« Hillary: "I Regret Deeply" Ferraro's Remarks | Home | Rendell: Isn't Popular Vote As Important As Pledged Del Count? »
Rasmussen: Hillary Ahead In Pennsylvania, Her Supporters Divided About Ferraro's Remarks
The new Rasmussen poll of Pennsylvania gives Hillary Clinton a strong lead in the primary, not significantly changed from their poll a week ago:
Clinton 51% (-1)
Obama 38% (+1)
A key statistic from the internals: Among Clinton voters, 39% agree with Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Barack Obama, while 47% disagree. Among Obama's voters, 93% of them disagree.
As for the general election match-ups, Rasmussen has John McCain narrowly ahead against either of the two Democrats:
McCain (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 44%
McCain (R) 44%, Obama (D) 43%
Advertisement















Excellent, the archie bunker strategy is working better than the clintons expected. There sure are alot of archie bunker types in PA. You go girl.
March 13, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a bad ball park. Obama is the underdog here so there's six weeks to make it close. That's a good goal for him. Survey USA has it at 20 but either way he can make it closer and that helps him. Clinton has to win and win big time, just to stay alive in public perception.
March 13, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that were the case but an Obama loss, no matter how small, would "indicate a lack of confidence in his candidacy" according to Mark Penn, a bullshit idea from the king of bullshitters that seems to have floated among public opinion post-March 4th. God I would love for Obama to pull a surprise victory out of the Keystone State and put this damn thing to rest once and for all. It's apparent from Nancy Pelosi's comments in recent weeks that Sen. Clinton has refused to acquiesce. Florida re-votes look doomed, she doesn't stand to gain much in Michigan, she's going to get waxed in NC and there aren't enough remaining votes to resurrect her dismal popular vote count. I keep asking, what the hell is she waiting for? When she wins by 6-10% in PA, putting no real dent in the arithmetic, what will be the spin on April 23rd. There will be a reason for her to stick it out but for what? 80/20 victories in the 8 remaining states? This thing is over and has been over since WI. Al Gore needs to bawlz up and get behind Obama so we can put this whole thing behind us and start fighting John McCain for the goddamn oval office in November!
March 13, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like someone in the Clinton campaign was up to speed on the Archie Bunker demographic in PA. Maybe Mark Penn finally nailed one of his mircro-trends.
March 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is interesting to me because it disproves the Clinton campaign notion that winning a "big" state primary by a wide margin somehow dictates how the general election will play out.
Not sure how much weight to place on these polls, though.
March 13, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
As much weight as you put on any polls. Zippo.
March 13, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. He actually performs better than HRC, though admittedly in the margins of error.
What's shocking to me is how many HRC supporters admitted to agreeing with Ferraro's statements. Nearly half!
March 13, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's because we know Ferraro is right. Neither Clinton nor Obama would be where they are if it wasn't for their gender or race. It would be the Edwards/Kucinich nomination. Or Biden/Richardson.
But when we're told daily about "first AA and first woman" with a chance, it's hard not to see how they are not largerly defined by who they are.
The fact of Axelrod is jumping all over this, is another story. It's called dirty politics.
March 13, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What nonsense.
Obama gained traction with many supporters because aside from Kucinich moonbeam, he was the only one running who didn't support authorizing the invasion of Iraq.
If you think Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate, or then to the U.S. Senate because he was black, you are delusional.
March 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shocking, isn't it ! Racism is alive and well in the USA. And it's not always where you think it is . I moved from Michigan to Louisiana in 1977. I found less racism in Louisiana than in Michigan. (I am not white, I am Chippewa). This was my perception.Overall in the USA I believe racism is less than in the past. It appears to me that Hillary is using the race card. This should not surprise anyone.Look at her history.Why has she stuck with Bill, after he did her wrong so many times ? It is all about win at any price ! Hillary will do what she feels she has to do to win. And if that includes putting us dark skinned people in our place, she will do that ! I am not saying that Ms Clinton is a racist, Just that she will do whatever she has to do to win .
March 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, usually Hillary supporters never leave the official line, and seem to typically think all attacks against Obama by Hillary's campaign are fair (and I don't mean that in an accusatory way, that is just how it usually comes out in surveys), so I'm actually quite shocked that more of them disapproved of the comments than approved.
March 13, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the poll necessarily shows the Archie Bunker strategy working in PA. I mean, roughly half of people already committed to her think it is bad news. & what she needs to do is to reach the 10% that is undecided. Doesn't it make sense that those who agree with Clinton are already in her camp? Isn't this a recipe for a 51-45 victory, rather than 60-40?
March 13, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's only 13 points behind her? Damn, thats not good for her, if he can maintain that he is good to go. If he can cut into that even more she is going to be hurting (although she'll pretend she can still win, somehow...)
I'd rather him win though, so we can just end this thing, because obviously Hillary, her supporters, and Rush Limbaugh, McCain the the Republicans have no interest in ending it.
March 13, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw a poll with her at close to 20% in her lead. As usual, Hillary has an enormous early lead and institutional support. If she can't win by more than 15% it will confirm what we have been learning throughout this campaign season: Obama wins voters and Hillary loses them. Now, what does that tell you about who is the strongest in the GE. Hillary must have a blowout in Pennsylvania. She's got everything she could possibly want going for her. If Pennsylvania is going to turn things around for her so that she can gain ground on Obama in states like Oregon and North Carolina and not just have one win that is immediately erased like her March 4th win, she has to have a route. It's time to stop the delusional attitude some have towards the Clinton campaign. They are on the edge of the precipice and simply winning is not enough. They must win HUGE to turn this around.
March 13, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"They are on the edge of the precipice. . .?" They fell off about 5 primaries ago. Now all they are doing is trying to nuke the dem party in november.
The clintons are just wonderful party loyalists. Remember what they did for the party in the 90's. The dems got trounced in congressional elections and mr. bill had a high approval rating as he left office because he was impeached for a bj. Marvelous.
March 13, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You took the typeface right outta my mouth, playjurist.
Hillary this time has split the base of her own support. Olbermann is right. Coming out forcefully in the beginning of this debacle would have unified the party and added to her support base. It could have changed everything around starting from SC.
Hillary knows that this is one of THE topics that would be a division factor in the Democratic party. She doesn't have the foresight to know that some of her supporters aren't voting for her because she is a woman or that Barack happens to be black.
She's using myopic loyality and her hands off managerial style again to her detriment.
Super Tuesday #2, Wyoming, Mississippi is the new Iowa and SC.
Pennsylvania is the new New Hampshire.
Ferraro is the new Bill.
March 13, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
She will be dead in the water here in Oregon regardless of what PA does.
March 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Barack Obama picked up five more delegates than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in Mississippi's Democratic primary Tuesday.
But Clinton erased the gain Wednesday after final election results became available from a couple of Super Tuesday contests.
In Mississippi, Obama won 19 delegates and Clinton 14, according to an analysis of returns by The Associated Press.
Obama won the primary with more than 60 percent of the vote, according to unofficial returns. But Clinton was able to hold down Obama's delegate gains by winning one of the state's four congressional districts. Obama carried the other three.
Clinton eliminated the gain when she picked up delegates based on final results from the New York primary and the Colorado caucuses, both of which were held Feb. 5. Clinton gained four delegates in Colorado and one delegate in New York.
The results were delayed in New York because the race for one delegate was too close to call. Clinton won the New York primary, picking up 139 delegates, to 93 for Obama.
In Colorado, the Democratic Party did not release results by congressional district until this week. Ten delegates had been outstanding; three went to Obama and seven went to Clinton. Obama won the Colorado caucuses, getting 35 delegates, to 20 for Clinton.
Clinton also picked up three superdelegates Wednesday.
GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 13, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
IF-Clinton could get EVERY vote in Pennsylvania she would be about even with Obama. Any idea of the odds on that ? Failing that, she has to get at least 65% of the votes up to the convention. What are the odds on that ? I would not bet on Ms Clinton being the candidate . Her chances are right at zero. Where is that iron ?
March 13, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Barack Obama picked up five more delegates than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in Mississippi's Democratic primary Tuesday.
But Clinton erased the gain Wednesday after final election results became available from a couple of Super Tuesday contests.
In Mississippi, Obama won 19 delegates and Clinton 14, according to an analysis of returns by The Associated Press.
Obama won the primary with more than 60 percent of the vote, according to unofficial returns. But Clinton was able to hold down Obama's delegate gains by winning one of the state's four congressional districts. Obama carried the other three.
Clinton eliminated the gain when she picked up delegates based on final results from the New York primary and the Colorado caucuses, both of which were held Feb. 5. Clinton gained four delegates in Colorado and one delegate in New York.
The results were delayed in New York because the race for one delegate was too close to call. Clinton won the New York primary, picking up 139 delegates, to 93 for Obama.
In Colorado, the Democratic Party did not release results by congressional district until this week. Ten delegates had been outstanding; three went to Obama and seven went to Clinton. Obama won the Colorado caucuses, getting 35 delegates, to 20 for Clinton.
Clinton also picked up three superdelegates Wednesday.
GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 13, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
triple posting inanity=!!!HILLMENTUMâ„¢!!!!
March 13, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Barack Obama picked up five more delegates than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in Mississippi's Democratic primary Tuesday.
But Clinton erased the gain Wednesday after final election results became available from a couple of Super Tuesday contests.
In Mississippi, Obama won 19 delegates and Clinton 14, according to an analysis of returns by The Associated Press.
Obama won the primary with more than 60 percent of the vote, according to unofficial returns. But Clinton was able to hold down Obama's delegate gains by winning one of the state's four congressional districts. Obama carried the other three.
Clinton eliminated the gain when she picked up delegates based on final results from the New York primary and the Colorado caucuses, both of which were held Feb. 5. Clinton gained four delegates in Colorado and one delegate in New York.
The results were delayed in New York because the race for one delegate was too close to call. Clinton won the New York primary, picking up 139 delegates, to 93 for Obama.
In Colorado, the Democratic Party did not release results by congressional district until this week. Ten delegates had been outstanding; three went to Obama and seven went to Clinton. Obama won the Colorado caucuses, getting 35 delegates, to 20 for Clinton.
Clinton also picked up three superdelegates Wednesday.
GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 13, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
HC08: Clinton also picked up three superdelegates Wednesday.
JH1414: Who? According to Demconwatch Hillary LOST 2 super delegates on Wednesday
3-12-08 - Moved DNC David Hardt (TX) from Clinton back to uncommitted.
- Removed Gov. Eliot Spitzer (NY) from Hillary Clinton's endorsement list after he announced his resignation that will be effective on Monday, March 17th.
Source: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
March 13, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the Hillbot was referring to pledged delegates, not superdelegates.
March 13, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yada,yada yada, blah.blah, blah. What you said =0. Obama is WAY ahead, Hillary will not catch up. Hillary is history. She should go home and bake some cookies or iron Bills shirts.
March 13, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 13, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, I love you.
March 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the desk of:
Howling Wolfson
Senator Clinton continues to wait to see what develops before making any comments on the Eliot Spitzer Sex Scandel.
Senator Clinton is also withhold comments on the rumored death of General Franco.
March 13, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
By attacking Hagee's remarks Pelosi made the remarks of spiritual advisors fair game. Hence the publicizing of Wright's sermon.
This anaylsis makes as much sense as Josh's claim racism has been injected into this campaign because some Clinton supporters have noted certain advantages which accrue to being black in the Democratic primary.
I would also note that the WSJ -- not a notorious Hillary supporter -- also recognizes that Obama has been falling back on petulant claims of racism every time he is challenged. He's played that card too often.
Face it, the Republicans are raising these challenges for the traditional reason: Obama is currently ahead and they are not waiting for the primary season to end.
March 13, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama has been falling back on petulant claims of racism every time he is challenged. He's played that card too often."
Give us concrete examples and links.
March 13, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, cite specific examples, please.
March 13, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to burst your bubble, but the WSJ is a murdoch owned enterprise, a huge, huge, huge clinton fan. See, fox entertainment. Murdoch knows where his bread is buttered and he wouldn't be who he is today without the help of the clintons. The ridiculous media consolidation began under the clintons first two terms. We have the clintons to thank for the likes of the right-wing media, with fox entertainment as its standard bearer.
Thank you clintons for the wonderful ways that you have helped the american people and democracy. We appreciate it.
March 13, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
expect unlike McCain, Obama has already denouced things that he said.
March 13, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too was surprised to see how high the disapproval #'s for Ferraro's remarks were among Clinton supporters. Wouldn't it be nice if it all backfired on the Clinton campaign? We can all hope, anyway.
March 13, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being black may benefit Obama in GA, SC, MS, AL, VA, MD and DC, but works against him in CA, AZ, NV, NM, PA, TX, OH & Florida.
Don't tell Pat Buchanan this though.
March 13, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
13 points ahead some 5 weeks out is "strong"...?
Given past performance by Obama in the week or two before a contest, that third "firewall" may not hold.
March 13, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Split the undecideds and imagine 57%-43% for Senator Clinton in Pennsylvania.
Can anyone offer ANY way that in races after that, Senator Clinton could take a lead in pledged delegates? ANY way she could get within 50 of Senator Obama.
57% doesn't give her victory. It just prolongs the agony.
March 13, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like wwjb I am relieved and, sadly, somewhat surprised to see half of Clinton supporters rejecting Ferraros remarks. Given the comments here and on some other blogs ("She's right!/she was talking about sexism not racism!/This is Obama's fault/ooooh, birdies!") I was feeling pretty sad about my party.
Anecdotally, my mother has been polling some of her friends who did vote for Hillary and they were really shocked about it. My guess is while it could play well with Mr. Archibald Bunker, it may not with some of the older white women voters--those who aren't so invested in Hillary as some kind of political Joan of Arc that they can't see straight.
At the most excellent blog The Field, he's got a good analysis of the delegate math, and given the way the districts work and are weighted he said it should be a very big win for Hillary. I am hopeful Obama can close the gap a little but it's best not to let Hillary set the goalposts here.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/
March 13, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch. That's a tough analysis, but better to set expectations low early on and then work toward a best-case scenario.
March 13, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
View that and tell me Obama wasn't the one to start playing the race card:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA
March 13, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then, there is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzhl-endvco
March 13, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, if you disagree with Pastor Wright, then I think all this post proves is that Barack's minister plays the race card, not that he does. There are two things in that video, Barack refusing to play the race card, and his pastor going all in. Second, I don't hear anything remotely offensive in that speech. It's true.
Sorry the truth hurts.
March 13, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There really isn't much point in focusing on general election polls now -- anything can happen. Someone should check back to 1988 and see how far ahead Dukakis was in August.
After the Democrats select a nominee, then the Republicans will attempt to considerably alter the perception of that nominee -- polls might be more interesting at that time.
March 13, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Starting tomorrow, I'm making phone calls and writing letters to the supers in my home state who are still on the fence with regard to casting their vote. I'm at a loss to understand how they can idly sit by and not put an end to this ridiculousness. Hell, if they voted against Obama but for the district they represented, I'd be fine with that. But to watch this unfold and do nothing is unconscienable.
If anyone's got a better source for superdelegate information than the following URL, please pass it along. In the meantime, I'm using the info I'm finding there to jumpstart the pen and phone dialing.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
March 13, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
vader52199,
Thank you for suggesting this. It is just what I was thinking of doing.
I wish there was a web site that gathered not just the uncommitted supers' names but their contact info as well, to make it very easy for voters to find it and act. Anyone know of anything like this? Would MoveOn be willing to go here? If not, let's create it!
March 13, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is pretty much over for Hillary, but even journalists who should know better keep the "big state" spin going and opine on what a victory in PA would mean. She will likely win in PA, but then lose in North Carolina, a state with about 73% of the number of delegates that PA has (115 vs 158). If she wins 55/45 in PA and he wins 57/43 in NC, the delegate margins will be identical. Even if she wins big and he wins small, her delegate count is not going to be appreciably larger.
I have always voted Republican or Libertarian but voted for Obama in the Tx primary. There are a fair amount of Republicans, even conservative Republicans who disagree with Obama on economic and tax policy but who are profoundly against the war in Iraq and have voted for Obama in the primaries and will do so in the General election if he gets the nod.
However, Hillary is pursuing a scorched-earth policy that could hurt Obama's chances in the fall. If her "experience" claim was only the proverbial resume-padding that politicians often do, that would be one thing. But the flip side is to dismiss Obama's experience as a single speech in 2002. Rhetoric, to be sure, but really crossing the line IMHO.
If she keeps it up, there are 3 guys who could cripple her chances in PA and effectively end her campaign. Richardson, Edwards, and Gore. Should one or more of these endorse Obama, the damage to her campaign could run the gamut from serious to fatal. Richardson's endorsement would hurt her, but might not kill her chances. But Gore or Edwards could really drive a stake through her and if she insists on a strategy of "either I win or McCain wins", then hopefully one of these guys will step forward and put an end to this nonsense.
March 13, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That's because we know Ferraro is right. Neither Clinton nor Obama would be where they are if it wasn't for their gender or race. It would be the Edwards/Kucinich nomination. Or Biden/Richardson."
Well, we know one thing for sure: You do not understand Obama's appeal. It has nothing to do with race, but rather with the possibility, the hope, that we can rise above the divisive, corporate driven politics that have dominated this nation for the past several decades. Obama may well turn out to be a false messiah, but we do not now know that. With Hillary, we know exactly what we will get--four or eight more years of the same political establishment crap that so many of us have come to loathe. That's why It's so easy to understand why Hillary would prefer McCain to Obama as President. They are both members in good standing of the establishment that Obama threatens.
And since when has being a black man been an advantage in American politics outside of the black community itself? Ferraro's comments were blatantly racist, and they were calculated to be so. Why else would she continue to espouse the same message, along with protestations that she is the actual victim of discrimination, on every news and talk show that would have her, with nary a peep from the Clinton campaign until Hillary finally issued her weak statement of "disagreement?" Is anyone bothered that she did not "reject" or "denounce" Ferraro? What is most remarkable about this whole affair is how Obama has refused to join Hillary in the mud, but has remained cool, calm and reassuring that he is the sort of politician that he claims to be.
And finally, Hillary Clinton did not reach her present status as a senator and presidential candidate, because she is a woman, but rather because she is the wife of Bill Clinton. Got it?
March 13, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I watched it and I *will* tell you that Obama wasn't the one to start playing the race card. Wright is screaming a bunch of stuff, but what has that got to do with Obama? Nothing.
Should Hillary be blasted for the views held by leaders of her church? I don't think so, but if you do, then should she "denounce and reject" the United Methodist Church because of a report from UMC called "The Israel Palestine Mission Study"?
From the Anti-Defamation League:
New York, NY, February 19, 2008 ... The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called on the United Methodist Church (UMC) to repudiate a "distorted and mendacious" report on Israel produced by one of its divisions that refers to Jews as "monsters" and compares Israeli actions to the Nazis.
The 225-page report, titled "The Israel Palestine Mission Study" comes at a time when there is a movement within the United Methodist Church to support resolutions to divest from companies doing business with Israel.
Is she playing the "anti-Jew" race card?
March 13, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is magnificent.
I saw a news clip of him yesterday and the thought popped into my head, "He seems just like Spock! So Vulcan in his logic and cool-headedness!" Then he can switch gears and give a speech full of power and emotion that connects to the nation's hopes and dreams. He's an exquisite package of intelligence and judgment, combined with the empathy to relate to the average American. I would be proud and honored to call him my President.
He ought to just stop engaging with Hillary's ridiculous ploys, arguments and race baiting. He ought to say, "Enough. If YOU and your surrogates have a problem with my race - that's YOUR issue. I'm going to get back to talking about the problems important to the American people."
~
March 14, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Earnest, I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head. In the past, I would have thought such an approach would lead simply to failure through lack of media coverage. The MSM would turn their backs on anyone not willing to "put up a fight" and probably vilify them in the process. What's good for the MSM are eyeballs and those eyeballs on their programming for as long as possible.
Indeed, I think there have still been calls, regardless of Obama's message of new politics, for him to fight back. What he's been saying is that he doesn't want any part of that. Getting airtime with Blizter, Matthews, Abrams, etc. with the message you're advocating - and then sticking to it - might be very effective and an interesting rallying cry. I'm just afraid of our hopes being dashed yet again, and our voice for change being washed away in this spin of media and moving goal posts and talking about things that don't matter for anything except HRC.
To follow up with my earlier post, I've written my first letter to one of the WI superdels still on the fence, but I found out some interesting things about the URL I posted. I don't believe it contains a full list of WI's superdels. I did some additional digging and found out there are several WI superdels on the fence who are not on their lists and who are deliberately (it seems) playing this crap up for their own limelight. There are a few who are students in the state (some just party advocates and not elected officials) who've been on CNN and quoted in major newspapers as touting getting phone calls from party bigwigs like Kerry and Bill Clinton and how this gives them status with their friends. At age 23, we're enduring this kind of farcical nonsense so CNN can spotlight these students and glorify their actions?
This is going to wind up being a travesty if they overturn the will of the voters. I'll fly to CO and march with anyone if that happens. Someone made a post several days ago concerning our hypocrisy in trying to push our democratic weight around the world, yet we can't give these burgeoning democracies any good examples of how to fairly run elections on our own turf ... How true.
March 14, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink