A Steady Six Point Lead

The latest Quinnipiac numbers out of Pennsylvania show Sen. Clinton with a lead outside of the margin of error; the raw numbers are virtually unchanged from before the weekend. (HRC + 6). Remember, though, that weekend polling is tough, and that "events" usually take a few days to show up in the polling.

Obama is spending $3.3m this week to try and upset Clinton in the state.

There are a few other subnuggets of data:

** “A bigger problem for Democrats looms in Pennsylvania. One out of four Clinton voters, including a third of men, say they will vote for Republican Sen. John McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic candidate."

** Clay Richards, Quinnipiac's polling director, asserts that Clinton seems to have halted defections among white voters to Obama.

Comments

OK, so if HRC wins in Pennsylvania, what then? How many more delegates will she get than Obama?

Mathematically, this race is over: HRC cannot win, unless she somehow convinces all the remaining Superdelegates to back her. That can happen ONLY if she personally destroys Obama. If her personal destruction of Obama is only partial, then HRC loses and the Democrats lose in November.

Why is HRC trying to destroy Obama? What is the real likelihood that she's going to be our next President?

Posted by Rules of the Game | April 15, 2008 10:19 AM

Of course they say that. Clinton has been telling them that's what they should do for two months. The question is, what will Clinton do after Obama is the nominee? Will she close ranks and support the Democratic ticket with enthusiasm? Or will she damn Obama with faint praise and signal her supporters that they should stay home or vote for McCain? Is she really a Democrat or is she just a Clinton?

I personally think she's already half-way to being the next Lieberman. Let's hope I'm wrong.

Posted by Bloix | April 15, 2008 10:23 AM

So far, I think we could arguably make the case that the Tuzla affair did more to hurt Clinton than the "bitter" comments hurt Obama.

Therefore, the Tuzla affair should have deserved more coverage on this blog than the breathless coverage that was given to Obama's comments.

As a service to your readers, perhaps you might want to post this video from Charlie Rose in 2004:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88wMPAWc90

Obama, admittedly using more clear language, makes the same point but expresses just the opposite of what he's been accused of doing, by saying...

"If we don't have plausible answers on the economic front, and if we appear to be condescending toward those traditions that are giving their lives some stability, then they're going to opt for at least that party that seems to be speaking to the things that still provide them with something solid to stand on..."

Posted by Vermonter | April 15, 2008 10:23 AM

Ha, it looks like Hillary is instructing Marc to move the goalpost again.

Obama is trying "to upset" Clinton?

If he were, he'd have spent a lot more time in the state.

He's trying to limit his losses.

Murtha said she's going to win by double digits...that's the benchmark.

And being outspent means nothing when you get so much free media for your attacks like Hillary does....

Posted by RKA | April 15, 2008 10:36 AM

FAIR AND BALANCED ALERT:

One out of five Obama supporters say that they will vote for McCain if Hillary is the nominee.....when will start asking Obama supporters if they will stay home in November if Ms. Clinton is the nominee?

Posted by heather | April 15, 2008 10:39 AM

I see this slightly differently. I think Obama is both trying to pull off a win in PA, and at the same time appear to be not trying to pull off a win. The reason I think this is because he's clearly poured lots of resources into PA, but he hasn't been there as much as Clinton has. It actually is a pretty clever strategy - if he wins, the race is over. If he loses, he's still winning the marathon.

I'm much less concerned about Clinton damaging Obama in the general election. The attacks she's using now are going to be serious old news by this summer, and that makes John McCain's task more, not less difficult.

Now, if Clinton decides to not support Obama then that's another story, but that possibility seems very remote to me.

Posted by szr | April 15, 2008 10:45 AM

Oh yes..I will be glad when they start asking Obama supporters not if they will support McCain but if they will stay home. AA voters probably won't support McCain but I bet you over half will stay at home. talk about turning traditional blue states purple or red.

The question is never asked because MSM and the Clinton's assume that AA will stay with the democrats ...just like you ASSUMED last spring they would support the Clinton's because Bill was the "so called" first Black President. You were wrong then and you are wrong BIG TIME now. Want to see a sea change...watch

Posted by Grace | April 15, 2008 11:12 AM

I don't think this will ever be 'old news'. I think 'bitter', 'cling to guns' and 'cling to religion' will become permanent members of the political lexicon, like 'macaca', 'invented the internet', 'for it before I was against it', etc.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 15, 2008 12:37 PM

David, I think you forgot one:

"I did not have sex with that woman"

Posted by Jake | April 15, 2008 4:16 PM

Or even better:

"I didn't inhale"

Posted by Jake | April 15, 2008 4:18 PM

I absolutely love this whole "white people defecting to McCain" garbage. So if Hillary is able to claw out the nomination running 24/7 attacks on Obama, like now, how many Obama voters will not bother voting at all?

Additionally, who thinks that Hillary is going to win among white men of any age group against McCain? The prospect of that happening is zero. Obama on the other had has a very good chance to beat McCain among white men under 50.

But what will old white women do? I'm biting my nails to find out.

The whole thing is silly and I for one am glad that white voters finally have to decide to hold their noses and vote for a black candidate that they don't like, just as black voters have been doing since 1960 (when black voters just got the right to vote).

Amazing, isn't it?

Posted by Bubba | April 15, 2008 4:26 PM

Obama people: try growing up. Double standards are for morons. He unloads on Hillary all the time. You unload on Hillary all the time.

The idea that she should say nice things about the people she is running against is too stupid to keep posting isn't it?
They are opponents.
Too hot in the kitchen for Obama and his devotees?
You cry babies say everything about clinton bush mcCain and then seem surprised that anyone doesn't like your guru.
Early on Obama said she is part of a failed washington. Early on he said you can't believe anything that comes out of her mouth.
That's the kitchen sink strategy from obama back in New Hampshire.
Don't be idiots.

Posted by Michael C. | April 15, 2008 6:19 PM

Hey, let's not forget about strategery, Mission Accomplished, or "they hate us for our freedoms"....

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 15, 2008 6:49 PM

What's all this "black" and "white" crap with
the Democrats' polling. Are these people
racist.....or what? (It's a rhetorical question)

Posted by hombre | April 15, 2008 11:54 PM