« McCain Camp Denies Any Unethical Conduct | Home | Change To Win Labor Federation Endorsing Obama »

Poll: Hillary Up By 12 In Pennsylvania, Obama Catching Up

A new poll from Franklin & Marshall College shows the Pennsylvania primary race tightening already, with two months to go until the April 22 primary. Hillary Clinton led by 20 in the January poll, but her lead is now at 12 points:

Clinton 44% (+4)
Obama 32% (+12)

Hillary has the backing of the state party establishment here, led by Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. If Obama's recent run of luck continues, though, he could definitely catch up — that is, if he hasn't clinched the nomination already.


42 Comments

| Leave a comment

Hillary keeps touting her managerial experience. Here is a fine example of how Hillary has handled the most important operation in her entire career.


Hillary campaign is broke, and they are not paying bills that they ran up all over the country.

From MSNBC

We are learning more details of the candidates' January fundraising and spending. Clinton ended with debt of more than $7 million; Obama raised $36 million compared to Clintons' $13.6 million. The Clinton debt does NOT include the $5 million personal loan. "But even that money is illusionary when measured against the reported $7.6 million in debts.

More than $2 million of the red ink is owed to chief consultant and adviser, Mark Penn. But the lengthy laundry list of IOUs also includes unpaid bills ranging from insurance coverage, phone banking, printing and catering at events in Iowa, New Hampshire and California."

Penn is owed $2 million? Shoot, I could have run her campaign into the ground and alienated wide swaths of the Democratic base for a mere $250,000!

It would be pretty stupid for Pennsylvania Democrats to support Hillary, given that the polls show Hillary would lose Pennsylvania to McCain, while Obama would carry it in the general election. Just another example of a state Hillary can't carry:

"Hillary also loses Pennsylvania to McCain, 44% to 42%, according to another Rasmussen poll from the 17th. Obama easily carries Pennsylvania 49% to 39%. Note, this is the same Pennsylvania that prominent Hillary supporter Gov. Ed Rendell recently described as too racist for Obama to beat Hillary in the primary."

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/26659785

Not so fast - the Franklin and Marshall poll from today shows McCain beating both of them in PA by narrow margins (actually, it shows McCain and Clinton tied, but as FL 2000 demonstrated, a tie goes to the Republicans because they have appointed more of the supreme court justices).

This Pennsylvania poll is nice, as it means that Obama's name recognition has saturated to the degree that it's nearly on par with Clinton's in a state where he hasn't started campaigning yet, but there is no way this thing lasts until then. The Democratic nomination will be over very shortly after the March 4th primaries.

"If Obama's recent run of luck continues"
LUCK?
WTF?!?

Is it luck that he has way more donors and organizational support?
Is it luck that he has won 10 in a row?
Is it luck that he has more votes and delegates?
Is it luck that he is a better candidate?
Is it luck that Sen. Clinton has run the worst campaign in history?

geez...can't you give the guy some credit?

Obviously Eric is also one of those fools who believe that winning at poker is also a matter of "luck".

Oh, and when it rains, it pours.

Democrats Abroad Results Announced

That link should have been to the actual article, not the CNN blog. Apologies.

Democrats Abroad

If this is true, the Hillary campaign is in deep trouble in Pennsylvania.

Given historical margins in states two months in advance of the primary, she would need to be 30 or 40 points up this far out to stand a chance of defeating him

Apparently orange was the color to bet on on the Pollster graphs :P

I don't want to make too much of the "pimping" comment in retrospect but...

"A few weeks ago, 21-year-old Wisconsin superdelegate Jason Rae was taken out to breakfast by Chelsea Clinton in the runup to that state’s Democratic primary.

Two days after the vote, the college junior – who will be the youngest superdelegate at this year’s Democratic National Convention — is undecided no longer: he’s backing Barack Obama."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/21/superdelegate-schmoozed-by-chelsea-backs-obama/

:P

Oh Chelsea, go back to your hedge fund corporation

Except Obama stands a much much much better chance at beating McCain. In fact I'd be shocked if it wasn't an overwhelming win for Obama. On the other hand, all the polls show (as does common sense) that Hillary can't beat McCain, and I'd be very shocked if her defeat wasn't overwhelming. So all this BS about "vetting" and the GOP wanting to go against Obama is bullshit. Hell, one of McCain's top advisers has said he will quit if they go against Obama because he respects and likes Obama and doesn't want to attack him. Do you think anyone in the GOP would say that about Hillary...?

user-pic

One other point which has been evidenced in this primary. Clinton's support has been maxed out. She remains either stagnant in the polls or decreases. Look at the polling trends. If that holds true against mccain, she has lost already if she is the dem nominee, which she won't be. The more she campaigns and people get to meet her the worse her polling numbers are. It's kind of comical and sad at the same time. Why waste the time and effort campaigning for november. She would be better off going to bora bora til election day if she is the nominee. Presuably her numbers wouldn't go down then.

Obama/Webb 08

Suckers?

Seems like you are if you gave any money to Hillary, because your money will be going to her for the interest on the loan she gave the campaign.

Linking to a Karl Rove piece to help make your point is priceless.

The blog posts you linked to can be summed up with this one phrase, quoted from the mydd post:

"Anecdotal evidence in support of a Republican manipulation is everywhere."

If you would take off your tinfoil hat, stop sucking those sour grapes, and get behind the most appealing Democratic candidate since Franklin Roosevelt, all of these stealth Republican vote jobbers that you are so fearful of wouldn't matter in the general election anyway.

Yes, Barack Obama is a massive nationwide conspiracy that involves millions of Republicans.

Wanna buy a bridge?

I think there actually may be some truth here. Although it was recently updated, the first one traces to an article way back in early November...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1680192,00.html

It's definitely plausibe that some right-wingers assumed early on that Clinton would ultimately be a tougher candidate and would be a nightmare for them if she got elected. They never predicted Obama could outmaneuver and outstrategize her the way he has or that he could reach this level of popularity. At that time nobody thought McCain would be their candidate either.

As we can see, that notion is obviously backfiring and I'm sure some of them are eager to "update" and justify their miscalculation.

Another possible explanation is it helps them explain why some centrist Republicans have and will likely continue to migrate to the "Obama-is-just-alright-with-me" Club. They can explain it away as part of their conspiracy to help get him elected.

In his Tuesday morning interview with Matt Lauer, Obama predicted that on March 5th, the result will be clear, that it will be time to move the nomination forward.

This one is over

If it ends up mattering, PA could come down to the importance of the Michael Nutter endorsement. Nutter is a young, black & wildly popular mayor. He seems like a good match for an Obama endorsement, but in an unforced error by his campaign, Obama endorsed Nutter's challenger in the Democratic primary, Fattah. Will the endorsement help Hillary eat into Philadelphia, which would otherwise be Obama territory? Will PA matter? If the answer to these questions is yes, then the Obama endorsement in a Philly mayoral primary might be the campaign's biggest mistake...

Well, Obama also endorsed Lieberman in the primary against Lamont, and yet Lamont still came to Obama's team this year. As such, I do not know that one can predict too much based on Obama's backing of Nutter's opponent.

For what it's worth, Boston Mayor Tom Menino endorsed Hillary and used his substantial machine on her behalf.

Nonetheless, Obama carried the city.

Of course, Philly could be a diferent story.

user-pic

I don't think that we are going to have to worry about polls in PA. This baby is over 3/5, or shortly thereafter.

Gee, obama is so "lucky." He has only run the best and most organized campaign in recent memory and has the support of 1 million donors and has been blowing the clintons out of the water in state after state. Luck? Give me a break.

PA? Seriously? The Clinton campaign keeps talking about it like it is part of the 3/4 primaries. It is 49 days after Ohio and Texas. Does anyone truly believe she can hang on that long? The 16 days that have passed since super Tuesday have been brutal on her campaign.

Obama supporters gotta love people linking to mydd entries to discredit the Senator..lol

And....a lot of those donors have also been activists in their local communities (the ole grassroots organizaing thing) promoting Obama in all sorts of face-to-face with the voter ways.

user-pic

I agree with the other commenters (and Obama himself, as noted by John McC) that if present trends continue, this race will be over March 5th or soon thereafter. Even if Clinton doesn't acknowledge the writing on the wall, I expect that the many of the remaining superdelegates will coalesce around Obama in the interest of finishing the race, and Obama's lead will become statistically insurmountable.

But a word of caution for fellow Obama supporters. I stand by my caveat "if present trends continue". I see no reason why they won't, but if Clinton manages to pull off compelling wins on March 4th, the race will continue at least through PA.

This sounds basically correct to my ear. I do not know if Clinton will withdraw from the race on Mar 5 but if (and I heartily endorse Genghis' if here) present trends continue, I think that it is reasonable to expect that the supers will coalesce behind him on Mar 5 so as to make his nomination secure so that the democratic campaign does not fall too far behind John McCain's general election race.

Anyone who thinks that Ed Rendell and Michael Nutter have a formidable machine is living in the past. Mr. Ed is an appealing dirtball for whom I've voted many times, but let's not confuse his electability with Hillary's. Same for Michael Nutter, though he is neither charming nor a dirtball. On the ground, Obama's organization in Philly, all volunteers at this point, is moving fast, with help from many local pols who matter. Hillary's is nowhere to be seen. I'm not an Obama plant. I'm just tellin' what the situation is.

Nice! I would have dove in for $249,000.

The fact that she's only got 44% of the vote looks like a real danger sign (for her) to me. Conventional wisdom says that an incumbent with less than 50% in a poll is vulnerable. Given HRC's prominence, she is, effectively, the incumbent in a poll taken this far in advance of actual in-state campaigning. Assuming the race gets that far (which is doubtful, really), she could well lose Pa.

If Senator Obama had lost 11 races in a row, as Senator Clinton has done, he would be dead and buried as a candidate.

The only reason the Clinton campaign is still treated as viable by the national media is because of the respective candidate's last names.

I continue to marvel that this fact doesn't bother those Clinton supporters who call themselves feminists.

The good ship Hillary is sinking fast.

here is what she's going to do, to try desperately to snatch momentum and get those margins going back her way:

1) faux scandals.
2) faux Obama debate flubs.
3) attack ads.

will anyone buy it in the remaining states? they sure haven't thus far. i'm not really convinced she'll drop out 3/4 or 3/5 unless she loses all states that night, and the superdelegate margin reaches about even... or she spends all her money in the next two weeks, but even then, more loans can happen.

Retr2327 is right -- the important number here is not Clinton's lead over Obama, but her level of support. She's got everything on her side now: better name recognition, more high-profile endorsements in the state, no campaigning yet. If she can't do better than 44 percent, she's in trouble. In virtually every state, Obama's support has grown once the campaign starts there, and Hillary's has declined or stagnated. If she can't grow past 44 percent, she's not going to win.

In his Tuesday morning interview with Matt Lauer, Obama predicted that on March 5th, the result will be clear, that it will be time to move the nomination forward.

So in other words, it will be over by March 5th.

Where have I heard that line before?

While I understand people who believe that Clinton might be a better president than Obama (I don't agree, but I understand) I truly do not understand this idea that she would be so much of a better candidate. The argument seems to be that the Republicans will attack Obama--which is true. But almost half the country has an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton already. Fair or not, media bias or not, that's what the polls say. So her ceiling is half the country, automatically. So it seems the risk is much greater in nominating her. We can wish away her negatives all we want, but they are there.

The polls in the majority of state show Obama closer to or beating McCain. And certainly those numbers will not hold as they are--they could go down or up. We don't know what will happen. But Hillary loses i many of these match ups--including MINNESOTA. How are Hillary's going to go up? She's not new on the scene; everyone knows and has made up his or mind about her already. How much give is there? So if she's already losing to McCain, if she's already got half the country with an unfavorable opinion--why is she a better strategic candidate?

user-pic

And I would have done it for free.

We saw what happened when the Clinton camp injected race into the South Carolina campaign; the black vote went enormously for Obama and she lost huge margins of votes from what would have been her base. Whether she was directly responsible or not, her supporter Gov. Rendell laid it out there again in yet another tactless attempt by her side to inject race into the politics. Though that story may have faded some in our collective consciousness, I'd be willing to bet that it is still fresh in the minds of the Penn voters who think that the governor has no business stating publicly that he governs over a huge population of racists. Combine that with Obama's momentum and I would not be surprised if Obama actually wins that "firewall."

As for the comments about young voters, many of us have lived our entire lifetimes under an administration with either a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket. Forgive us if we've decided that we've had enough of that and don't live an oligarchy controlled by two ruling families. I just hope that you don't let the bitterness of the inevitable Clinton defeat allow you to vote for a 3rd Bush term of torture, tax cuts for the super rich, endless war, education cuts, destruction of the constitution, etc.

Right, Fred. I've seen it argued here that if Obama can't convince half the Dems of his message, how can he convince the country? But I think it's far more dangerous that Hillary, as the presumptive nominee, can't convince half the Dems.

user-pic

16 years of hillary-bashing by the right has pretty much dulled many of us to the effect of it. that high 40's negative rating she has translates into a lot of "middle voters" that are not and will not be inspired by a hillary candidacy (or repulsed by attacks against her). she is a known entity.

therefore, the inevitable attacks that will come, regardless of who the dem nominee is, could be presumed to have a different effect on those in the middle ("moderates," "independents," and/or "undecideds"), depending on the candidate. when they attack hillary, there may be indignation amongst those who already support her, but given that there are very few in this country who haven't already formed an opinion about her, it's not likely to move that many voters in her direction. the reaction outside of her supporters will be, "ho-hum, another attack on hillary like we've been hearing for the last 16 years." net effect: little movement, little chance for the "have you no shred of decency..." moment that would be a most welcome development in the context of our political discourse.

the same is not true for obama. the chance that the ugliness of the republican attack machine will offend those "middle" voters is much greater, and the chance that it will bring these voters to him is much greater as well. and there's even the chance that these attacks will leave a lasting negative impression of the republican party with these voters for many years to come.

so, all in all the natural tendencies of the republican party to slime their opponents has a much better upside with an obama candidacy than with a clinton candidacy.

When Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, I began distributing this link in earnest. I've had more than a few visitors to the site, with nary a contradiction – neither a conformation, nor a denial. It’s been too quiet. Well, on two occasions I did catch Hillary’s senior advisor, Jay Carson, tracking me around town with a GPS enabled device. Same Old Town, Alexandria VA where (D) Gary Condit got caught leaving his watchcase in a dumpster. Funny the media never reported that that dumpster is surrounded by a fifteen foot brick wall to discourage gleaners (Safeway, 500 N. Royal Street). Or, that (D) Gary Hart used to live across the street. Absent such information, who would believe Condit was placing material in a clandestine location to be picked up by a specific individual: dead drop. Tale of the womanizing Garys aside, look who gets the most recent ink from the New York Times, John McCain. Is the NY Times indeed allergic to the truth? To borrow a phrase, you decide: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address