Clinton can win in Florida, Ohio, & Penn in GE

Quinnipiac has a new PA poll out for Clinton vs Obama, but they also poll the GE match-ups in the states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania:

* 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.

[One thing to note here (for this large poll sample), in highlighting Clinton leading the states of PA & OH, and not Obama: the leads by Clinton in PA & OH are outside the MOE, while the leads of Obama in those two states are within the MOE. In FL, Clinton's lead is within the MOE, while Obama trails McCain in FL outside the MOE.]

One of the things I've argued all along is that Clinton, in creating a narrative of standing up for Florida to be counted, has opened up the potential that she could win there over McCain. She already has a demographic advantage, with a heavy Latino voting population, migrated voters from NY and other NE locations, older women voters, and the main issue being economics.

Obama's anemic numbers to date in Florida have pretty much taken it off the table for his chances (and who knows where he makes it up). It'd take a serious investment for his campaign to compete there, and most importantly, he's not been sending a message to Florida voters that he wants their votes counted. The secret key to how Clinton gets the nomination aside for the moment, a win by Clinton over McCain seems entirely possible in Florida.

Ohio looks even better for Clinton vs McCain. The reason why, appears to be the economy. It's an issue on which Clinton has much more association, than either McCain or Obama, both of whom are associated with the Iraq war instead-- McCain as a warmonger and Obama as a voice of reason. But like most polls lately, this one shows that the economy is becoming the single most important issue by around a majority. While Iraq and Healthcare remain as issues, its not even close to the importance of the economy in the minds of voters.

This is a deep poll, it'd be worth it to look into the cross-tabs. It included over 5,500 polled in FL, OH, and PN. They also found this:
"Roughly one in five Democrats in the three states say they will vote for McCain against Obama, but less than 10 percent say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. Among white Democrats, 23 percent defect to McCain in a matchup with Obama, but only 11 percent defect when Clinton is the Democratic candidate."

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)



Re: How in Heavens can Obama win

The comments by Quinnipiac Sr. pollster Peter Brown says it all:
"When it comes to November, Sen. Hillary Clinton's strength is a big edge over Sen. Barack Obama among white voters, who have not given a majority of their votes to a Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964."

No matter how much those who are in love with Obama want to keep pretending it doesn't exist-

"RACE" will be the ultimate factor that will destroy Obama in November.

Even among us Latinos. If you look at the last two Latino polls released for FL,NJ,NM,CO,CA in the last 30 days done by Hispanic Polling orgs, Obama is doing very poorly for a democrat running against McCain. He is doing even worst than Kerry did in '04. He was barely ahead of McCain in CA,CO by about 5 points only but was trailing McCain by double digits among Latinos in FL,NJ,NM,MO.

John Kerry Never trailed Bush among Hispanics in any of this Buena Vis surveys done in 04. Gore also never trailed in these surveys.

And both still lost.

With Clinton, she was beating McCain by a landslide in All 6 states.

How in heavens would you expect Obama to actually win in November when he is literally & figuratively losing among Whites, Latinos, and Asians.

Many Latino leaders are shaking their head in amazement. A common theme you hear today is that,

" Only white liberals & Black people have any illusions that Obama can somehow beat John McCain in  November. The rest of white,brown,yellow america knows how ugly November will bring."

All I will say is if Obama thus lose big in November, you can kiss the Senate goodbye. His expected poor showing among GE white voters will destroy Shaheen, Udal, & the rest of these democrats who happen to be in swing Red & Purple states.

I'm a minority just like Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver. I agree 100% with the views of courageous people who speak out like African-American congressman Cleaver of Missouri.

He frankly stated yesterday that, " Most liberal whites who are supporting Obama today have this strong rationale that if Obama wins the Presidency, they can rid themselves of all the Guilt of Past Racism & Slavery, and this would be the ultimate pardon for white people. It would give a sense that america has moved forward from its ugly past of bigotry. Any rationale of Obama's qualifications or experiences is simply ignored by the most precious reward of racial atonement".

No offense but .....

The rest of us are trying to win the Presidency, while some segments of our party have other bottled up guilty agendas.

by latinfighter 2008-04-02 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: How in Heavens can Obama win

I don't think its mostly about race for most. There are some whites & latinos that won't vote for Obama because he's black, but there are also blacks and guilty liberals that are voting for Obama because he's black.  

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-04-02 07:14AM | 0 recs
Hillary looking like she may get Edwards endorse

Obama's contempt for poverty issue, healthcare
should be an issue for everybody, but I especially would hope that black people would care about it.

Elizabeth and John Edwards were appalled by his cavalier dismissal of poverty as an important issue for his campaign and by the lack of universality in his healthcare plan. Thats why he bew the Edwards nomination.

He may be shaping up as a new, hip, Dem. version of Clarence Thomas. Seriously.

by architek 2008-04-02 07:28AM | 0 recs
Elisabeth Edwards...

refuted that article today on Morning Joe.

by Student Guy 2008-04-02 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary looking like she may get Edwards endor

I do notice that Hillary makes more of an effort to talk about poverty and working class in this country, than Obama who talks in more ethereal terms.  

I wish Edwards would endorse Hillary.  An endorsement of Obama would be a waste for Edwards because Obama would not offer him anything important in his White House.

I know alot of people said that Edwards would make a good Attorney General.  Edwards made a better President, but he was marginalized out of the picture.

As VP for Hillary, he could work on the issues important to him (poverty, housing, corporate greed), and he would have more of a voice than with Obama.  Edwards would humanize Hillary.

by stefystef 2008-04-02 07:39AM | 0 recs
Enough with the misinformation campaign

You have an established pattern of posting known falsehoods about the Obama campaign. What's the deal? Personally, I don't agree with Jerome's assessment in this diary, but it's not false. It's just his particular interpretation of a limited set of data.

Your comments are something very different from Jerome's. I've looked at your comment history, and it consists entirely of vicious attacks and blatant lies. At this point I'm fairly certain that you're just a Republican attack dog, because no Democratic supporter of either candidate could in good conscience engage in the type of behavior that I've witnessed from you.

by noop 2008-04-02 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

And Hillary's shaping up to be America's Eva Peron, I mean hey the parallels are just as striking as you Thomas comparison.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-02 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

Argentina still loves Eva.

by stefystef 2008-04-02 12:26PM | 0 recs
I agree that it's not about race ...

if you look at the crosstabs here for the general election matchups w/ McCain, Obama does as well as Clinton among 'white men' in FL; does a little worse than Clinton among 'white men' in Ohio; and does a little better than Clinton among 'white men' in PA.  The difference is among 'white women' in all 3 states, where Clinton does better than Obama when matched against McCain.  

Additionally, in all 3 states, Obama does as well as Clinton -- or better -- among men in general and among independents.  So, the entire reason Clinton performs statistically better against McCain in GE matchups is b/c of the better performance among Democratic women -- who, IMHO, are very likely to return to the Democartic fold in November if Obama is the nominee.

by silver spring 2008-04-02 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that it's not about race ...

This is an excellent point. Hard to see Dem women not voting for their nominee and instead choosing the anti-choice, pro-war candidate. And as always one must add the caveat that at this early date it is hard to take too seriously any polling in re November. Remember there was the poll earlier this week (Pew? Rasmussen? can't remember) that had both repubs and dems nationally saying that Obama was the stronger candidate. I think that both Clinton and Obama could/will wipe the floor with McCain but that the dynamics of each race would be very different depending on the nominee. In a McCain/Obama race you would have generational themes, patriotism themes, and a stronger fight about Iraq (not just withdrawal but the entire premise of the mission). In a McCain/Clinton campaign you would have more clearly dilineated economic arguments, and unfortunately a return of some of the 90's era controversies courtesy of the VRWC. This is one of the main reasons why I initially gravitated towards Obama.

by wasder 2008-04-02 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that it's not about race ...

What a surprise that the VRWC turned you against Clinton.

This is a GE poll, not Dem women, all women. Who voted for Bush in 2004 (despite the points you mention) thus losing Kerry the election. A Democrat cannot win the general election unless he wins women.

by souvarine 2008-04-02 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that it's not about race ...

First of all the VRWC did not turn me against Clinton as I am not against Clinton at all. As I have said many times I have voted for her twice in the senate and voted for her husband twice as president. I have tremendous respect for her and think she would be a fine president. The point I was making is that the idea of returning to some of those battles was a tiresome one for me and left me open as a democrat to pitches from other candidacies. This in itself would not have been enough to sway me to another candidate except that I really liked (and continue to like) the candidacy of Barack Obama.

To your second point, are you absolutely sure that the majority of women voted for Bush in 2004? It seems unlikely to me though I am sure it would be easy to figure out on Google. Considering I am sure that men voted for Bush, I don't see how the race could have been so close if women had also gone in the majority to Bush.

by wasder 2008-04-02 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that it's not about race ...

From the website:

"Between women and men overall, a seven point difference exists in their voting -- 51 percent of women voted for John Kerry, while 44 percent of men favored the Democratic candidate. Conversely, men preferred George W. Bush by 55 to 48 percent over women."

So there was a 7% win for Kerry among women, not nearly as much as Gore won women by in 2000. So your point is well taken in that the dem nominee can't win without winning women significantly, but to say that they voted for Bush in 2004 is false.

by wasder 2008-04-02 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that it's not about race ...

I should have been more clear, I did not intend to imply that Bush won women overall but rather that a Democrat must win women by a significant margin to win the election. Kerry was weaker among women than Democratic candidates usually are.

Obama is even weaker than Kerry, and it is a real problem for his general election strategy. Improving turnout among independents and young people, as his campaign is describing his GE mobilization strategy, does not make up his deficit.

by souvarine 2008-04-02 08:34AM | 0 recs
it really depends on how this primary ends...

(and i anticipate it will end badly).  but barack has been very successful in illinois with women voters.  one would hope that he would duplicate that in a general election.

don't you think the sheer presence of hillary in the contest is skewing the results there?  until the nominee is decided, it's hard to compare poll results with kerry (given that the 2004 primary was decided in march).  but it could be that women will break late for barack...

by bored now 2008-04-02 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: it really depends on how this primary ends...

I'm sure Clinton has an effect on Barack's performance among women, just as he effects her performance among African Americans, but the difference is AAs are not swing voters. Clinton will have to give Obama's base a reason to vote, Obama has to give Clinton's base a reason to vote for him.

I also note that John McCain was more successful in 2004 winning women against a Democrat than Obama was against Republican Alan Keyes.

In any case Obama is not going to win enough women based on his pro-choice, anti-war credentials, he has to be able to show that he has a deeper understanding of women's issues. His campaign is signaling that it will instead try to win on independent men and younger voters.

by souvarine 2008-04-02 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: it really depends on how this primary ends...

My impression is that Obama would have to work harder to retain disaffected women voters than most in that position...for a number of reasons.  The tenor of his campaign, for a number of us, seems unnecessarily imbued with a "type of sexism" (excuse the phrase--I don't know how else to describe what a number of women I know have described--perhaps, haughtiness regarding Hillary e.g., culminating in the recent ill-advised "Hillary, quit" sub-campaign.)  Who knows what may finally happen as to any return to the fold in that instance.  But, it is obvious, from a number of polls corroborating this disaffection at a much higher rate than usual, that an Obama primary victory might come with lots of costs to the party and a steep hurdle in even bringing certain women voters along (let alone unifying the country.) It may be a harder task than some hope.

by christinep 2008-04-02 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that it's not about race ...

What Jerome fails to mention .. and as some have already mentioned .. is that it's way too early for this stuff to matter .. he's pro-Clinton .. so of course he'll spin it as a positive for her .. but then the important thing he doesn't mention is that Dukakis once had an 18 point lead over Boosh I in the polls .. and we know the end result of that one

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-04-02 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: How in Heavens can Obama win

I'd like to see some numbers to back up the "guilty liberals" voting for him because he's black. I doubt there are any non-anecdotal metrics there, but it is sure a great way to downplay any white support that Obama does get -- or, to put it another way -- the support Obama gets that has NOTHING to do with race.

It's also pretty weak to base electability arguments on racism. If Hillary is the best candidate because of her positions, that's fantastic. But let's look at Kerry at the same time. Or Bush in '00.

Face it, polls NOW, when McCain is untouched, and both he and Hillary are pouring on Obama, surely the polls will favor anyone but Obama. I have no more evidence to back this assessment up than you do to back up that this poll shows anything of use for the general election.

But I digress. These posts don't exist to show how Obama is weak, but to show how Obama supportrs are weak.

While the previous poster likes Cleaver's quote, "Most liberal whites who are supporting Obama today have this strong rationale that if Obama wins the Presidency, they can rid themselves of all the Guilt of Past Racism & Slavery, and this would be the ultimate pardon for white people...."

That's a load of crap. For people upset over the "typical white person" line, it's even more crap. Unprovable crap. I don't think any serious observer of race in America -- hell, any serious observer of the human condition thinks election Obama will rid the world of racism. That's about as bad as saying "everyone who votes for Hillary is a racist." It's no more true or provable.

But what it is is part and parcel of what I see here every day. Constant attempts to denegrate Obama supporters as:

a) Stupid Robots/Sheeple aswoon over large vocabulary words
b) Stupid people unable to see that Obama is a plagerising, anti-American racist who is too liberal and a closet Republican
c) Blacks voting for blacks, or being threatened by blacks to vote for blacks (The Jesse Jackson/Lewis argument
d) Guilty whites who care more about guilty "agendas" than winning elections.

I'm sure there are going to be lots of responses citing mythic Daily Kos posters who say Hillary Supporters are worse, somehow, and that excuses this, but Jerome -- yet again, I expect more from you.

Maybe Obama's supporters of varying races support him for the same reasons you support Hillary Clinton. Not some "electability" metric -- after all, Clinton has plenty of electibility issues that seem to go unnoticed here every day. -- but because they truly believe he's the best person for the job?

(And voting for "electability" did SO WELL in 04, didn't it? Maybe at a time of crisis, Americans would like to vote for someone based on what they'd do the day after the election, not merely what they do leading up to it.)

Maybe if you expect readers to respect this site and respect other posters, (and respect you), maybe you should offer that same respect to those you'd likely agree again once this primary is over? Without it, it's not a surprise how often Obama supporters are treated like crud in these comments. It comes from the top.

by Lettuce 2008-04-02 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: How in Heavens can Obama win

There is no evidence for that type of smear.
its just an excuse that losers use to justify their loses.

Of course they will never admit that HRC has run a horrible campaign.  They will never admit that her huge negatives will keep her from winning the GE.  They will never admit that the Big O is a better candidate and a better choice.  

Instead they smear and throw out excuse after excuse.  
Its too bad, but don't worry.  They will be back with us and perhaps MyDD will again be a home for progressives.

by gil 2008-04-02 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: How in Heavens can Obama win

"there are also blacks and guilty liberals that are voting for Obama because he's black."

And there also a lot women and false progressives voting for Hillary simply becuase she is a woman.  Others think that by simply byvirtue of her marriage to Bill Clinton, she will manage to resurrect the U.S. economy of the 1990s.  They care not whether she served on the Walmart Board of Directors while its General Counsel called unions "blood sucking parasites," that she was always pro-NAFTA and that she voted for the greatest foreign policy debacle in the nation's history and still can't admit she was wrong about it when so many others were right.  Then when she runs a crappy, glass-jawed top-down campaign based on her inevitability and begins to lose contest after contest, they think she is being picked on and the other guy is just an empty suit rather than a real representative of discontent with the party establishment and pro-war, pro-corporate stance of the Clintons.

Honestly, I am still scratching my head as to how you and Kos wrote a book together.  

by Daddy Warbucks 2008-04-02 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: How in Heavens can Obama win

Hyper-partisanship and logic makes for poor bedfellows.

That's what made 06 so nice. There weren't personalities involved, it was just the goal. It was logical and reasoned. The GOP played the old game, and lost.

Now, the Dems are playing the old game here, ranking states and overthinking-by-half the politics, doing all but hiring wizards to analyze crow entrails to see what the electorate would vote for over McCain.

But the goals -- ending the war, smarter economics, health care, education -- those are still the same, and still the same between Hillary and Obama.

It's the personalities that are messing this up. It's the personality battles that could ultimately cost us in November. Not the issues. We win on the issues in a major landslide.

But we're playing the GOP game on the GOP field these days, playing up race vs. gender, upper class vs. lower class, etc. We're playing the wedges, rather than the glue.

It could stop. Hell, I bet it could stop in a week if there was a concerted effort by Kos and Jerome and others to put the focus back on the issues, individual candidates be damned.

We could be as powerful as GOP special-interest groups. We raise the same kind of money, drive the same kind of stories. We could have our heated discussions on the issues, and have both Obama and Clinton pander to US about their health care plans...

... but we'd have to push the personalities -- and our own personalities -- to the side.

The lesson of 06 (and of 1910-1912) is that if you let the issues drive the election, the Democrats will win.

You get too clever with the polls, you lose.

Maybe that's the scariest thing about Jerome's post.

by Lettuce 2008-04-02 07:55AM | 0 recs
That was troll rated???<nt>

by fladem 2008-04-02 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: How in Heavens can Obama win

I detect a real sense of menace in your post as well as all your previous posts. In case you missed. Let me repeat it to you. So it is drilled inside you. Obama is half white, half black.

by KathyM 2008-04-02 07:33AM | 0 recs
His mother was the significant influence

in his life.. His father was a bigamist, who abandoned his various families, several times.

by architek 2008-04-02 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: His mother was the significant influence

and his father's actions reflect on Barack how...?

Barack has lived his life with a great deal of dignity and class.  I would hope Democrats, regardless of which primary candidate they support, would recognize that.

by Tad 2008-04-02 07:49AM | 0 recs
Being black, let me tell of the old rule...

...Concerning blackness.

If you have just one drop of black blood, then you're black.

by Andre Walker 2008-04-02 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Latinos

Shame on you, latinfighter.

I do not support Obama because of guilt or any racialist agenda.

And for you, and others, to continue to insist that Latinos won't vote for him is to implicitly endorse bigotry.

The only way for race to not be an issue is for people to not allow it to be an issue.  

Divided we fall, and as we saw with the Immigration debate, we will all lose if the Republicans maintain the White House.

Let's challenge all communities to throw out racialist arguments.

by Tad 2008-04-02 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Latinos

Thats exactly true. If you make it into race it just becomes pointless.

You tell me whow there will be a ever a hispanic president if you create this bad blood, if blacks dont vote for him/them???

I'm white. bye the way.

by KathyM 2008-04-02 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Latinos

Yes Kathy,

If you pretend that it does not exist, it still won't disappear.

That's the problem with many white liberals.

You do not want to make RACE an issue with Obama.

But it is an Issue whether you like it or not.

You cannot change that overnight.

Now if you want to make history without regard to what reality is, that's your prerogative.

But do not pretend or play blind that your idol Barack Obama has an ISSUE with a significant enough number of latinos,whites & asians.

Pretending it does not exist wont change the outcome in November.

by latinfighter 2008-04-02 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Latinos

Why should he have problems with Whites? Why?
He is half white. He does better with white males than HRC.
She only got this far cause 56% of democratic primaries are women and I say that as a White women myself. He is much suprerior to her. He deserves cause he won it

Let me tell you. Mr Hispanic. There will never be a Hispanic president if you create bad blood between black and hispanic. The only that wins is the bigot votes.

The blacks will vote for the white candidate and in return the latins will vote the white candidate. No group wins.

Despite the fact that Obama is a child of a African immigrant, of first generation. Despite the fact that he will show greater sensitivity to Hispanics. Despite the fact that he has wlays got you guys back covered.

You have repeatedly voted against him. The shame is on you.

by KathyM 2008-04-02 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: You are wrong latinfighter

Gallup just did a survey that showed that in a head to head with McCain, Clinton gets 58% of the latino vote and Obama gets 54%.  The only problem is the white reagan democrats but that he can make up for that loss with AA's and younger voters.  Maybe you are the one that doesn't think that latinos would vote for blacks.

by Hopeful08 2008-04-02 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: You are wrong latinfighter
True Hopeful08. He just hates Obama for some reason.
He is saying that Latinos will not vote for Obama.
I'm saying he is wrong.
by KathyM 2008-04-02 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Latinos


You just made my case.

You are calling for us to get together, join hands, & go past race.

Unfortunately, reality is what wins elections. And the reality is, poll after poll have shown that many latinos & white reagan democrats will very likely abandon Obama.

I did not make it up. Nor did you or anyone.

That's reality.

As for Latinos, where did I claim that All latinos will not support Obama. My claim is MANY if not a significant enough number of Latinos will vote for McCain over Obama.

Again, who does not want a Racial Free, Color Free society? But many of us accept the real world.

We always try to make things better. But that will NOT happen overnight in 2008.

You are asking us to go with HOPE.

You Hope Latinos do vote for Obama.

You Hope White Reagan Democrats vote for Obama.

You Hope Asians come together & vote for Obama.

That's A Lot of Hope that stands on Very Shaky Ground ! Positive thinking alone will not change the minds of millions of people.

And No Fantastic speech would simply erase 3,4, 5 generations of attitudes of people.

That's reality. Whether you accept it or not.

by latinfighter 2008-04-02 08:05AM | 0 recs
The answer

"Obama's anemic numbers to date in Florida have pretty much taken it off the table for his chances (and who knows where he makes it up)."

Ohio (where he is currently leading in that poll) would be enough to win.  Ohio + CO would give him a little cushion.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-02 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer

I think that MO, CO, OH, & VA, all places where Obama supporters have said he can win, will pretty much be taken off the table with a single direct mail piece by the NRA on Obama's gun position while a Chicago pol.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-04-02 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer

I think your wrong about that.  There are a lot more pressing issues this election + Obama is going to have plenty of money to define his own position on guns during the campaign.  Since the Supreme Court is almost certain to resolve the contours of Second Amendment before the GE, he'll have a built in reason to articulate a moderate stance on guns.  

Also, I would note that Clinton's views on guns are identical to Obama's.  By your logic, shouldn't that kill her as well?

by HSTruman 2008-04-02 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer

Perhaps - lord knows 2004 taught me to not overestimate the voting savvy of the American public - but who would win if we chose nominees on the basis of speculation of what an unanswered attack would do to them in swing states?

by thezzyzx 2008-04-02 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer

You mean to say, you HOPE that it will kill him in those states.  Right?

by Cycloptichorn 2008-04-02 07:23AM | 0 recs
This misunderstands

where Obama's strength is in these states.  His ability to put these states in play is based on his strength in the suburbs/exurbs, places where the gun issue does not cut, not in the lower income rural areas were the gun issue matters.

I don't think the gun issue matters at all for Obama, because he isn't winning those votes to  begin with.  

by fladem 2008-04-02 07:54AM | 0 recs

It sounds like Jerome supports Clinton because he is afraid of what the right wing noise machine will say about to Obama.

Yikes.  Its that type of thinking that led to HRC giving Bush a blank check on Iraq.
She was afraid of Rush Limbaugh so her fear guided her vote.

When fear guides you, you make bad choices.
Haven't you learned anything?

by gil 2008-04-02 08:12AM | 0 recs
One of the lessons

from 2000 is that the gun issue cuts in some groups that would otherwise vote Democratic.

Interestingly, though, I think the Gun Lobby will remember Bill raising the gun issue in 1996 against Dole.  As a result, I am not sure Hillary has much advantage here.

by fladem 2008-04-02 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Guns not jobs or healthcare?

So you are saying Jerome that guns matter more than jobs to these people?

by Hopeful08 2008-04-02 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Guns not jobs or healthcare?

As someone who comes from that background, you better believe it matters more than jobs.  God, guns and gays you know...

by jarhead5536 2008-04-02 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer

You can take MO off your list for Obama:

Missouri: McCain vs. Obama
Polling Data
Poll              Date    Sample    McCain (R)  Obama (D) Und    Spread
Rasmussen    03/24 - 03/24    500 LV    53    38    9    McCain +15.0
SurveyUSA    03/14 - 03/16    536 RV    53    39    9    McCain +14.0
SurveyUSA    02/26 - 02/28    632 RV    48    42    10    McCain +6.0
Rasmussen    02/11 - 02/11    500 LV    42    40    18    McCain +2.0
SurveyUSA    01/11 - 01/13    562 RV    51    40    9    McCain +11.0
SurveyUSA    12/13 - 12/15    547 RV    44    47    9    Obama +3.0

by RedstateLib 2008-04-02 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer

Did you not see that in this poll Obama is getting spanked in Ohio?

I think with the debacle in Michigan, you can also add it to the R column if Obama is the nominee.

by cmugirl90 2008-04-02 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer

A one point lead is getting spanked?  What's McCain doing to Clinton in WA and OR then?

by thezzyzx 2008-04-02 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer

He's not getting spanked in Ohio.  Look at the numbers.  1 point

by Tad 2008-04-02 07:59AM | 0 recs
PA Polls
PPP: Obama Takes Narrow Lead in PA Quinnipiac: Hillary Ahead by only Nine Points in PA
by xtrarich 2008-04-02 07:12AM | 0 recs
According to PPP Penn is a tossup

Obama overtakes Clinton in PA
Raleigh, N.C. - Barack Obama has taken the lead over Hillary Clinton 45-43 in
Pennsylvania, according to the newest survey from Public Policy Polling.
It's a remarkable turn around from PPP's last Pennsylvania poll, conducted two and a
half weeks ago, that showed Clinton with a 26 point lead in the state. That poll was
released at the height of the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the day before Obama's
major speech on race in Philadelphia. Obama has been trending upward in national
polling and in many state level polls since then and this survey reflects that pattern.
"In the last few weeks there has been increasing attention given to the fact that a
continuing divisive Democratic nomination fight could hurt the party's chances of
defeating John McCain this fall," said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling.
"The major movement in Obama's direction in Pennsylvania could be an indication that
Democrats in that state think it's time to wrap it up."
Obama is narrowing the gap with white voters, trailing just 49-38, while maintaining his
customary significant advantage with black voters. He leads that group 75-17.
Obama also leads among all age groups except senior citizens, with whom Clinton has a
50-34 advantage. The poll shows the standard gender gap with Obama leading by 15
points among men while trailing by 10 points with women. PP_Penn_Release_040208.pdf

by Lefty Coaster 2008-04-02 07:15AM | 0 recs
Treat that

with a grain of salt, maybe two grains. That poll measures a cumulative 28-point swing, and a swing of that size is usually created by some significant external event. Given that we haven't had any of those, really, I'm skeptical about this result.

We're seeing a strengthening of Obama in PA polls, sure, and the burst in registrations may be affecting the Democratic voter universe in ways we can't reliably measure yet. It's also too early to create a reliable turnout model.

But overall, it's safe to assume that today, Hillary still leads in PA by somewhere between five and ten points, maybe twelve.

by MBNYC 2008-04-02 07:52AM | 0 recs
This is Good News...

...for ALL Democrats, not just for Clinton supporters.  McCain is at his peak, as far as I'm concerned, yet polling like this indicates to me that he's nonetheless very vulnerable to either of our remaining candidates.  

If Obama can hold PA and win Ohio, then Florida isn't likely to be decisive.  Also, as many polls have shown that Obama makes some states that Clinton isn't competative in competative, such as Colorado and North and South Dakota.  He also does a better job of holding certain blue states, like Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington state than Clinton.

All that being said, I'm thrilled to see Senator Clinton doing as well as these polls indicate she's doing.  If she manages to win the nomination, then I'm glad to have some empirical proof that she'll make just as strong a GE candidate as I've always imagined.  In my view, this just confirms that we have two strong candidates.  

by HSTruman 2008-04-02 07:16AM | 0 recs
Thanks Jerome for showing how competitive Obama is

Thank you Jerome for finally posting some numbers here on MyDD that show Obama is not only competitive but, in fact, ahead of McCain in Pennsylvania and and Ohio.

That should really take the sting out of a lot of the criticism of Obama's electoral vote chances, which these polls show to be nonsense, and it must've been tough for you to do considering your support of Clinton.

by Addison 2008-04-02 07:19AM | 0 recs
Obama voter here but get real

Obama is ahead of McCain by rounding error margins in Ohio and Penn in these polls, with a smaller percentage of the voters committed to him than Hillary can claim, and nothing to brag about.

The main grounds for optimism here is the large share of the undecideds. Obama continues to show that he can win votes as people get to know him, state by state, and nationally. Well, we have still six full months before Election Day. Plenty of time for him to win more friends and influence more people.

The Pastor Disaster was encouraging. After months of Obama rising in the polls unrelentingly, Faux News and hate-talk radio unleashed a massive attack on Barack, claiming that he was "angry" (which people didn't like about Edwards, according to reports), unpatriotic, and obviously BLACK. They threw their strongest stuff at Obama, he survived it, and has now resumed his rise in the polls.

Still, it's going to be a long and hard campaign. I wish Obama would run his ads on Youngstown, Steubenville, and Wheeling TV stations; their signals all run deep into Penn, so that's a good excuse to do it. Hey, I'd run them on Cincinatti TV and reach SE Indiana, using that primary as my cover story. But the truth is, he needs to work hard to get his numbers up in Ohio.

Worrying about the states Obama needs to carry, remember the crucial two: No Repub has ever been elected President without carrying Ohio. We must deny them Ohio. And Missouri has voted with the winner for a century (with one amusing exception, '56). If Democrats don't win Ohio and Missouri but somehow manage to win the election, it would be completely unprecedented.

by Woody 2008-04-02 08:30AM | 0 recs
Just one thing of note....

Obama has yet to spend any time campaigning in Florida. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, he's still ahead of McCain.

And everywhere that Obama has spent time, his numbers have always risen, and fast. I think to discount Obama's chances in Florida is premature.

by Yalin 2008-04-02 07:22AM | 0 recs
Spending time makes up for lack of real care?

What just blows me awas is how controlled the Obama dialogue with the public has been. Obviously, there are huge holes in his healthcare plan, that should be fodder for a lot of articles comparing him and Clinton, but - so far, there have been very few.

I think that Obama must be either trying to play both sides hopes and is actually a moderate, pretending to be a conservative pretending to be a moderate, or he really is EVIL.

Either way, I would rather stick with a known quantity, the risk of Obama being a right winger in disguise is just too high.

I don't know what people see in him. Vague promises don't pay the bills.

by architek 2008-04-02 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending time makes up for lack of real care?

1) What huge holes are there in his healthcare plan?

2) How could you possibly even consider Obama as an unknown quantity or even a right winger in disguise? Seriously?

Have you even looked at his voting record in the Illinois State Senate and the US Senate?

They're so progressive it brings tears to the eyes.

by Yalin 2008-04-02 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending time makes up for lack of real care?

I'm not sure if bringing up candidates that don't pay bills really strengthens your argument.

by herenow 2008-04-02 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending time makes up for lack of real care?

I'm sorry, as a public health policy professional I can't help but reply here. I'm not particularly invested in either Clinton or Obama, but I am invested in expanded healthcare coverage which, according to their plans, both Clinton and Obama will work for.

Neither candidate has an ideal health care plan. Both plans have real strengths and real weaknesses.

The major strength of Clinton's health care plan is the universal mandate; we are never going to achieve universal insurance coverage without one. But the major failing of her plan is that even with the premium-lowering mechanisms she propses (like moving to a completely paperless system), the premiums are most likely still going to be too high for lower-income people who are not quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. These people will need to have their premiums subsidized by A LOT if they are going to buy into the public coverage Hillary is proposing. And a mandate does not guarantee that universal coverage will actually be achieved (most likely not if the coverage is expensive) because people will simply not comply.

Obama's plan's major failing is that he doesn't have a mandate for adults, though he does have one for children. But the general consensus on his pooled re-insurance program is that it will likely lower premiums more than Hillary's plan, making it possible for more people to afford coverage. But again, that doesn't necessarily mean that people will buy it.

In my opinion, the best plan would be a combination of the two; Obama's re-insurance pool program combined with Hillary's mandate and other cost-saving proposals.

by parkagirl 2008-04-02 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Spending time makes up for lack of real care?

"And a mandate does not guarantee that universal coverage will actually be achieved (most likely not if the coverage is expensive) because people will simply not comply."

Realistically nothing short of a single payer plan would actually guarantee universal coverage, which is not politically feasible now, but in countries with a mandate and mixed public/private system they do achieve 98% covered. The mandate would go very far in creating an improved base of coverage, and over time could become very widespread.

The political argument goes that if the middle class were to face a mandate to buy insurance they would organize to force effective reforms onto the overall system, and we would finally be able to get effective regulation of an otherwise out of control situation.

The political will to reform the system doesn't exist when such a large percentage of people are willing to hang onto the devil they know, as long as they have the escape hatch of not having to be part of the system. The mandate gets everyone involved in health care.

by 07rescue 2008-04-02 10:16AM | 0 recs
Biased Diary

Clinton people clutching at straws. Obama has hardly been in Florida ever. Yet he has holding firm against McCain.

by KathyM 2008-04-02 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Biased Diary

Losing by nine points is called "holding firm?"

How do you account for Clinton leading McCain despite not campaigning in the state?

by RJEvans 2008-04-02 01:26PM | 0 recs
Looking at the crosstabs ...

in all 3 states in the general election matchups w/ McCain, Obama is doing as well as or better than Clinton among men and independents (and better among Republicans in Pennsylvania).  

The reason Clinton beats McCain by a better margin than Obama is solely because a relatively larger portion of 'Democrats' and 'women' are willing to cross-over & vote for McCain when it's a McCain-Obama matchup.  The big question is how much of this cross-over is real and how much is just showing up in the polls now when the Dem. nomination is still undecided and a significant number of Hillary's hard-core Democratic women supporters are saying that they will "vote for Hillary over McCain but McCain over Obama".  

IMHO, I think the vast, vast majority of these Democratic women will come back to the Democratic fold in November. (If these polls showed a difference in how men and/or independents voted in terms of McCain-Hillary/McCain-Obama matchups, I would be more concerned for Obama.)

by silver spring 2008-04-02 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking at the crosstabs ...

Yes, a lot of women seem to have forgotten that McCain (and his party, and his potential Supreme Court nominees) is anti-choice. What will they do when they remember? Will they stay where these crosstabs show them, voting for the GOP? I doubt it.

Obama is leading among the hard-to-get demographics for a Democrat. That's more valuable.

by Addison 2008-04-02 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking at the crosstabs ...

perhaps we'll remember that Obama voted AGAINST the Alito filibuster and planned to vote for Roberts until an aide suggested it would come back to haunt him.

Women wont vote for Obama based on the SCOTUS dogwhistle this year, just sayin'.

by ginaswo 2008-04-02 07:50AM | 0 recs
Maybe not...

...but they will vote on the SCOTUS bullhorn that McCain will be using at every single conservative campaign stop.

by Addison 2008-04-02 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking at the crosstabs ...

If you're going to make arguments like this, you could at least get your facts right.

Obama voted against both Alito and Roberts and supported the Alito filibuster.  He did make the (accurate observation) that the filibuster wouldn't work and that we need to do a better job actually winning elections in order to stop nominations like Alito's, but he voted to filibuster.  

Here's the roll call vote, per the Times, on the Alito Filibuster: cs/politicsspecial1/30wire-rollcall.html ?_r=1&oref=slogin

by HSTruman 2008-04-02 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking at the crosstabs ...

A lot of women, incredibly, are anti-choice.  They embrace the whole barefoot and subservient mindset, as God intended.  I was raised by these women and the men who kept them down, and they won't budge when abortion comes up...

by jarhead5536 2008-04-02 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking at the crosstabs ...

Please don't take women for granted.  McCain stands as much chance as winning a significant amount of women voters as Obama.  This is the real risk of an Obama nomination.  Both Obama and McCain will appeal to Independents and a particular white male demographic--when the argument becomes mano a mano in debate, I would suggest that McCain has the upper hand in terms of the classic "strength."  As I recall, the perception of "strong president," is one of the top two or three measures that pollster have always looked at to determine where unaffiliated voters move.

by christinep 2008-04-02 09:55AM | 0 recs
Nice Headline there!

Wouldn't a more honest headline (you know one not shilling for Hill) state what you said, but add that Obama leads in OH and Penn as well, or are we at the point where unless Obama leads by more than Hillary, it doesn't count? Because if were at that point I think someone should point out that Obama can win California, Hillary on the other hand is basically where Obama's at in Ohio and Penn.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-02 07:25AM | 0 recs
What the hell?

A Dem winning OH and PA means a general election victory.  FL may or may not be out of reach for Obama, but he does have the cash to compete there, and is a lot stronger in other poachable states such as CO, NV, and IA.

More importantly, the numbers for the presumptive Dem nominee (something that'll exist within a month or two) are going to look a lot better than this.  Do you even remember how McCain looked before 2/5?

Jeebus man, get a grip...

by Ramo 2008-04-02 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: What the hell?

Sometimes, throwing cash at a situation is not always the answer, especially in FL.

by stefystef 2008-04-02 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: What the hell?

if Obama continues to block or in Dean's words fails to 'agree' to a revote in MI and FLA, Dems wont win MI or FLA

Obama can campaign there all thru November and will not win in FLA if he gets the nom by disenfranchising the state

by ginaswo 2008-04-02 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: What the hell?

He isn't, and cannot, block anything.

by Whash 2008-04-02 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in Florida, Ohio, & Penn

The biggest thing is that 20% of Dems (or, presumably, 40% of Clinton primary supporters...) defect to McW.  C'mon, people, WTF?  Is the future of the SCOTUS and the country worth the petulant hissy fit?

by NJIndependent 2008-04-02 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in F

"Sen. Clinton's imaginary snipers, Rev. Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, these events have taken only a small toll on Sen. Clinton's lead in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday continues to show a tight race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Hillary Clinton attracts 45% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 44% (see recent daily results).

by lori 2008-04-02 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in Flo

"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."

More than a third of voters in the three states think Obama's race is an advantage, more than twice the number who think it is a disadvantage. By contrast, roughly a quarter of voters say Clinton's gender is an advantage, and about the same number think it is a disadvantage.

"Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro's assertion that Obama's race has helped his candidacy finds some support among the electorate," said Brown.

- quinnipiac

by lori 2008-04-02 07:32AM | 0 recs
Hey, don't write off anybody..

A surprising number of older black people I have spoken to support Hillary.

And many educated white people I know also support Hillary. Highly educated people.

Obama's appeal I think is partly the fact that people project their hopes onto him, and he avoids contradicting them. But it wont hold up under serious scrutiny, which is what the Edwards's did, ask him some hard questions that he has been deftly avoiding.

by architek 2008-04-02 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, don't write off anybody..

Older Black people, particularly older Black women are virtually the only Black people who do support her.  I'm not sure why that's surprising to you.

by Whash 2008-04-02 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, don't write off anybody..

Also... you've been corrected on that story about the Edwards now a couple of times today.  No need to keep right on repeating something false.

by Whash 2008-04-02 07:43AM | 0 recs
We Haven't Even Started...

Campaigning against McCain.  As someone else said above, the idea that it's all downhill from here for us is wrong in my opinion.  

McCain's at his peak- he's just won a cakewalk of a nomination, there are no negative ads being run against him, indies are fondly remembering the 'maverick' McCain not the Bush-lite McCain of today, the negative statements by Hillary and Obama about him aren't really getting much play because the focus in on our contest, and there's a lot of negativity and sniping going on within our party.

McCain's numbers will go down, and our's will go up.  

And I'll repeat what I said in another thread about this poll- these three states are not the only swing states this election.  They're not going to be the only swing states in the future.  The fact that other pollsters see this and are actively looking at the entire electoral map instead of focusing on these three narrow traditional battleground states says a lot about the pollsters in question.  Quinnipiac tends to have relatively accurate polls, but they're pretty conservative and the things they choose to poll show that.

by Whash 2008-04-02 07:34AM | 0 recs
Obama can win too.

Of course, these number don't show that Obama CAN'T win; just that he's currently a little behind McBush in one poll.

Polls many months before an election tell nothing and change many times.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-02 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can win too.

Read it again; Obama is AHEAD in PA and OH which is all that he'd need.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-02 07:39AM | 0 recs
mccain will win florida, regardless...

since both ted strickland and ed rendell have both admitted that the democratic nominee will win their states, regardless of who wins the nomination, this poll's significance comes down to florida.

the problem is that democrats won't win florida.

jim davis had a ~20 percentage point advantage over crist in the spring of 2006, yet crist won (despite the so-called democratic wave in 2006).  and the reasons why republicans are winning florida comes down to mechanics: republicans are organized everywhere, and democrats are not.  they are especially inept in the all-critical i-4 corridor.

nor can it be a surprise that hillary does better against mccain than barack in florida, given the fact that he did not campaign there, has built no organization in the state, and is relatively unknown compared to the other two.  regardless, florida is not going to be in the democratic column in 2008.  republicans have all the structural advantages in florida: the governor, a real party organization, people who will knock on doors and make phone calls, a united party, and a presidential candidate that dovetails nicely with the state's electorate.

that may frustrate democrats outside the state who look at the polls every cycle and see possibility, but until the democratic party in florida ends the divisions from the 90s, builds a real party structure outside the major urban areas, and recruits local grassroots activists, this isn't going to change...

by bored now 2008-04-02 07:37AM | 0 recs
I wonder

if the mortgage/property issue in Florida may give us an opening.

By this I mean the ability to tie McCain to the economy may mean we could still win.  If this happened (so I am envisioning a Dem win +4 to +6 nationally) I do think the right campagin could win.

But there are better targets for Dems, and places that will need defending where Kerry did not need to defend.  

by fladem 2008-04-02 08:30AM | 0 recs
it does give us an opening...

but i still want to emphasize that we need the organizational infrastructure to take advantage of it.  i love the self-organizing aspect of the obama campaign, and have a lot of faith that this will be folded into the state party infrastructure if obama wins the presidency, but right now there is still a lot of resistance...

by bored now 2008-04-02 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in Florida,
FL is a huge problem for Obama.
I know that many many of his supporters thought it was amusing to put out snarky memos about beauty contests ect.
Statements about their votes equaling 0.
But if Obama is the contender in the GE every one of those snarky statements will be played up by the GOP in FL.
I said it at the time and I will say it now. Hillary was smart and thanked the voters for taking the time to vote for her.
There might come a day when the Obama campaign will wish it had at least showed good manners to those who voted for him instead of using them as a butt of jokes.
by J Rae 2008-04-02 07:39AM | 0 recs
clinton can't win in florida...

unless she's running for re-election.  since she won't commit the resources needed to organize and win the state, there is absolutely no reason to assume that she will be competitive (unless you are simply engaging in wishful thinking)...

by bored now 2008-04-02 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: clinton can't win in florida...

she will commit resources there because she has said it from the beginning of the campaign that she can win florida

by lori 2008-04-02 07:45AM | 0 recs

since i sat in a room with other florida party leaders where it was explained in frank and precise terms that winning florida required $25M and 500 field organizers starting in april to win the state, where no one disagreed -- we can say with absolute certainty that your comment is not true.

now if you have a miraculous way for winning florida -- i realize my assessment is based more on getting down to the dirty details -- i (and every other florida democrat) would love to hear it.

winning florida by democrats is as likely as winning california is by republicans.  both are possible.  neither is likely...

by bored now 2008-04-02 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: well...

Ummm......Hispanics are swing voters....and CA has a huge number of hispanics. Central  CA is RED very very red up and down the state.

If the hispanic voters swing to McCain I wouldn't bet on CA being safe.

by J Rae 2008-04-02 08:02AM | 0 recs
that's fine...

republicans winning california is much more likely  than democrats winning florida is.  that better?

by bored now 2008-04-02 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: clinton can't win in florida...

When did she state she would not campaign in FL if she was the nominee?

And BTW, I was basically stating that the Obama campaign shot itself in both feet over FL.

But maybe Obama himself said something different from his campaign after FL voted? If you have a link showing him thanking the people of FL and being gracious it would be interesting to see.

by J Rae 2008-04-02 07:52AM | 0 recs

hillary is the ultimate tarmac candidate.  that's what she does.  i would never argue that hillary won't campaign there, only that she won't devote the resources needed to win the state.

nor am i arguing that barack can win that state, either.  no democrat can right now.  i understand that it looks good when you live outside the state and you have no idea about the organization of the democratic party in the state (or the political dynamics involved to win).  i'm trying to introduce a little reality here, because we are counting on florida to win the white house, we've lost...

by bored now 2008-04-02 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in Florida,

Give people some credit.  The voters aren't going to care too much about what happened in the Primary when gas costs $3.50 a gallon, the housing market (especially in FL) sucks, the credit market sucks, and we still don't have a sane national healthcare policy.  Once we, as a Nation, begin to discuss these things in detail McCain's lead over Obama in FL will shrink.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-04-02 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in Florida,
Dear Lettuce, I don't know why you troll rated this comment. Please explain.
I checked......I did not call names, curse, personally attack ect.
I stated what was done by both campaigns in FL.
If you have different information please supply it.
by J Rae 2008-04-02 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in Florida,

Oh my gosh. The difference is White women. Obviously they would for HRC at the moment thats why these polls are so skewered.

Obama does as well with white males than HRC against McCain.
With HRC out, the trend will favour Obama.

by KathyM 2008-04-02 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in Florida,

I think not

White men Pa

Obama/ mccain    38/47

Clinton/mccain   40/50

white men oh

Obama/ mccain    38/47

Clinton/mccain   41/45

white men fl

Obama/ mccain    27/57

Clinton/mccain   30/60

by lori 2008-04-02 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in Florida,

I don't see her doing any better.
Why dont you quote the White women stats.
Since that is what is tripping her over in nearly every contect.

Yet Obama is leading her.

by KathyM 2008-04-02 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in Florida,

PA: Obama -9, Clinton -10
OH: Obama -9, Clinton -4
FL: Obama -30, Clinton -30.

Outside of OH, I don't see your point.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-02 07:57AM | 0 recs

Why not say for a head line
Great news for Clinton, Good News for Obama.

Florida won't be decisive if the democratic nominee takes PA and OH.

by Student Guy 2008-04-02 07:45AM | 0 recs
This is how Hillary win the nomination.

That, and winning the popular vote over Obama (which is very, very possible).

by Scan 2008-04-02 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: This is how Hillary win the nomination.

It's possible, but only with a huge streak of big wins.  If PA goes the way current polling is looking (sub-10-points), she'll have no shot.  She needs a 300K+ win to have a realistic shot at it.  If she only comes out of PA netting 100K, or even 200K votes, she just won't have enough remaining contests to do it.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-02 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: This is how Hillary win the nomination.

Um what, you think the party will quite literally risk its future viability, on the basis of some polls 3 or so months out; Polls which show only one state that's flipped?  

Oh Yeah and by the same measure Obama wins CO, MN, WA, WI, NV, etc. but none of that will matter, do believe SDs are just looking for an excuse to give it to Hill regardless of any possible conswquence?

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-02 08:42AM | 0 recs
More of the same old from CampClinton

common theme you hear today is that,

" Only white liberals & Black people have any illusions that Obama can somehow beat John McCain in  November. The rest of white,brown,yellow america knows how ugly November will bring."

Pretty ugly stuff to be spreading around on a reputable blog. It's more worthy to be scratched on the wall of a public restroom.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-02 07:46AM | 0 recs
I am extremely skeptical

of Clinton's chances in Florida.  

The polling in Ohio and PA is important, though.  Obama does better in the west and upper midwest: clinton does better in the midwest.

The truth is McCain is at this point putting states in play (New Jersey, Oregon, Washington) that makes beating him look less than 50-50 to me.  

by fladem 2008-04-02 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I am extremely skeptical

Obama is unelectable,especially in Big State Florida. Also the slim lead he has in this poll in Ohio and Pennsylvania do him no justice at this juncture in time. Clinton's great news in this polling is something that will surely be used to persuade uncommitted Supers leading up to the convention. Democrats better be looking seriously at who is best poised to beat McCain in these swing states, otherwise it is lights out for the Democrats at the White House.

by steve468 2008-04-02 07:58AM | 0 recs
How Clinton gets to 270

is really beyond me.  She will lose Oregon and Washington (-18 from Kerry).  She trails in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa (-20 from Kerry).  She will win PA, and maybe Ohio.  But she is only tied in New Jersey and Michigan.

Bottom line is BOTH Democratic candidates need to pill to an inside straight to win.  

by fladem 2008-04-02 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: I am extremely skeptical

The problem is that it's not enough to have an argument for SDs; they have to buy it.  Instead most of the movement is going to Obama.  He got another one today.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-02 08:25AM | 0 recs
I was not fond of the idea

but now I am beginning to think a joint-ticket would be unstoppable.

by Jon Niola 2008-04-02 07:49AM | 0 recs
White Women Survey

Thats why she has gotten this far, depsite plainly Obama being the superior candidate.

Obama/Gore = Unbeatable.

by KathyM 2008-04-02 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: White Women Survey


Do you have any idea how insulting that is to Al Gore on so many levels? Why would Al Gore wanna be VP to a 3 year US Senator?

Gore's experience...

8 years in the House
8 years in the Senate
8 years as Vice President of the United States
2000 Democratic nominee
Nobel Prize Winner
Oscar winner
Leader of global warming/environmental movement

Obama's experience...

Community Organizer/Part-time attorney
State Senator
3 years in Senate, 2 running for President

by rossinatl 2008-04-02 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: White Women Survey

Insulting why should it be insulting?

Obama has a long and complimentary years of experince that suits Al Gore.

It beat working for Wal-Mart and oh yes 8 years of cocktail parties.

I asked one of her supporters to list for me her achivements in the senate. What bills did she sponsor, how many.
It;s not nearly enough to justify her presence.

Funny, I never got a response back.

by KathyM 2008-04-02 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: White Women Survey

I'm still waiting for a response.

by KathyM 2008-04-02 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: White Women Survey

"I asked one of her supporters to list for me her achivements in the senate. What bills did she sponsor, how many.
It;s not nearly enough to justify her presence.

Funny, I never got a response back."

Since you were so nice about asking here is an excellent article from Newsweek comparing Clinton's legislative record v. Obamas.

It's entitled:

Substance Abuse
Debunking a bogus claim about Clinton's legislative record.

by 07rescue 2008-04-02 11:34AM | 0 recs
How Obama Makes Up for Florida

In the above, you write:

"Obama's anemic numbers to date in Florida have pretty much taken it off the table for his chances (and who knows where he makes it up)."

Chuck Todd from NBC replies:

"Of course, while Clinton may be stronger in Florida, she's consistently weaker than him in the Midwest and West, signaling that the two will have two different paths to 270."

The swing states of yesteryear are different from the swing states of 2008.

by Tad 2008-04-02 08:01AM | 0 recs
The race trap

It's coming, the race trap:

In november, you will see plenty of tv ad featuring Rv Wright, Michelle Obama and Barak intheir greatest moments. Repeating over and over the short but effective message: "Obama hates America".

Those ads will be exclusively centered around patriotism. Yet all the Obamanite will run left and right yelling racist racist. That will piss off the other communities and you can imagine the rest. You don't believe me? It's happening already, and there are not any tv ads yet.

The Obama boat is still floating only because we are in primary: The audience is more forgiving about those things, 30% of the democratic primary voters are black on average and will vote for him no matter what, and the media hates Clinton.

In the general he will have none of those advantages and he will sink. He already does in the poll, and that's before the best stuff against him is used (translate hammered).

We are so screwed

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-02 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: The race trap

You don't fool me Mr. Republican.

by KathyM 2008-04-02 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: The race trap

You need to supply more content than just the name-calling.

by souvarine 2008-04-02 08:18AM | 0 recs
If i were a republican

Believe me if i were a Republican I would be in a much better mood than I am right now
by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-02 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The race trap

Yeah, all that Wright controversy stuff has really torpedoed his chances in PA. In one week he's only gone up 5-10 points against Clinton instead of 20.


by Addison 2008-04-02 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: The race trap

The race trap is being laid those trying to dupe people into thinking a half-white candidate can't win.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-02 08:22AM | 0 recs
Half - White

Half white, an interesting choice of words.

Don't kid yourself, there is no room between black and white in our communities, it's regretable but it's true.

You have to chose and when you are "half-black" (really I hate those words, why do you force me to use them?) you have no choice, you have to chose the black community. When a white person sees a "half-black" person who he sees is a black person.

The fact that Obama ended up in the militant black church of Rv Wright is a good illustration.

Now if you want to protest, demonstrate and organize to fight those trends, that's ok, you can count on me to march at your side and sent you checks. But to pretend it doesn't exists and hope for the best is a leap of faith that I am not willing to make.

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-02 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Half - White

"Don't kid yourself, there is no room between black and white in our communities, it's regretable but it's true."

That's sounds like Rev. Wright's 5 second video clip. But I'll try not to judge you out of context.

"Now if you want to protest, demonstrate and organize to fight those trends, that's ok, you can count on me to march at your side and sent you checks"

I'll settle for you not propagating racial division in the name of concern.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-02 08:49AM | 0 recs
By all means, Judge me all you want

I'm not running for president so throwing stuff around is no problem for me.
by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-02 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: By all means, Judge me all you want

So keep throwing it.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-02 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: The Pot Smoking Draft Dodging Trap

In 1992 everyone made similar arguments about Bill Clinton for his pot smoking, draft dodging and womanizing and other scandals.  At the time Republicans were THRILLED that he was going to be the nominee against the incumbent president George H.W. Bush, a former fighter pilot and World War II hero who had just triumphantly led us to victory in the first Iraq war.  

But guess what?  The economy was in the doldrums at the time and Americans put the pot smoking, draft dodging, womanizing and other scandals aside and elected Bill Clinton.

by mikelewis68 2008-04-02 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: The Pot Smoking Draft Dodging Trap

Nice reminder.

by stefystef 2008-04-02 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: The Pot Smoking Draft Dodging Trap

Oh yeah pot smoking is totally similar to being assiciated with people who make anti-american rants 5 days after 911.
by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-02 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The Pot Smoking Draft Dodging Trap

Obama didn't make those remarks.

by mikelewis68 2008-04-02 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The Pot Smoking Draft Dodging Trap

And you've completely missed the point.

The economy wins elections, especially win it's in the doldrums, and McCain has admitted he doesn't know much about it.

Also...there were relentless questions in 1992 about whether Clinton ever burned his draft card and about a trip he made to Russia during the time.  Americans are not stupid and they quickly put aside these things especially when their pocketbooks become a big issue.

by mikelewis68 2008-04-02 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The Pot Smoking Draft Dodging Trap

hum hum...

then why in the world is Obama trailing McCain in general polling?

I don't give me the need to campaign line, if what you are saying is true, he should be ahead. Yet he isn't, how come?

I guess it's all Clinton's fault... again...

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-02 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: The Pot Smoking Draft Dodging Trap

Actually, some polls actually show Obama slightly ahead.

As for the polls showing McCain ahead, Obama & Clinton beating each other up in primary has alot to do with it.  When the Democrats pick a winner and turn their focus, money and energy to John McCain and the general election, then those numbers will change drastically.

Iraq is looking like it is going down hill and that is not good news for McCain.  If we continue to get bad news on the economic front...then again that is not good for McCain.  Those are the two issues that will dominate in the fall.

No one has mentioned it yet...but when the debates are televised this fall, the contrast of a young, handsome, vibrant, energetic Barack Obama standing next to a 72 y/o John McCain could leave a lasting impression with alot of people.

by mikelewis68 2008-04-02 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The Pot Smoking Draft Dodging Trap

Also...another historical analogy.  Bill Clinton badly trailed George Bush during the primary season.  After he wrapped up the nomination and focused on the general, those numbers changed drastically.

by mikelewis68 2008-04-02 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: The Pot Smoking Draft Dodging Trap

that may be true, but today the GOP in the the toilet, so he should be ahead already.
by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-02 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: The Pot Smoking Draft Dodging Trap

When the Democrats pick a winner and the healing process has started, then we will have a much more accurate picture of how we stack up against McCain.

If 28% HRC supporters and 20% of Obama supporters are saying they won't vote for the other candidate, then that probably registers in the GE polling  as well.  This is a normal reaction in a tough primary campaign.  Whether the nominee is HRC or BHO, 95-99% of the supporters of the other candidate will come to their senses and come home to the Democratic Party.

by mikelewis68 2008-04-02 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in Florida, Ohio, &

This is a gender biased poll.  Women are still voting for Hillary just because she is a woman. I don't take any of these polls serious, until we get a democratic nominee.  Then we will see if white women go to 100 years in Iraq McCain, who will appoint judges who will overturn Roe v Wade or vote democratic even if it is the half white, half black man.  SNARK!  I bet white liberal women will be Obama.

by Spanky 2008-04-02 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in Florida, Ohio, &

Woman are voting for Hillary because she's a woman?  Are African Americans voting for Obama because he's black?

Perhaps voters are a little more sophisticated than you think.

by stefystef 2008-04-02 09:04AM | 0 recs
No more gore


"Do you have any idea how insulting that is to Al Gore on so many levels? Why would Al Gore wanna be VP to a 3 year US Senator?"

Same with Hillary/Gore. Second fiddle to a First Lady and 1 1/3 term Senator? No way.

And Gore has said he would serve in no government position but president anyway.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-02 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Double-edged sword!

Don't forget that polls have consistently shown HRC loses WA, OR, IA, WI.  These are states that Obama wins.

Latest polls also put Obama comfortably ahead in CA but with HRC as nominee, CA is in play for McCain.

by mikelewis68 2008-04-02 08:11AM | 0 recs
Its called The Women Poll

56% of primary wvoters are women. It's simply amazing that Obama has gotten this far, depsite that bloc. Testimony to his superior candidancy.

by KathyM 2008-04-02 08:13AM | 0 recs
Obama wins in Ohio, & Penn in GE

GE polling this far out while there are 2 candidates in the democratic side mean just shy of nothing.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama wins in Ohio, & Penn in GE

Well, nothing as far as what will actually happen in November. It tells us a lot about the two campaigns right now, though.

by Addison 2008-04-02 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama wins in Ohio, & Penn in GE

Not really.  You don't think there might be some Obama or Clinton loyalists engaged in skewing the results or anything do ya?  

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama wins in Ohio, & Penn in GE

Why would you all put such importance on one poll by one pollster. These results need to be confirmed by other pollsters.

PPP poll out today Obama 45 Clinton 43
MOE: 2.8  1200 lv.DATES POLLED 3/31 AND 4/1

Now would everybody get all excited about this one poll in PA?

by BDM 2008-04-02 08:32AM | 0 recs
A little OT, Wyoming governor endorses Obama.. -wyoming-governor-endorsing-obama/

Another super.

by mady 2008-04-02 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: A little OT, Wyoming governor endorses Obama..

Wyoming when went for Obama, so no surprise there.

by stefystef 2008-04-02 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: A little OT, Wyoming governor endorses Obama..

No, but a super is a super.  Just noting.

by mady 2008-04-02 11:40AM | 0 recs
Clinton still has some trump cards

This poll is very significant.  Obama is going to have difficulty with white women.  

Hillary can put Obama on the defensive about seating Florida and Michigan.  One of the most important core values of the Democratic Party is that all the votes count.  

I'm doubting the PPP PA poll, and I still think Clinton will win Pennsylvania by double digits (10-13%).  If she's competitive in NC and OR, and wins IN, WV, and KY decisively, it's a whole new ball game.   Obama doesn't wear very well over time, and the fact he could be slumping in late primaries doesn't bode well for electability.

by mikelow1885 2008-04-02 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton still has some trump cards

He will have difficulty with white women while a white woman is in the race.  Afterwards, I suspect not so much.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-02 09:11AM | 0 recs
McCain is unelectable

It doesn't matter who the nominee is.

McCain will presented as the candidate of continuing to let your job go overseas, to keep the war in Iraq going forever, to not have a clue as to how to deal with the economy - and Bush's third term.

Yeah, there are some who will say I will never vote for a black or I will never vote for a woman. But the reality 75% want change and that ain't McCain.

Head to head general election polls are useless until the nomination is settled.

by mo 2008-04-02 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton can win in Florida

I'd love to see polling for a joint ticket with Obama and Clinton.

by animated 2008-04-02 08:42AM | 0 recs
Obama can win in Florida

To 'take Florida off the table' for Obama, given the context of where we are in the campaign right now, is absurd. We are 7 months away from the general. He can absolutely win Florida... and I'd bet anyone $50 that he will.

by jordan 2008-04-02 09:26AM | 0 recs
i'll take that bet...

you want to just mail me your money now???

by bored now 2008-04-02 09:44AM | 0 recs
Too early to use these polls

and McInsane is too weak.  McInsane will plummet when the dems unite (behind whomever) and focus one on one on him.

I used to like McInsane back in my younger days - I fell for the whole Maverick and Straight Talk thing and I will admit I have a slight Libertarian streak in me that has some affinity for old school upstate new york style republicanism (Danforth from Mo was my nieghbor growing up and I love, but disagree, with republicans like that).  Yet, I always vote dem because social issues and supreme court are most important to me.

But after watching McInsane over the last few years he has gone so far downhill and straight into complete parody mode that I could beat him in the general election with the dem party behind me.

Seriously, I think Hillary, Obama and three dead Thai hookers could be caught in bed together with a herd of goats and sheep - several times, with video - and either of them would still cake walk over McInsane (even the dead Thai hookers could as well - and the sheep).

McInsane is looking awful, and I mean awful.  Hes not telegenic, hes not charismatic, hes not wonky, hes not a debater, he looks mean and hes not a campaigner.  And while I hate to point out that many times its superficial things like those that win elections, its true.  No one is going to want to vote for their crabby, bat shit insane grandfather for president.  People want to actually 'like' their president.

McInsane is where he is for two reasons (maybe more) - he was a tortured POW and desrves mucho street cred for it, and that with running for Senate in the reddest of red states got him where he is.  He is nothing else.  Hes got one story line.  Not great when 'its the economy stupid'.

He is awful on the economy.  Hes basicaly admitted - several times - he knows nothing about the economy.  He has a nasty temper and contradicts himself and gaffes on foreign policy and security all the time (pretty bad for a war hero).  Seriously, all he has is that he was tortured - and did I mention that he even flip flopped on torture.  He is toast.

So while I dont want Hillary in there for the dems, she will still clean up against him, and so would Obama.

You put either Hillary or Obama head to head with grumpy McInsane and it will be a dem landslide no matter what.

Lets face facts, both our dem nominees have strengths and weaknesses.  (pure personal opinion from here on out) I think Hillary's camp has a valid argument that in big swing states she has the early lead and current heavy hitting punch there.  She has name recognition, shes good on policy, shes harkens back to a better time and shes tough.  But outside of the 50+1 strategy, she has some high negatives and it will be hard for her to draw independents and republicans in large numbers and she might not be as good across the board in the 50 state strategy for coattails.  

Obama on the other hand has a great message and great delivery and reminds people of Bill - a uniter, someone they want to follow.  Hes young, smart and, while some here dont want to admit it, hes got good policy chops and good advisers.  Also, Obama has a better ground game and 50 state strategy which could help with coattails.  Yet Obama is untested and whether we want to admit it or not, race is a factor.  And while some may cite inexperience, our last two presidents were technically 'inexperienced' when they went in (Bush being inexperienced in being a human).

But I dont want to be too cocky.  Who knows whats going to happen.  And while its important to keep track of general election polls now from a general pulse standpoint, we shouldnt put too much emphasis on them until we have a single nominee and get some time campaigning against grumpy McInsane.  Once its one on one, the difference will become apparent very quickly.

Of course thats just my take.

by pattonbt 2008-04-02 07:18PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads