Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Obama leading Hillary in Pennsylvania?

If you believe the PPP polling firm, he is – 45 to 43. As their press release indicates, that would be a stunning turnaround from a poll they did 2 1/2 weeks ago, when Hillary Clinton was 26 points ahead. That poll was prior to Obama making his speech on race relations in Philadelphia. Did it make that big of an impact in this state? Talking Points Memo’s Election Central does some analysis:

On the one hand, this is a huge outlier — polls over the last two days from SurveyUSA, Rasmussen and Quinnipiac have Clinton ahead by 6-12 points. On the other hand, PPP has had a pretty good track record this cycle, so maybe they’re ahead of the curve on this one.

As a counterbalance to that, Quinnipac’s poll today shows Clinton still leading Obama by 9%, which is a small decline of 3 points from their last poll taken two weeks ago. This poll does confirm what other polls are saying – Obama is steadily narrowing the lead on Clinton in this state.

If she only “wins” by single digits, that will not put any significant dent into the delegate lead that Obama has on her, and it will be more then wiped out by the sizable lead different polls show he has in North Carolina. The question yet again will be if that is enough to persuade her to give up the race, or perhaps more importantly, convince the uncommitted Dem. superdelegates to swing their support to Obama to end this and give the nominee more time to take on McCain then continue to have an internal battle.


16 comments to Obama leading Hillary in Pennsylvania?

  • caleb

    l know american has a problem but OBAMA has a solution.

    American can balance their economic with the help of OBAMA.

    American should clean their mind toward OBAMA.

    OBAMA has bein a senator for more two years.

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    Like I said, give it a week (well, it’s only been a day, but the trend is certainly developing!).
    It’s by no means a sure bet, but I’d actually start to worry if I were Obama about expectations going UP to much.  For Clinton, you can almost hear the cranes warming up.
    Time to rip out the goalposts and move them again?

  • Ted:

    I’ve actually commented on the Angus-Reid polls at Steve’s place, and have done so many times, much to Steve’s annoyance, I’m sure. Therefore, I didn’t see the need at this point to post it ad nauseam here again. Needless to say, I look askance at polls that are done online.

    When Nano’s poll comes out in a week, I’ll be posting on it, regardless of what the polling shows, because I deem it the most credible poll out there right now.

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    I would say it’s quite clear that Obama is not leading Clinton in Pennsylvania.
    But give it a week.

  • “but a biased argument can still employ reason and still be true.”

    True enough.

  • Steve V, in this instance bias doesn’t enter the equation for me. You suggested bias was a motivation, but grounded on fact because of the PPP poll.  However I was not criticizing Scott T.’s bias, I was criticizing that even though Scott T knew the validity of the poll was in obvious doubt, he posed a statement which implied something that didn’t appear true as a question. Thus using format to get attention at the expense of a more solid truth.
    I do prefer Hillary over Obama, but she could lose, and there’s a good chance she will, and I wouldn’t care. So my preference is my bias, but a biased argument can still employ reason and still be true.

  • Ted

    Scott Ross:   Yes Scott Tribe has a bias, he publishes headlines and links polls that conform to his leftist opinion. He wants Obama, he sees Obama as the best candidate which to promotes his “progressive” agenda. When Scott publishes Canadian Polls, it only the ones that show Dion in a dead heat.
    Notice how he ignored the Stars Angus Reid poll yesterday?

    That is totally in his right. The Obama leading in Penn?  That probaly has more truth that Dion in a dead heat. Obama is outspending Hillary by massive amounts in ads. 

  • James, I don’t understand what you mean by finding my criticism “a little strong,” do you mean that is not valid? Do you mean that it is without merit? You only go on to give you’re opinion of the post. At the end you find me commenting on Scott’s style as being picky, what would you suggest someone who is picky on someone being picky is? The fact is we all think we know what’s best, I sought to correct Scott T, and you sought to correct me. The difference is I didn’t suggest Scott T. was being pedantic while I in turn was as well.
    James you also suggest Scott T.’s question was fair. Now first, asking if something is true is different from attempting to determine if it is true. This is one point I alluded to, as anyone can wonder the truth of anything, such as the truth of whether Clinton murdered a Hobo when she was 15, the fact is, should it be a headline? I suspect you would respond it should if it has any basis in reality such as this poll, and I would respond with my second point, that Scott T. within a few sentences cites that poll is not very credible. Thus in using the format of a question, as some newspapers do just to get attention, I posed my criticism.
    I think you saw my criticism as strong because you might have seen it as spiteful or with some form of anger, I would suggest it was nothing of the kind. Or you may have seen it as strong because it didn’t appear otherwise, and this is true, it did lack any fraternal liblogger comments, but it should be noted I respect Scott T., you and all other libloggers.

  • On other thing in Scott’s defence, he did post the title as a question, which means he is leaving any conclusions up for debate.

  • If I can offer two cents, there is bias, but it is based on factual evidence.   The polls do suggest Obama is closing, and that is the point of Scott’s post, so pretty fair.  On the other hand, Scott also posted on the national polls, when they showed Obama pulling away.  That trend has since stopped, Gallup and Ras are both back to a statistical tie, Obama’s lead gone, which Scott doesn’t mention.  I guess the point, we all have our bias, and sometimes we look to results which support that, while giving less credence to those that support something else.   I guess that is why this race is still on, everybody can find some evidence to support a theory, just a question of degree- like Hillary have a 5% chance.

    If I can ask a question of Scott Ross?  Are you a Clinton supporter?

  • Scott Ross, I have to say that I find your criticism a little strong for the situation, here. I personally didn’t have any problem with the way Scott T wrote this post, and certainly it suggested no hidden bias, indeed any bias other than what average readers can already glean after reading Scott T’s other posts. Yes, he likes Obama, and perhaps that blinds him to data which he doesn’t support, but the question in the post is a fair one, in my opinion. We have a poll showing Obama leading Clinton in Pennsylvania. Is it true or not?

    The question can be debated, as it is in the article, or with other facts you bring in, but going on about how Scott chooses to write strikes me as a little pedantic, in my opinion.

  • The fact you reported two polls was not my criticism it was the style you chose to report one of them in that I criticized. I fully admit that those two and other polls you didn’t mention signal a trend of a closer race.
    In my previous comment I said you had exaggerated Obama’s growth, thus it was shown I was acknowledging at least some growth for Obama, or how could it be exaggerated.
    Your last comment is representative of my overall criticism. Just like your headline you pose a sensationalist message through the form of your statements. You say “If you refuse to accept those trends, that’s your prerogative,” the implication is that I refuse to see such trends, however I don’t, as it was pointed out I did recognize Obama’s growth. But as you pose it as a conditional, that is, by adding “If” you can suggest that you did not directly make the statement about me, it only applies if indeed I do refuse to recognize those trends. And so the similarity with your headline is evident, as just as with that comment I highlighted, because you posed your headline in such a way, in this case a question format, you can claim you did not make a direct factual statement.
    The question is, should such statements be made in such forms?
    If they were, one could write, “If Scott Tribe continues to disregard reality, that is his prerogative.” Or “Is Hillary Clinton really a woman?” or “Is Obama really not a Muslim?”
    Now everyone has the freedom to say what they wish, but if we are pursuing truth then I believe such statements are not helpful.

  • Annie: The vote in PA is April 22.

    Scott: I reported 2 polls – the numbers are what they are, and the trends are what they are. If you refuse to accept those trends, that’s your prerogative.

  • Is this a sensationalist blog post? Is this blog post using poor data just to serve some biased end? Does forming headlines as questions get the author off the hook for reporting something that in almost all unlikelihood is false?
    Now I don’t have to answer these questions because just as they did for you, they served the purpose. For you it was to exaggerate Obama’s growth, for me it was to show how baseless posing such questions is.
    Some newspapers write this way, and I acknowledge I’ve posed questions as headlines that suggest a certain conclusion; the difference is however I don’t in the next breath suggest the conclusion is unlikely.

  • When is the vote in Pennsylvania ?

  • Ted

    Red faced Bill Clinton lost temper at meeting with California  super delegates. The Richardson thing really pissed him off.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.