses were so undemocratic.

It helped to FUCK him in Iowa.

[Cant trust em]

60. Different people may have been complaining about it in 2004, but

they sure weren't in 2008 until a pattern started forming. Only when Clinton wasn't doing well did those arguments start to resurface. I'm not posting about being in favor of caucuses or not, but if people are going to complain about the rules to the game then you have to do it before the game starts.

We can talk about the merits of caucuses on another thread.

[MADem]

61. Well, I heard people griping about them four years ago, and before the first one kicked off.

They are stupid, and they are undemocratic. If you're from a caucus state, and deployed overseas or at sea, or if you're old in a nursing home, or forced to work the midshift at your job, you're fucked. Don't like it? Tough shit. You're disenfranchised, you don't count. No matter how much you "care."

That is just fact.

You brought it up, the gripe that they're "undemocratic." You averred that it was less than factual.

And now you don't want to address the reasons that they are undemocratic.

Fine. Whatever.

The fact remains, they actually are undemocratic. Unless we're redefining the word.

[Cant trust em]

62. I didn't say that I didn't care. I'm more than willing to talk about it.

It's just not the point that I raised with my original post. I'm not even defending caucusing. It just seems silly to me that some people seem to be up in arms about something that they wouldn't be up in arms about if it weren't their candidate that was losing. You seem to have been on top of this from before this cycle, before Clinton, so I'm not really talking about you.

[jackson_dem]

30. Yeah they are already claiming PA is rigged!

Although Wisconsin, where the gov. supported O and all the polls had Hill within 4-5, was kosher even though Obama found an extra 12-13% on election day. :crazy:

[Cant trust em]

22. or Clinton has had a lead here since, like, forever.

It would take a force of nature for Obama to have overcome that. If he's even within striking distance, it's a win. That's something Obama himself has said.

[jackson_dem]

31. It took 22 replies for this. Read the OP. Obama pulled within 4-6 before he lost Texas and Ohio

Had he not choked in Texas he would probably be ahead in Pennsylvania now...

[Cant trust em]

47. Obama choke, or Operation Kitchen Sink?

Why are you posts so negative?

Essentially Hillary Clinton threw the haymaker at Obama, temporarily stunned him and now he's back. In the meantime we've even seen pastorgate, which was supposed to derail the campaign completely. Instead he seems to have turned the situation into lemonade.

[PetraPooh]

49. Obama won Texas delegates, keep up, will you please.

[jackson_dem]

76. He lost by over 100,000 votes. I thought the popular will is what counted anyway?

Obama hypocritically lists Texas and Nevada as wins for him on his website.

[PetraPooh]

89. Uhm, are you living in another country, with another democratic party?

Obama won the delegate count in Texas, that makes it his win. Much to your frustration no doubt.

[totodeinhere]

34. Come on, you know that both sides spin the results to their best advantage. That's politics.

[MADem]

58. The suggestion that Democrats "cheat" is a new one, though. It's changed the dynamic. NT

[totodeinhere]

65. Oh it has been suggested before.

Remember the 1960 election when many Republicans charged that the Daley machine in Chicago cheated to give JFK that state and hence the election?

I realize that subsequent objective analysis debunked those charges, but nevertheless it was "suggested."

[MADem]

68. Well, JFK did cheat. So did LBJ. So did Nixon.

The dead DID vote all over the country. On both sides of the contest. In TX, there were polling stations where twice as many people voted as lived in the area.

Nixon seriously considered a challenge, but didn't want the sore loser label.

But that's not what I meant. I wasn't clear.

What I meant is that the accusation of cheating by Democrats, about other Democrats, is new.

[bluestateguy]

16. Please don't use the word "narrative". That's an MSM word

nt

[bunnies]

19. I LOVE these backasswards pissy postings.

Gobama! :bounce:

[sniffa]

25. I enjoy starving them

But that's just me.

[bunnies]

44. heh. Laugh. Laugh. Point. Point.

I'm more that type. :evilgrin:

[totodeinhere]

29. It is not that clear.

Eight PA polls have come out in the last two days: 4 show Clinton gaining, one showed no change, and three showed Obama gaining only 3, which is within the margin of error. It is clear that Obama's momentum in PA has stalled.

Four polls show Clinton gaining, one shows a tie, and three show Obama gaining. Those are mixed results. It's quite a spin to say that Clinton is "rising" and of course in your subject line you only mention the two polls that are most favorable to Clinton and leave out the rest.

[jackson_dem]

35. I mentioned the other polls in my previous poll thread

The reason these two were mentioned? Simple: they are the two whose news broke today.

Mixed results is good for Clinton at this point. Remember Ohio? Obama stalled at around this time in Ohio and then lost ground during the final week.

[totodeinhere]

64. Mixed results are not good enough for Clinton.

Almost all neutral observers say that to have any chance at all, Clinton must win big in PA. (IMO even a big win in PA won't be enough.)

[jackson_dem]

77. Only Obamites say that. Obamites said the same thing about Ohio and Texas...

Obama should win easily given how he is "inevitable", has the msm behind him, and is trying to purchase the state at a 3:1 clip.

[totodeinhere]

81. Spin away my friend.

[jackson_dem]

84. Both are spin but her spin worked. She is still alive post-3/4, right?

According to the Obama spin she would have dropped out on March 6 because she didn't win Ohio and Texas by 20 points.

[totodeinhere]

86. No, Obama has never said that she should drop out.

On the contrary, he has said that she should stay in the race as long as she wants to. But it is true that her failure to have decisive wins in both Ohio and Texas was a big blow to her campaign.

If she doesn't win big in PA, that will also be a big blow to her campaign. But even then, Obama will not call for her to drop out if she doesn't want to.

[jackson_dem]

87. The msm has said she should drop out

Obama isn't dumb. He won't say it just like McCain didn't. He will get his cronies like Leahy and Kerry to do it. My how Kerry has fallen...

[abbyg8r]

36. It's great for Obama supporters that the PA polls are so close,

even if she's on top. This state is her base. She should be winning by 10+. I never expected it to be this close.

[adoraz]

32. I feel bad for you, just give it up

what will you do once Hillary loses?

Anywhere within 10% would be excellent for Obama. That means NC will more than cancel out PA, as well as leaving far less delegates available.

[jackson_dem]

37. What did I do when Edwards lost?

Commit suicide?

NC won't cancel out Pennsylvania in the eyes of supers, although it would in pd's. Obama could lose every state from now to June except for NC, and he is winning that because of 90% black support. It proves nothing as to his electability. If Obama loses everything left except NC that will be a great scenario for Clinton, it would still be good even if you give Oregon to Obama, which is closer than expected right now (Hill would have the momentum if she wins PA, IN, and WV big before OR)...

[cali]

45. bwahahaha

you've become a cariacture of yourself. And now you're claiming that
you know what the SDs think? What a joke.

[Barack_America]

56. He's also claiming that African Americans are meaningless to the Democratic Party...

And that their preference of candidate should not be a serious consideration.

That's fantastic. :eyes:

[PetraPooh]

55. and I suppose it would be okay with you to recognize that Hillary's only

ahead in PA and FL and MI because of 90% uptight, frigid, lying, white women? Tsk, Tsk, and shame on you. Obama has won many non-black votes, non-black delegates, and non-black super delegates.

[Barack_America]

38. You know what. I can no longer stand your intellectual dishonesty.

You just disregard or rewrite everything that is not in-line with your agenda.

Why not discuss the other polls that are completely in agreement with one another? Do you not like their findings?

Nobody believed PPP's poll from last week. I believe that you even criticized it yourself. But now that it can be used to make some ridiculous point you are striving for, it's true?

I call bullshit.

[BzaDem]

63. He is claiming that even in the most pro-Obama poll for PA, Clinton is gaining.

... that seems pretty obvious to me. He's not saying PPP's actual numbers are right. He's saying the trend is towards Clinton.

[jackson_dem]

80. 8 polls in two days: 3 show her gaining, 1 showed no change, 4 showed Obama gains within the MOE

Obamites can't handle the fact his momentum has stopped. They did the same thing regarding Texas and especially Ohio. They bought the hype that Obama magically gains 20 points a week. Yeah, ask rethug nominee Mitt Romney how that works. Ad blitzes can only go so far.

[jackson_dem]

78. I mentioned all 8 polls released in the past two days

Why did I not go in depth regarding the others? Simple: only two came out today. The others were discussed yesterday. Keep up if you are going to get on your high horse.

[Barack_America]

85. I was just waiting for you to reply as a courtesy...

:hi:

[jbnow]

48. They shpw a gaim for Clinton but we can't get too excited

It shows movement toward her but neither of these polling firms gave a good record.
In the polling report card PPP and Insider advantage are tied for 22nd place with an median error rate of 7.
On average error rate scale they are
21st PPP error rate 7.64
25th Insider advantage error rate 7.92

[rodeodance]

53. rec

[GarbagemanLB]

59. why no 'REC'? A little less enthusiastic today?

[Coexist]

66. "sham caucuses"

is absurd.

I had cleared my Ignore list a few days ago, because this thing is pretty much over. I can't believe it, but I am going back to disappearing people due to extreme silliness. I forgot how embarassing this forum is without it.

See ya.

[jackson_dem]

82. 1.9% turnout isn't a sham?

[Bensthename]

67. "despite being outspent" will be Hillary's talking point after PA win or lose

[jackson_dem]

83. Of course and it is a very legitimate one that Edwards used after Iowa

It is amazing how Edwards almost beat Obama in Iowa despite being outspent 6:1 and Obama being from a bordering state.

[Lucinda]

69. Thanks!

K&R

[IndianaJones]

73. rec. nt

[Skip Intro]

75. Rise, Hillary. Rise. nt

[GarbagemanLB]

88. Quick! Get down! Sniper fire!

[PseudoIntellect]

90. "Either he has made a heruclaen comeback from 20 points down by cherry picking the worst March polls

...for him and then, perversely, cherry picking his best April poll or you can say he is now right back where he was at the end of February. In the end none of this spin will matter."

The average went from 16 points down to what it is now - Mid/upper single digits. That's, no doubt, a come-back. Let's see what happens at the debate. Maybe Obama will get some momentum and then lose it in the final days and lose by 9-10% like in Ohio. Maybe not.

If you ACTUALLY cherry-picked polls, he was down 26 last month. Not 20. 20 wasn't too far off the average.

3-state strategy owns!