Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Quinnipiac Ohio & Pennsylvania


Quinnipiac University

Ohio
Clinton 55, Obama 34

Pennsylvania
Clinton 52, Obama 36

We encourage our readers to click through to see field dates, sample sizes, margins of sampling error, target populations and addition results.

 

Comments
Shane:

I gotta say, as a native of Pennsylvania, those are surprisingly strong numbers for Obama. If this is his starting point, he can easily make himself competitive by late April.

____________________

Andrew:

North Carolina, which has slightlyless delegates than PA, will offset Obama's losses in PA.
NC has a lot of blacks, and ever since the media started the race war, this group has supported Obama as if we were witnessing a matchup between a Republican and a Democrat rather than two Democrats.

____________________

roy:

I must say I am surprised to see Clinton up 21 points in Ohio, a bigger margin than in her home state. And 64-28 among white people? It just seems odd that a candidate who win 51% of white voters in Virginia would get 28% in Ohio.

Time will tell.

____________________

Chantal:

Ohio has a very different Democratic party than Virginia. In Virginia, most of the blue collar whites are Republican, where in Ohio, the blue collar whites are Democrat. (The same was true among the "Wine and Cheese" Dems in CT... in OK, these rich whites are Republican and so they are of no advantage to Obama).

It's a mistake by the media to say all whites are the same, and so saying Obama has taken the white vote is very misleading. Dividing white voters into lower income and higher income workers, you'll see that Clinton still has the advantage among the working class white demographic, which is why she continues to do well in states where this demographic is Democrat... mainly Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

____________________

Shane:

As an Ohioan, I've gotta say that those numbers are soft.

Obama is still relatively unknown here. I mean, people know his NAME, and that he's running for President, but not much more.

Obama just went on the air and opened offices here last week.

He's got the money, message and ground game to win this state, or at least keep it excruciatingly close.

____________________

RS:

The poll was conducted Feb 6-12 - maybe half before Senator Obama's current streak, and definitely before news of the Potomac primaries. So Senator Obama may not have any apparent momentum, contrary to what Quinnipac's Mr Brown says.
Also, Senator Obama has not personally campaigned in Ohio or Pennsylvania yet, and that's usually his best strategy.
By the way, my numbers for NC are 59 district-level and 32 state-level delegates, while Pennsylvania has 98+53. These numbers are from the Democratic Party website.

____________________

What, no mention of the general election matchups? The poll shows Obama and Clinton narrowly losing to McCain in FL and OH, Obama narrowly winning PA and Clinton winning PA by 6 thanks to a regional boost. But in my analysis (click on my name for my blog), the higher undecideds for Obama respresent potential - voters who have made up their mind about Clinton but have yet to get to know Obama.

____________________

KORN:

I have a question! Mark

Can we say obama still unknown in OH PA and TX. Right now, isn;t he the front-ruuner? and of course the media has heavily covered his campaign.

____________________

Phil:

You can point to the national campaign, but remember the post of a few days ago about low-knowledge voters. Those dominate a working class state like Ohio to a larger margin, and so you have a gap that will start to get filled by television ads and local ground game - both areas where Obama has an advantage over Clinton (more money for the former, more skill at the latter).

Note also that the problem is that Clinton doesn't just need an Ohio firewall, she needs an Ohio Blowout Firewall at this point. If Obama goes to Denver leading in pledged delegates, she will have a hard time surpassing him.

In other words, if these numbers hold til March and April, OK. But she doesn't really have much margin of error here. I think even a 10 point win is probably going to be judged insufficient.

____________________

Jonesy:

Hillary is unknown as well, as hard as that is to believe. People still think of her as the caricature that was painted about her in the nineties, that shes a radical left wing feminist. When they get to see her and hear what shes for they find out that she's actually more moderate and their opinion changes. Ive seen polls that suggest that its her not Obama whose poll numbers improve as she campaigns in a state more and more.

____________________

roy:

Chantal,

Working-class whites are Democrats in Texas? If that were true, Democrats would dominate the state's politics.

I understand that Ohio may have fewer well-off Democrats (though I'd be interested in seeing numbers), but this poll shows Clinton winning among college graduates.

____________________

Tony Rezko:

"I think even a 10 point win is probably going to be judged insufficient."

LOL @ Phil.

How's the kool-aid this morning?

____________________

John:

Perhaps someone can tell me if I missing something but in the crosstabs for Ohio, while it shows Clinton's overall support at 55%, her support in the 18-45 group is at 46% and for over 45s, 58%. Which would indicate Quinnipac predict something like 75% of likely voters to be over 45. Can this be right?

____________________

Cade:

It is going to be incredibly tough for Hillary in Texas. The polls show a remarkable upward swing in Texas for Obama, but not so much in Ohio.

I think she should concentrate on Ohio and hope the counts from Columbus get lost somewhere. Normal momentum can be stopped. But Obama is no Dukakis. He has Obamentum, which is like an avalanche at this point. Hillary would probably have an easier time stopping a runaway freight train with a broom.

At this point her best bet is to either go negative (real negative - not that lame "he didn't debate me" nonsense) and also spread as many slanderous, fictious e-mails as possible - you know the kind that mention Barack's middle name and say he is a covert muslim terrorist. Other than that, I see no chance of her winning.

____________________

Norman Hsu:

It is going to be incredibly tough for Hillary in Texas. The polls show a remarkable upward swing in Texas for Obama, but not so much in Ohio.

I think she should concentrate on Ohio and hope the counts from Columbus get lost somewhere. Normal momentum can be stopped. But Obama is no Dukakis. He has Obamentum, which is like an avalanche at this point. Hillary would probably have an easier time stopping a runaway freight train with a broom.

At this point her best bet is to either go negative (real negative - not that lame "he didn't debate me" nonsense) and also spread as many slanderous, fictious e-mails as possible - you know the kind that mention Barack's middle name and say he is a covert muslim terrorist. Other than that, I see no chance of her winning.

____________________

Shane:

"Hillary is unknown as well, as hard as that is to believe. People still think of her as the caricature that was painted about her in the nineties, that shes a radical left wing feminist. When they get to see her and hear what shes for they find out that she's actually more moderate and their opinion changes. Ive seen polls that suggest that its her not Obama whose poll numbers improve as she campaigns in a state more and more."

Uh, are you serious? Basically, all the evidence points the other direction. At least attempt attempt to back your argument up....


Ohio and PA still don't know who he is. I know hardened democrats in PA (older) who still don't know Obama's name ("who is that black candidate")! Once Obama hits the ground in Ohio and PA, he will make MASSIVE inroads.

My call: Clinton wins Ohio by 10, but she basically ties Obama (in terms of delegates NOT VOTES) in Texas. Clinton is forced to duck out of the race mid-March. PA misses yet another chance to impact national politics.

____________________

Larry:

The Dem. primary season has rarely gone on for this long . . and despite cable news, I'd bet only the hard supporters in OH or TX are paying close attention to the preceding primaries.

Obama also has a habit of polling way behind in the month before the primary . . . then he slowly or not so slowly starts to climb as the campaign hits the territory.

The Clintons will have to maintain this kind of (20 pt.) lead - - and then some - - if she wants to catch up with him in delegates, much less overtake. Things look pretty tough for her right now . . .but not impossible.

____________________

Anonymous:

I sadly think alot of you will be so dissapointed to know that Obama is the Republican's wet dream. They will beat this guy senselessly. Why do you think they are afraid to run against Hillary.

lol,it's so obvious that Republicans (Independents) are voting for him b/c they think he'll be easier. Idaho, for example, the RNC can put out their talking point to their voters. Oh my, the Democratic party loves picking bad candidates.

____________________

FlyOnTheWall:

Eric:

I haven't looked closely at the Pennsylvania poll, but I have blogged about the Ohio results, and in the process, found something interesting. Quinnipiac doesn't release the demographic breakdown of its weighted sample, just the crosstabs. But it's possible to work backwards from the numbers they provide to get a rough idea of what their sample must look like. And my back-of-the-envelope math shows that their Ohio sample was almost 2-1 female. That's just plain crazy. For context, the 2004 exit polls showed a 52-48 divide. That, right there, accounts for at least three points of the spread. This Q-Poll also shows evidence of the Reverse Bradley/Wilder effect; it puts Obama's black support at 64-17%. That's not really the pollsters' fault, but it is worth bearing in mind.

Three questions I wish Quinnipiac would answer:
1) What percentage of your sample is male/female?
2) What percentage of your sample is black?
3) What percentage of your sample is independent/republican?

Without knowing those numbers, it's really tough to tell just how wide the Clinton lead may be.

____________________

Bill:

I think the delagate count is a farce. If Hillary wins TX, OH and PY. It's over. She will lead in the popular vote and won the states that matter most to Dems in a general election. Dems know if they lost PN in the gerneral election it's over and the fact that he could lose Ohio to McCain. Remember the Dems lost the White House by 100,000 votes in '04. I think the Dems smart enough not to let that happen again. The super delegates will back the pop vote and the person who can win the BATTLE GROUND STATES. You Obama folks need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid

____________________

Bill:

One other thing, you Obama folks always make excuses when a poll doesn't go your way.

Obama can't even win California in the General Election. Hispanics won't vote for him and Arnold who is popular will back McCain.

But don't worry you be ahead with your meaningless pledged delegates. Cause if you don't sit FL, it's just another state you lose in the general election.


____________________

Phil:

Re: A 10% win.

If Clinton takes Ohio and Texas 55/45, after a sequence of 10 20 point wins by Obama? Her firewall only gets her that kind of lead in two states that are supposed to be her dream demographics?

That's not a win. It leaves the race, at best, back up in the air. And the next chunk of the calendar favors Obama - Mississippi and Wyoming round out March. Assuming it continues to April, Clinton takes Pennsylvania and still doesn't have a pledged delegate lead. After that comes Indiana and North Carolina - the last big state, both of which favor Obama. (Too much of Indiana is a suburb of Chicago, and Indianapolis is too black for Clinton to make up the difference there)

Then we have five primaries remaining. West Virginia and Kentucky favor Clinton. Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota favor Obama.

Assuming Vermont for Obama and Rhode Island for Clinton we end with Obama taking 33 contests and the delegate lead, while Clinton has 20. (Counting here DC, the US Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, and not counting Guam and Puerto Rico, as I'm hesitant to make a prediction on those. Also counting Michigan and Florida for her.)

So what, exactly, is her advantage going into the convention? She doesn't have the pledged delegate lead, she doesn't have the state lead, she's got a marginal shot at the overall vote lead. She's strong in a bunch of states that the Democrats won't possibly lose. They've each got strengths in swing states - Iowa, Virginia, Maryland, and Louisiana for him, Ohio and Florida for her.

What's the big Clinton advantage here? Unless she wins commandingly enough to take the pledged delegate count back from Obama, I do not see where the advantages that lead the party to back her come from. Maybe if you seat Michigan and Florida... but if you treat the Uncommitted vote in Michgan as Obama vote (which seems to me the only way to begin to aproximate what to do with that state) and give them the delegates they would have won, those two only give Clinton 38 more pledged delegates. Even if you gave her those, erasing Obama's current pledged delegate lead in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania requires a 65/35 lead for her to take the pledged delegate lead.

So what's the path to victory that runs through her getting a 55/45 win in Ohio? It's a third of what she needs.

____________________

Shane:

Re: Phil

Agreed with your post. Also, I'm starting to expect a far closer race in Texas than Clinton is looking for. The last poll out (from late January) showed Clinton with only a 10 point lead! That's before Obama won Super Tuesday (in terms of number of states won and delegates won, he won Super Tuesday. Sorry Clinton fans), then 8 straight contests since.. not to mention Obama's none-too-distant advertising extravaganza in Texas.

And none of this is looking at TX's rules! The primary aspect of Texas is leaning Obama because of the way delegates are given out (African-Americans will get more delegates than usual, Hispanics will get less - look it up), and the caucus aspect of Texas, if history serves as a model, should be a boon for Obama. I'm starting to think Obama could take Texas! If he does, or even comes close, kiss Hillary goodbye.

____________________

Chantal:

Back if the envelope:

Ohio:
Men (25%), Women (75%)
HRC leads BHO by 10 points among men.
HRC leads BHO by 26 points among women.
HRC leads BHO by 26 points among white men.
HRC leads BHO by 42 points among white women.

Penn:
Men (40%), Women (60%)
HRC leads BHO by 10 points among men.
HRC leads BHO by 20 points among women.
HRC leads BHO by 16 points among white men.
HRC leads BHO by 34 points among white women.

____________________

Bill:

I sense that Obamacans are getting worried. I guess you don't understand the meaning of BATTLE GROUND STATE. Obama can't win them. Pledged Delegates are a joke. He could be up 50 and it won't matter and you all know it. You just don't want to admit it. When the DNC and Super's give the nod to Hillary, I HOPE you have enough tissue ready. It's gonna hurt.

____________________

Phil:

If the supers were going to give the nod to Hillary, they'd be doing it instead of defecting to Obama.

As for Chantal's numbers, where on earth are you getting a 75/25 gender split in Ohio from? That's a 30 point wider split than we've seen in any state I can find results from. Even your 60/40 in PA is at the highest end of what we've seen.

And a 42 point lead among white women? She's pulled that kind of a lead in one state - Arkansas. She only pulled the 30 predicted in one state - OK.

____________________

Shane:

"I sense that Obamacans are getting worried. I guess you don't understand the meaning of BATTLE GROUND STATE. Obama can't win them. Pledged Delegates are a joke. He could be up 50 and it won't matter and you all know it. You just don't want to admit it. When the DNC and Super's give the nod to Hillary, I HOPE you have enough tissue ready. It's gonna hurt."

I hear this time and time again from Hillary supporters. "Obama can't win a general election." Look at the data available. Obama does CONSISTENTLY better in national polls, and, in the admittedly few GE state polls available, Obama either does significantly better (see Colorado for a 21 point difference) or about the same.

When you look at favorability/unfavorability, Obama TROUNCES Clinton. When you look at youth support, moderate support, independent support, even far left support, Obama TROUNCES Clinton. Clinton has a lead with hardcore blue collar democrats who don't want to vote for a black guy but WOULD vote for a woman president. Guess what - those votes aren't going anywhere. The youths, the progressives, the indies, and the moderates that back Obama though.. they'll flock to McCain (and some to Nader and the Greens I'd expect) like there's no tomorrow. Or they just won't flock anywhere... a Clinton nomination would dash a lot of enthusiasm.

I like both candidates, and I would vote for either in the general election. However, I think Obama is just, flat out, a better candidate and would be a better president.

____________________

Jonesy:

Shane,

Here is the quote I remembered reading:
"(3) Clinton does better as the number of candidate visits increases. This was a bit of a surprise, but it is good news for her. Campaign effects seem to incline the electorate to her."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/
2008/02/the_state_of_the_democratic_ra.html

Most people around the nation know her from the years Bill was in the whitehouse, not from her time as a senator from NY. I think it was mostly the '92 campaign (Im not standing by my man, I could just make cookies and have tea, etc....) that cemented in peoples minds the idea that she's a left wing feminist.

Polls also show that people think she is very liberal, more liberal than Obama is. The majority of voters dont see her the way people in the blogosphere do. I even had the wrong impression of her. I was arguing against her being the nominee because I thought she was leftist too. But I found out after seeing her in the first debates and early in the campaign that she is actually a moderate like Bill.

Thats what voters would find out about her in a general election to. And that would explain what RealClearPolitics found in their analysis.

____________________

Shane:

Jonesy,

Well, sorry if I was a little critical. I guess then that Obama AND Clinton both do better when they're on the ground in a state. I still argue Obama's record demonstrates a greater strength in this field, but whatevs :P.

As for the GE, I think both candidates are liberals, but.. so what? The country wants health care reform, an end to the Iraq War, a more fair economic arrangement, trade deals more conducive to the working man, etc. The country as a whole is further left than it was in the 90's or even just a few years ago. I think Obama would beat McCain in a general election because the GOP just isn't in touch with the nation anymore.

____________________

michael:

Shane, those vague senses of why Obama has more winnability, and the reliance on national polls are exactly why the winnability argument for Obama, being made 9 months before the election, are bunk.

Some polls in battleground states were recently conducted:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/

Florida: McCain vs. Clinton
McCain 44, Clinton 42, Und 9: McCain +2
Florida: McCain vs. Obama
McCain 41, Obama 39, Und 12: McCain +2
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton
McCain 44, Clinton 43, Und 8: McCain +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama
McCain 42, Obama 40, Und 10: McCain +2
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton
McCain 40, Clinton 46, Und 9 Clinton +6
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama
McCain 41, Obama 42, Und 11 Obama +1

Obama does well nationally, but in a very vote-inefficient manner. The next president needs to win 270 electoral college votes. Obama does marginally (not significant) worse than Clinton in Florida and Ohio, and pushes Pennsylvania from a Dem lean to a tossup state.

On top of this, given his weakness among Hispanic voters, it is hard to see him doing well in other perennial swing states like Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada (especially up against McCain), and heck, he may even have to spend time and resources shoring up California.

____________________

The General:

Ah, I love the smell of Democratic disunity in the morning!!!!!!!

You traitor-crats are battling for who to send to the eventual loss to the most dignified man in the race, John McCain. War hero and independent maverick.

McCain/Romney 08

It's just that simple. The more your party fights over two awful candidates, the more the GOP laughs at you. And please pick Hussein Obama, who has ties to radical islam elements in Kenya through his family. That will be like stealing candy from a baby. This is just a sneak preview of what we're bringing to the table when Dumbo the muslim gets the nom http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/whats_waiting_for_obama.html

HAHAHAHAHA

Democrats fighting for two awful candidates. Run them both and call it Affirmative Action 08!

ROFLMFAO!@

____________________

Shane:

Michael,

Those aren't all of the GE polls done.

From Rasmussen:
Missouri:
McCain v. Clinton, 43 v. 42, +1 McCain
McCain v. Obama, 42 v. 40, +2 McCain
Colorado:
McCain v. Clinton, 49 v. 35, +14 McCain
McCain v. Obama, 39 v. 46, +7(!!) Obama
New Hampshire:
McCain v. Clinton, 41 v. 43, +2 Clinton
McCain v. Obama, 36 v. 49, +13 Obama (yes, +13)
Nevada:
McCain v. Clinton, 49 v. 40, +9 McCain
McCain v. Obama, 38 v. 50, +12 Obama (!!!!!!)

I'm not cherry picking. These are all the recent ones I've found, although I could probably find more. A statistically insignificant difference in PA is nothing compared to this.

____________________

Nikki:

Let's not forget that alot of the earlier polls had Obama down by at least 20 points, but he managed to even it out almost every time. Does anyone out there seriously think he can't do it again?

____________________

The General:

"he may even have to spend time and resources shoring up California."

McCain would win California easily. He's a favorite among the hispanics and the governor endorses him very strongly. McCain is a moderate Republican who believes in climate change action and reasonable immigration laws. That will win him a lot of independents and hispanics. Meanwhile, Obama will never get the hispanic vote in CA. They'd never trust a shifty black guy. Nor should they.

____________________

Phil:

The General's wise council and analysis would, no doubt, look substantially less idiotic if he did not resort to name-calling, long-disproven accusations about Obama's ties to radical Islam, and racist slander like "shifty black guy."

Barring that, though, he's at least good for a laugh while the grownups try to look at actual data and information.

Meanwhile, those are some very interesting numbers Shane is citing. It moves the battleground of swing states away from where it was in 2000 and 2004. Away from the Big Two and towards a smattering of states that seem to be acquiring more of a wealthy liberal electorate. Colorado and Nevada are particularly interesting in this regard. That, coupled with a shift in Virginia and Maryland, or in Louisiana would be a fascinating reshape of the electoral map.

____________________

Pinky the Pinko:

perhaps the general is better known as Betray Us?

____________________

The General:

Phil,

Bring on the inexperienced Senator who supports radical elements of Islam in Kenya. Can you say swift-boat?

I knew you could.

Besides, your party is in shambles. Those polls do not reflect how much the party will be in disarray when it goes to the convention. If Billary wins, Obama's supporters will cry and not vote. If Obama wins, PMS rage will destory the party.

Face it, your party is in ruins and both sides hate each other right now. Sure, we've got some disagreements in the GOP, but we're coming together with John McCain. You cannot even settle on a candidate because 50% of you hate the other candidate.

It's just too funny.

A vote for Obama is a vote for security because that ensures McCain will be POTUS #44.

Face it. You know it to be true.

Phil, the water cooler at work is almost empty. You should do your job and replace it.

ROFLMFAO!!!!!

____________________

The General:

"Betray Us"

Speaking of that, wait until McCain points out in a debate that the group that ran that disgusting hate ad towards the military was the same one that is raising thousands of dollar for Hussein Obama, Moveon.org.

That'll sell big.

ROFLMFAO!!!

____________________

Phil:

For someone posting on a site devoted primarily to the study of poll results and statistics, you seem woefully underinformed about them. In one of the most closely fought primary states, Missouri, half the Democratic electorate would be satisfied with either candidate winning. In New York, where Clinton won by a landslide, 50%. Obama's landslide state of Utah? 51%.

The polls pitting McCain against the candidates show comparable results to that, with Obama generally doing a hair better than Clinton against him. And no surprise - McCain is far more vulnerable than Obama or Clinton to accusations of flip-flopping. The reverse of positions on tax cuts, the vote against an anti-torture measure in Congress, and the support for what remains a bitterly unpopular war aren't going to help him. Nor is his generally weak mastery of mass media. He's charismatic in social situations and direct interactions with voters, but put him on television giving a speech and he comes across as a feeble if pleasant old man.

Combine that with his inability to hold the Christian conservative voters who fueled the last two Republican victories and I see a candidate who will have some serious problems against a candidate with unusual strength in the south and west.

Now run along. I'm sure there's some Ann Coulter somewhere you still haven't read.

____________________

jim:

this poll was taken Feb 6-12, before Obama's string of big victories. will be interesting to compare this poll with ones to come that survey a later time period.

____________________

Rich:

Misogyny is the last ceiling...Hillary is running against Obama and the press. That's hard! They'll face a big challenge when McCain wins and they realise that they shot themselves in the foot by backing OBAMA! The press must be told: criticism of a black man is not racism. Not criticizing a black man because he is black IS racism! Clinton and Bush got in trouble over drugs, why not Obama? Equating drugs to blacks is as racist as equating other stereotypes to blacks! No wonder the press often polls somewhere between Anthrax and Osama Bin Laden.

____________________

RS:

Considering the GE state-polls cited here:
NH, Nevada, Colorado, MO are states where Senator Obama has campaigned extensively. And he's well-ahead in 3, even in MO against Senator McCain.
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida - these states haven't seen much of Senator Obama yet (you can cry all you want about national TV ads - but that's different from actively campaigning there.)

@Jonesy - the RCP blog quote you point out has an admitted weakness - big states receive more visits from candidates, and thus far Senator Clinton has done well in the traditional Democratic strongholds of CA, MA, NY, NJ. A better metric as suggested (not by me, I will have to look for the link) was maybe visits per capita.

By the way, I think The General is a hilarious caricature of all things bad about Republicans. I am pretty sure someone's a troll :-)

____________________

Josh:

OHIO FOR HILLARY !!!

____________________

Josh:

OHIO FOR HILLARY !!!

____________________

tony:

Virginia had an open primary - which allowed independents and I believe republicans to vote (not sure about the latter). I live in the region and a friend of mine said that a buddy of his came out to vote for Obama even though he's not a Dem. Unfortunately, he said he is voting for McCain in the national election. I read some articles about this potentially happening in other elections.

____________________

Krassen:

general said;
"Meanwhile, Obama will never get the hispanic vote in CA. They'd never trust a shifty black guy. Nor should they."

True, but O.J.Simpson is not running. I believe they'll go for a brilliant and honest black guy...

____________________

The General:

"brilliant and honest black guy"

Let me know when one enters the contest. So far, there is only a charlatan.

____________________

Cade:

Hey "General",

Isn't it time to get off mommy and daddy's computer? Put your helmet on and get ready for school. The short bus is coming soon!

____________________

vincie:

I BELIEVE THAT HILLARY WOULD DO THE BEST AGAINST MCCAIN. IN SOME OF THOSE STATES REPUBLICANS DID VOTE FOR OBAMA. THE REPUBLICANS KEEP SAYING THE WOULD RATHER RUN AGAINST HILLARY. WHEN DID THE REPUBLICANS TELL YOU THE TRUTH? I'M FROM PA. AND THE FRIENDS I KNOW ARE ALL VOTING FOR HILLARY. WE NEED SOMEONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE THAT KNOWS WHATS GOING ON. OBAMA SAID HE IS GOING TO GIVE THE VISION TO THE PEOPLE HE HIRES AND THEY ARE GOING TO CARRY IT OUT. SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE WE KNOW GW. I'M SORRY, YOU HAVE TO BE TRIED AND TESTED AND THIS MAN WAS NOT TESTED OR TRIED YET. HE RAN AGAINST NO ONE FOR HIS SENATE SEAT. WE HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN THIS ELECTION, BUT MY FEAR IS OBAMA WILL LOSE AND LOSE BIG TIME.

____________________

Shane:

Vincie, as a fellow Pennsylvanian, I'd probably be more likely to respect your opinion if you stuck to standard writing conventions. In other words, please turn caps off next time :-).

All these rumors of Republicans voting in the election just to help Obama (and later defeat him) are distortions. There is as much proof that GOP wants Obama as the nominee as there is that they want Hillary as the nominee. Rush Limbaugh has considered raising money for Hillary, McCain is rumored to prefer a fight with Hillary, and the national favorable/unfavorable polls STRONGLY skew for Obama.

In an election about change, we need a new politician with a new name. Hillary is with the old guard. She voted for the war. Her husband's administration differed little from the Reagan-Bush domination that surrounded him (for more information: see welfare reform, NAFTA, Yugoslavia, strikes on Iraq, avoidance of Rwanda, failure on healthcare, and the loss of BOTH houses under the first Clinton). She avoided both telecom immunity votes (Obama at least made it to one to express his opposition to telecom immunity), and she has hinted that she would not really end the war in Iraq.

This is a change-fueled election. Putting another Clinton against another Reagan-Bu****e would just put us back into the same fight that we've been fighting for 20 years. Moderates don't like Hillary. Independents don't like Hillary. Republicans don't like Hillary. Progressives don't like Hillary.

Hillary Clinton will not win the presidency.

____________________

Phil:

I think Shane's analysis is spot-on here. Hillary has had a massive advantage in the primaries, in that she's far better known than Obama.

But with that fame comes a major price in the general election - starting out with a 40%+ disapproval rate that is not going to be easily shifted.

____________________

David :

Agreed Shane.

What vincie and others don't understand is, it doesn't matter who he or his friends vote for in Pennsylvania. It is going to be over on March 4th.

As others have mentioned before, the polls show Obama closing fast. His momentum (referred to previously as the OBAMA EXPRESS) is like a runaway freight train. In fact, Hillary may have an easier time stopping a runaway freight train than stopping Obama.

Someone here also said that the polls never reflect the late grounwork of candidates, and in many cases Obama's people have done a beter job with that. Anywhere Obama has had time to campaign, he has swung people over to his side in a hurry, to make the election nearly even, or way in his favor. The places he did not have sufficient time to campaign is where he did not do as well (super tuesday states).

This is very bad news for Hillary. She should either go real negative real bad (like someone said earlier) or should hope he gets laryngitis or something. The Obama Express has stops through Texas and Ohio the next few weeks.

Anyone betting against him?

____________________

rowjimmy:

"Anyone betting against him?"

I'd bet a few dollars, maybe $5, that Hillary wins the popular vote in both big Mar 4 states. But, it's just a hunch. More confident about OH than TX, where black vs latino turnout is hard to project.

I don't buy all the RIPs for her campaign though. The one certainty is that if she fails to win both big states on Mar 4, she is done. No questions. Margin of victory will be spun as the key. Obama supporters are saying she has to win "huge." Others, who I tend to think are correct, merely suggest she needs comfortable (8-10%?) wins.

But, for sure, there is no PA vote to matter if March 4 does not see Hillary completing two long passes.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR