PA Poll Watch
Tweet
A few weeks ago Pennsylvania was a slam dunk double digit victory to the tune of about 20% for Sen. Clinton. Maybe it will still be. But the current average polling shows her with a 6% lead now… and tightening. As in the past, time seems to be Sen. Obama’s biggest ally when he has to fight for new territory, and there are still 20 days to go.
Either way I think she’s toast, but the argument to the superdelegates will get mighty hard to make if she doesn’t at least win in the double digits.
12 Responses to “PA Poll Watch”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
the argument to the superdelegates will get mighty hard to make if she doesn’t at least win in the double digits.
Uh, why? By inference, aren’t you arguing that Obama’s case to the superdelegates will be made easier if he loses by, say, 8 points? How will losing a state support his case to be the nominee?
I think what Oliver is saying isn’t that Obama’s case to the superdelegates will be made stronger, just that Clinton’s case that she deserves the nomination despite trailing throughout the entire primary season will be weakened if she can’t register a devastating win against the current leader.
Eight points would be more convincing for Clinton than 4 points, to be sure, but 8 points doesn’t seem as likely to wrench people off the fence to her side (or to her side from Obama’s side) as a win in the mid-teens or higher would do.
The Clinton argument is that she is strong in swing states, especially ones with PA’s demographics. Her entire overall case is built on her huge advantages in those states. It doesn’t help her if she wins only in single digits. Obama’s made no such case to superdelegates, so I don’t think a loss of any sort – especially not one in single digits – hurts him. In other words, if he wins or loses -as is likely – we’re back to where we were before PA, that is Obama still with more delegates, more states, and still the frontrunner.
The extra that could come would be another hole blown in her already specious argument for electability.
Well, there’s just the two of them left in the race and the finish line is in sight. What doesn’t make the case stronger for one automatically makes the case for the other.
It still seems counterintuitive to me to argue that a loss improves a candidate’s chances.
QiaB: “It still seems counterintuitive to me to argue that a loss improves a candidate’s chances.”
Yeah, but not as much if you look beyond the specific contest to the larger picture. A lot of Clinton’s argument is, as OW mentions, that she’s stronger then Obama in the swing states that will be the real battlegrounds in the general election. But if she can’t beat Obama by a large margin in PA, then she isn’t that much stronger then him in those states, and he has a support in other states. So she can win in PA, but if she doesn’t win big enough it doesn’t offset Obama’s other wins.
Well, there’s just the two of them left in the race and the finish line is in sight. What doesn’t make the case stronger for one automatically makes the case for the other.
Using your analogy, let’s say that what we currently have is
Obama at mile 25 of the marathon and Hillary passing mile 24. If she gets a slight burst of new speed from PA, she will close the gap slightly; but this won’t cause Obama to start running backwards.
Hillary beating Obama by the 20-point margin she was enjoying a few months ago would be equivalent to him stumbling and twisting his ankle while she gets a new wind. Hillary beating Obama by single digits amounts to her gaining a little speed and him keeping pace. She may be very close by the time they hit mile 26, but he’ll still be in the lead.
let’s say that what we currently have is
Obama at mile 25 of the marathon and Hillary passing mile 24. If she gets a slight burst of new speed from PA, she will close the gap slightly; but this won’t cause Obama to start running backwards.
Thus, we should stop the race at this point. The fact that Hillary has achieved only a slight increase in speed means that Obama will be more likely to win the next race.
Sorry. That still makes no sense.
My two cents:
Clinton supporters need to realize that, if my math is right, she needs to win about 3/5 of the remaining delegagtes to secure the nomination. Securing that many in the primaries will be difficult and securing that many of the superdelagates would very likely be divisive.
Obama supporters need to realize, though, that she has won 47% of the delegates selected so far. That is less than Obama, but not inconsiderable. I think we’ve learned the lessons of taking a slim majority as a mandate. I don’t know how these numbers will change after the upcoming primaries, but if they don’t, I think she should bow out gracefully, and urge her followers to support Obama in order to give him more of a mandate heading into the convention. If she does achieve sizeable victories, but not enough to overtake Obama,then I don’t know.
Obama is going 100mph.
Hillary is going 90mph.
At best she’ll hit 95mph.
But she still loses.
Obama is going 100mph.
Hillary is going 90mph.
And the rules still say he’s got to get to the finish line to win.
I think the moral of the story here is what we should have learned from the results in Ohio, TX, WI, etc. The more voters see of Obama, the more they like him; The more they see of Clinton, not so much. I’m not suggesting that she’s as bad as Giuliani, where part of the motivation in sending him away from Iowa and NH was that the more people saw him, the less they liked him, but she hasn’t shown the ability to improve her standings in the polls, just to hold on to most of what she already had… Given the length of the GE campaign, this is a pretty big plus for Obama.
the argument to the superdelegates will get mighty hard to make if she doesn’t at least win in the double digits.
Doesn’t she have to win PA by, what, 60% in order to stay viable?
Let’s say she wins PA by single digits and Obama wins NC by a HUGE margin (that’s my prediction, like 70%). How does that improve her chances? Or is it like Texas where there is no net gain and the two cancel each other out?
Or does NC not matter?