MyDD :: PA Primary Polling 'pdate

PA Primary Polling 'pdate

by Rorgg, Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:10:29 AM EST

Two new PA primary polls out this morning. The first is Strategic Vision, which 5 days ago released a poll showing Clinton up 8, now shows Clinton up 5, which is in line with yesterday's Quinnipiac and Rasmussen results.

The other is from PPP, which showed in its last poll Obama up 2. They've reverted from their outlier to a more realistic Clinton by 3. PPP has been overall pretty good in the cycle, and this is potentially encouraging for Obama, not least because the reversion in the crosstabs is among Clinton's base groups, meaning that the gains Obama showed in the groups he tends to get to swing to him during campaigning -- 30-45 adults and white males -- are more likely to be real.

Despite the overall mixed bag, one thing is consistent -- SUSA's most recent poll (Clinton+18) remains a clear outlier. Among polls no older than April 1, every one of them shows a spread between even and Clinton+6. Even the Muhlenberg poll of 3/26-4/2 only had Clinton+10, but that was in line with the Quinnipiac and Rasmussen polls of the same time frame, both of which have since tightened.

Most recent April polls for PA primary, with their polling dates:

Pollster	Date	Spread
Survey USA	5-7 Apr	Clinton +18
Quinnipiac	3-6 Apr	Clinton +6
Rasmussen	7 Apr	Clinton +5
Strategic Vision	4-6 Apr	Clinton +5
PPP	7-8 Apr	Clinton +3
InsiderAdvantage	2 Apr	Clinton +2
ARG	5-6 Apr	Even

Tags: PA primary, alliteration (all tags)

Permalink :: 19 Comments :: Post a Comment

and in polling that really counts... (none / 0)

hillary beats mccain in PA, 45%-42%, obama loses to him, 41%-48%.

strategic vision

now, back to your regularly scheduled dancing on pinheads.

by campskunk on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:19:09 AM EST

Re: and in polling that really counts... (none / 0)

ok, ready...set....now!

General election polls are relevant.

Just so we're clear.

by the mollusk on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA Primary Polling 'pdate (none / 0)

Rasmussen has Hillary losing to McCain today. Oops

by regina1983 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:26:49 AM EST

The last Rasmussen (none / 0)

has Clinton stabilizing and the lastest PPD has Clinton totally stopping Obama's mo and moving back into a small lead (with the MOE). On the balance, the most of the recent polling looks more favorable to her than it had been over the past couple of weeks.

by Mayor McCheese on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:40:15 AM EST

Re: The last Rasmussen (none / 0)

The movement's definitely better for her than it was a week ago, no question. But the problem is that while the movement between polls is a bit jumbled, apart from SUSA, every other pollster has converged into a 6-point range that's not very good news in the strategic picture for Senator Clinton.

And as I just pointed out in another thread, in places where all the pollsters but one settle in a compact range and one's way outside, the track record for the one on the outside has not been good. If NOBODY agrees with you, you're probably wrong.

by Rorgg on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:49:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The last Rasmussen (none / 0)

I am sceptical of an 18 point CLinton lead now, I really am. But I can't discount SUSA out of hand because they have done excellent work. And it might be a case of nobody agreeing with them YET. Look at PPD For example. The last poll showed massive momvement toward Obama. Now it shows that that movement was stopped dead and there's now a slight shift toward Clinton. Rasmussen shows Obama's mo stalled. Will they show more movement toward Clinton in their next polling? Let's see.

by Mayor McCheese on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:53:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The last Rasmussen (none / 0)

No doubt. SUSA has generally done good work, but they've not been infallible.

There's still time to go, and everything is subject to change. I can only analyze what we have already.

by Rorgg on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:59:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ALL the MONEY for NOTHING! (2.00 / 1)

When you're spending a historic record breaking, never been seen in the state of PA & still struggling to beat Clinton or McCain- that tells you already what happens in November.

He has been outspending Clinton almost 4 to 1.

His TV ads alone are showing at 7 to 3 per day.

But he still has TROUBLE convincing people to vote for him over Clinton or McCain.

He is massively outspending Clinton. Clinton has been hit with some strong ads.

He is massively outspending McCain. McCain is invisible right now in this state.

Yet when election day comes, Clinton would still probably beat him. And McCain would also beat him.

This is the EXACT same STORY that happened in OHIO & TEXAS. If Not for the MASSIVE 3 to 1, 4 to 1, he would have LOST by a landslide.

OObama has been spending $ 2.2 Million every week for the last 4 weeks in PA.

No candidate in PA historic, Presidential or Governor has ever come even close to that. Gov. Rendel has the record of the Biggest Spender & he is NOT even half of that.

Problem with that is come November, he can raise all the money you want. In a one on one with Republican McCain, MONEY CANNOT buy an election.

One can pull off stealing a PRIMARY with MASSIVE Financial Advantage. ( But ask Dean, ROmney & Giuliani how it went for them)

but come GE, MONEY cannot buy you an election.

He can spend $200 million but the GOP & its 527's will also massively attack him with no less than $150 million.

As of yesterday, the GOP 527's have more money to use against Obama than they used against Kerry in 2004.

Ask Kerry if you can buy an election.

On a national state by state race, this guy will BE IN BIG TROUBLE against McCain.

McCain is not doing anything yet, the economy is in a tank, bad news for Bush & Iraq, Yet, McCain is still beating him in PA,NJ,MI,OH.

This is Michael Dukakis all over again with obama.

P.S. Obama CANNOT win without Millions of White Reagan Democrats spread across states like PA,NJ,MA,OH,MO,MI, & the most of the south.

No Amount of Millions can change their mind.

And once Mccain & the GOP start their own 100 million dollar assault against Obama, FORGET ABOUT IT!

by libdemusa on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:46:20 AM EST

Re: ALL the MONEY for NOTHING! (2.00 / 1)

Simple question:

If Obama's such a horrible, easily beatable candidate, far inferior to Senator Clinton, how has he managed to erase her huge lead in virtually every state via the campaign and pull ahead?

He's got to be doing something right, or she something wrong, if in EVERY STATE where they campaign, she loses voters to him over the course of the campaign.

You're asking me to assume that in a General Election that Senator Obama would somehow lose his ability to win voters, and simultaneously that Senator Clinton will arrest her track record of losing support. I'll need some sort of evidence that this is likely to be the case.

by Rorgg on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:53:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Medal for 2nd place in GE! (none / 0)

Rorg,

Didn't I just state what is happening ?

Senator Obama is spending $2.2 Million dollars every single week in PA. Its a historic record.

He is outspending Clinton every single week by almost 4 to 1. Even on TV, 7 Obama ads flash to Clinton's 3 every 8 hours.

His Radio ads are even heavier. Radio ads in PA's working class areas are for every 6 Obama thirty second bytes to 1 for Clinton.

Both former campaign managers for Gov. Rendell & Senator Casey were interview on Philly TV yesterday.

They were at a shock on how much Obama was spending every week.

At Rendel's peak, he spent about $800,000 per week against the Republican. And he won.

Obama is spending $ 2.2 million every single week to KNOCK OUT Clinton. Clinton is ONLY at $600,000 weekly.

Of course, his numbers will go up. That's exactly why he was able to close the GAP but still lost in OH & TX.

If not for the money, he would have lost by a landslide.

But in the General election, THERE ARE NO MEDAL's for 2nd place. He can spend $3 million per week in states like PA, OH,MI,NJ,FL but it still won't be enough to beat McCain.

It just makes the race closer.

Many people are in denial. Hope with Millions of Dollars does not buy votes.

McCain is beating him today EVEN with this economy, Iraq, & Obama's MASSIVE spending.

Wait until the GOP & its 527 start their assault.

This electoral college won't even be close

>>>how has he managed to erase her huge lead in virtually every state via the campaign and pull ahead?<<

by libdemusa on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Medal for 2nd place in GE! (2.00 / 1)

No, actually, you haven't explained it. Because raising and spending campaign funds is an integral part of the campaign.

If his ability to raise funds and use them for advertising effectively is why Obama is making up ground against Clinton everywhere, because she's not doing it...

why won't it be effective versus McCain? Why do we want to nominate a candidate who has an inferior ability to raise the funds needed to compete?

My question accounts for all that, and your answer is circular.

by Rorgg on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Easy does it. (none / 0)

Theoretically we all want a Democrat in the White House, so there's no need to get apocalyptic. Have some faith! Obama's entire candidacy has been about beating the odds through hard work and enthusiasm, so if he can get this far, then maybe you can start thinking about him going all the way and beating McCain.

You're right. Money can't buy an election. It can serve as a conduit to get one's message across, but the message has to be attractive. Obama's message is attractive, but so is Clinton's. They're Democrats after all. Clinton also has a huge name advantage, and Obama has a name disadvantage.

I think that either Democrat's message will beat McCain's in the fall, and the money will help get that out.

McCain: More war, fewer jobs.
Democrats: Less war, new jobs.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ALL the MONEY for NOTHING! (none / 0)

You're so good at categorizing a candidate's weaknesses. Could youdo a list of Hillary's? Not that you need to believe it, mind you, but could you come up with a list of ten reasons why Hillary might be weak in the GE? Maybe step outside the box? Could be a useful exercise.

by mikeinsf on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:38:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA Primary Polling 'pdate (none / 0)

Obama has closed the gap as has been expected due to his presence and his vast outspending to Clinton's meagre amounts. Also, remember that she had a hard week last week.

As her ads have just gone up yesterday and she comes back to the state to campaign i.e Jefferson Jackson dinner tomorrow, Bill comes back soon, expect that lead to grow in her favor again.

While Susa's lead is in large part different from the other polls, I won't discount it entirely.

I still expect Clinton to win by 10pts or more. Scranton will go for her big as well the other parts close to resembly the Appalachia areas similar to OH.

by shark on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST

Guys, Chill! (none / 0)

Let this thing play out and allow the HRC campaign and their supporters to come to this in their own time. We force this and we lose them. They must have due process by the rules, through to the credentials committee if needs be. Obama himself said she can run as long as she likes. It's a wrap and nothing except the unthinkable is going to change that.

by LoneStarLefty on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:23:07 PM EST

Re: PA Primary Polling 'pdate (none / 0)

by LoneStarLefty on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:23:14 PM EST

Re: PA Primary Polling 'pdate (none / 0)

by LoneStarLefty on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:26:29 PM EST

Re: PA Primary Polling 'pdate (none / 0)

by LoneStarLefty on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:27:22 PM EST

Re: PA Primary Polling 'pdate (none / 0)

I worked the mayoral in Philly last year, and SurveyUSA was the only poll that correctly predicted the runaway winner - even when our internals indicated a much tighter race. I wouldn't bet against them.

by Susie from Philly on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:33:36 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.