Why Is Pennsylvania Tightening?

Some thoughts:

1. Obama is on the air there now and his invisible army is organizing.

2. Clinton has been the major focus of the national press and the local press; the coverage has been unflattering; her mistakes are accumulating. There has been no corresponding attention on Obama's fitness for the office.

3. Obama spent five consecutive days in the state on a bus tour, and his campaign aggressively bracketed the visit with local news interviews and targeted local advertisements.

4., I don't like the phrase "natural tightening" because I think it's kind of dirty, but we've seen similar Obama "surges" in Ohio and California.

Comments

Survey USA, the most accurate pollster out there has Clinton leading 18% in PA. Unless they completely goofed, PA is in the bag for Hillary.

Posted by Dudeabides | April 8, 2008 6:42 PM

Since When is PA tightening? SUSA Poll out today had Hillary still ahead by 18 points. Hillary will win PA.

The only issue is whether it will be 10 points or 15. Don't be drawn in by this lazy "tightening" meme. Obama is NOT expected to win or even lose by single digits.

Posted by C.B. Todd | April 8, 2008 6:45 PM

"no corresponding attention on Obama's fitness for the office."

Just what do you mean by that?

It is self evident that as the campaign rolled on, Hillbilly gained weight and became less fit.

OBammBamm, on the other hand, lost weight and became more fit.

Posted by D | April 8, 2008 6:52 PM

SUSA has had a great track record so I paused when I saw their poll too, but given that every other poll has had Obama closing the gap to single digits and Clinton up by about 7 points right now.

Given all of that, I think it's safe to see that with his ad blitz and the fact this week will be dominated by Iraq for policy purposes and Penn as a process story, he has a good shot at getting to put Pennsylvania to bed with a loss in the single digits.

Two weeks is like an eternity in politics and Clinton has the debate as a great chance to pull this thing out and solidify a win.

Posted by Rhoda | April 8, 2008 6:53 PM

Isn't SUSA a robopoll? Do robopolls call cellphones? I don't believe they do, just like cellphones don't get most telemarketer calls. And if they don't, well there goes a good portion of your youth vote, even some of the responsible adult vote too. I think a lot of people hang up on robopolls too, but I don't have the SUSA internals here to examine.

Posted by N M | April 8, 2008 7:00 PM

SUSA is just one of many polling firms. Their track record, like all others, is uneven. (Example: they had Hillary winning Missouri by 54/43 the day before Feb 5.)

You Clintonistas need to take it down a notch. Several other well-regarded pollsters show a tighter race (e.g., Rasmussen has it at 48/43; and Quinnipiac at 50/44). Overall, the trends show a narrowing race. An Obama win remains unlikely. A loss in low single digits does not. It all depends on who turns out.

Posted by Dan | April 8, 2008 7:05 PM

Maybe her populist image took a hit with the 111 million thing?

Posted by coomaraswamee | April 8, 2008 7:13 PM

Look at it this way, not so long ago, before February, OBammBamm would have had to sit at the back of the bus, behind the front runner.

Progress.

Posted by D | April 8, 2008 7:15 PM

"There has been no corresponding attention on Obama's fitness for the office."

What an offensive and obnoxious comment. "Corresponding" to what, exactly? Clinton had a bunch of screw-ups, with the Bosnia thing, the Colombia thing, etc. Was the press supposed to make up a bunch of fake controversies about Obama just to be more "even-handed"? Actually, that's kind of what happened before Texas and Ohio, when the Clinton media team rallied behind SNL and the media folded like a tent. But what on earth does "Obama's fitness for the office" have to do with Clinton lying her foreign policy experience?

Posted by give me a break | April 8, 2008 7:34 PM

I will ignore Marc's really offensive statement about the fitness for office (way to show your hand there) to focus on the delicious delusion of the Clinton supporters above.
Let me get this straight. Four people released or leaked today. Three show Obama within 5 to 7 points behind and one shows him 18 points behind (latter poll saying he is LOSING 10 points in African-American support apparently ... yeah OK) and they decide the latter one is the closest to the situation.
You know what ? Fine by me ! Expectations will work all the better in our favor and when she wins PA by 5 or 10 points as well she should, it will be a bitter disappointment for those who somehow want to believe PA will be a blowout. Good on you guys. You go ahead. You believe Susa. I will be racking up the positive media coverage over there.

Posted by Benjamin | April 8, 2008 7:41 PM

"Tightening," my foot. This has happened in other races. Clinton will reassert her lead and will probably win by double digits.

Posted by Abby | April 8, 2008 7:53 PM

The only thing that's in the bag is Ambinder for Hillary. Despite the fact that he is supposed to be a reporter and continues to contend - despite all facts to the contrary - that he is unbiased.

But of course the bias shows through, time and time again.

Ambinder is nothing but a shill for the Hillary campaign and a hack reporter who just regurgitates other people's reporting or worse acts as an unfiltered mouthpiece for the Clinton campaign.

The Atlantic deserves better from it's reporters.

Fire. Ambinder. Now.

Posted by Eric Blair | April 8, 2008 8:01 PM

ambinder = tim russert

Why Is Pennsylvania NOT Tightening?

Clinton: 56%
obama: 38%

PA Women, Whites, Stand by Hillary, Turn Back The Clock On Obama: In a Democratic Primary in Pennsylvania today, 04/08/08, two weeks to the vote, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama 56% to 38%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WCAU-TV Philadelphia, KDKA-TV Pittsburgh, WHP-TV Harrisburg, and WNEP-TV Wilkes-Barre. The results are almost identical to a SurveyUSA poll released one month ago. Then, Clinton led by 19. Today, 18.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7

1. Despite spending unheard of amounts on ads in the state he is now where he was at a month ago.

2. Despite the horrible conduct of the "liberal media" [That would be the same "liberal media" that brought us 8 years of bush] their lies and smears have not hurt Hillary the people are figuring him out all by themselves.

3. The tragic attempt by obama to pretend he's just like the average every man, a 37 while bowling, sponsoring a fishing and gun club group, sure didn’t help him.

See how easy that is. I cherry picked a poll just like tim russert and ambinder do. We are all like tim russert now.

Posted by hadenough | April 8, 2008 8:16 PM

hadenough,

PAY UP.

Posted by D | April 8, 2008 8:25 PM

"hadenough,

PAY UP.

Posted by D"

The stalker is back.

Posted by hadenough | April 8, 2008 8:40 PM

I don't think Hillary Clinton is ahead with voters in Pennsylvania by a long shot; I think she's going to lose by any stretch. That Pennsylvanians will somehow perceive, and act upon Hillary's utter worth as a candidate or ultimate electability is preposterous. The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party. -Henry Ruth, lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor. Then there's: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | April 8, 2008 9:04 PM

Mark Penn is still with the Clinton campaign. He is not a supporter of labor. Eight days ago he was still being paid by Colombia to get the free trade agreement in place. Hillary is faced with a command decision and keeps him on the campaign. Families whose jobs are leaving are not going to like this.

We take the Penn episode and put it together with Senator Casey's support and the Obama bus tour plus Obama ads. Now add in episodes of the heroine of Bosnia, the health care raconteusse, the vanquisher of NAFTA, the multi-millionairess and there you have a tightening race.

Posted by Pete from Boston | April 8, 2008 9:14 PM

The numbers always come together wherever Obama has a full campaign schedule. And Iraq has been in the news lately, along with Hillary's Bosnia snafu and free trade dealings. A lot for HRC to handle all at once. But PA's relatively safe for her. I don't see any sort of game ending upset.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | April 8, 2008 9:21 PM

"there you have a tightening race.

Posted by Pete from Boston"

Depends on what poll you look at. The lastest survey USA has obama down by 18 points almost exactly where he was a month ago. And based on what you think you know I'd guess you are gonna look at the poll ambinder cherry picked.

Posted by hadenough | April 8, 2008 9:32 PM

hadenough makes promises and then don't keep them.

Typical politician.

Posted by D | April 8, 2008 9:42 PM

The SurveyUSA poll showed an 18 point gain for Hillary among 35-49 year-olds in a week. The prior week was Obama's bus tour and the Tuzla flap so I don't see how this poll can be accurate. The poll also shows Hillary winning Philly. That can't be right either.

Here is the text from the SurveyUSA results page:
"2nd: Obama lost ground among voters age 35 to 49. A week ago, he had caught Clinton in this age group. Today, he's down 18. By contrast, there is no movement among voters age 50+. Clinton's lead among voters 50+ is stable across all 3 tracking polls. 3rd: In Southeast PA, which includes Philadelphia and which makes up 42% of likely Democratic voters, Clinton had a good week, Obama a bad week. Clinton is above 50% for the first time and Obama is now down by 9 in a region he must win to carry the state."

Posted by Josh | April 8, 2008 9:50 PM

What the heck are people talking about? PPP has been way more accurate and reliable than SurveyUSA and they have Obama up by 2 point in PA which means at least a tie when factoring in the margin of error. Also PPP has NEVER been wrong in predicting winners in the primary season even when their percentages were not quite in line. PPP predicted Clinton's popular vote win in TX when SurveyUSA was predicting an Obama win. Obama's going to finish behind Cinton in low single digits and he may even win, especially if he does well in next week's debate.

Posted by Keith Hood | April 8, 2008 9:57 PM

I've seen other commenters mention that they think Ambinder is biased towards Clinton (so?), so I've always kind of dismissed them. But could it kill you to link to some polls?

http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

SUSA, at least in regards to PA, has their undecideds in such low numbers, so consistently, that you have to wonder. They also have shown virtually no change in the polls since they started there, and IIRC, their crosstabs show Obama winning African-Americans 67 to 33 or something like that. Yea, sure thing.

The meme is that they're the gold standards this cycle - not sure if that's true or not - but they are definitely an outlier. Just like PPP, which in two weeks swung something like +20 for Clinton to +2 for Obama.

Pollster aggregate says Clinton 50.5, Obama 42.7. I'd say that's about right. Clinton will finish somewhere between 50 and 55 percent: in other words, a single-digit win.

http://www.pollster.com/08presidentialprimary.php

Look at each individual state. The second Obama sets his feet in each state, his poll numbers shoot up. Hillary's do too, as undecideds feel their way through it. But Obama improves at much higher rates than Hillary does. It's hard to tell on the Super Tuesday states whether that's due to Edwards supporters going to Obama. But it's really noticeable in post-Super Tuesday states.

Posted by socctty | April 8, 2008 10:02 PM

Hadenough still hasn't paid his debts? Now ain't that typical of a Clintonite.. I can now see why those luckless small businesses in Iowa, Nevada, Connecticut.. in fact, anywhere the Clintons set up shop ... are all complaining bitterly. Hand over the cash, Hadenough! Don't be like Ms. "111 million and no cash to pay the printer" Clinton.

Posted by yazzel | April 8, 2008 10:03 PM

Don't ignore the Bob Casey grows a set theory.

If Penn stays in the news (he says he won't, but, well, it's a Penn prediction), it could be another ongoing hit on her management skills. "We made him think up a new job title! What more could you people want?" And there're probably too many Senators for any of the 3 to get a big boost--looking presidential or silly (95% determined by how a viewer already feels) is the most.

If I may inject a mini-rant, this is from NPR today, with Clinton again hitting that the pledged delegates are free to ignore the voters. I will grant this is technically true, presumably to save the party in the event of disaster (nomineee dead, headed for jail, confined to mental institution). I will grant it is extremely unlikely to work except as more fog of nonsense. Still. It is insulting to voters. Someone needs to call her on this: saying that it's very important for everyone to vote, but also very important to ignore those votes, is too silly even for this election.

Posted by Deborah | April 8, 2008 10:06 PM

Deborah - In regards to the NPR rant... exactly! Her entire campaign at this point is based on these things:

(A) Either counting Michigan and Florida as they stand, thereby disenfranchising the voters that didn't show up because the DNC, including Hillary Clinton, agreed to their presidential primary results not counting; OR re-doing them (highly unlikely); OR conveniently ignoring these two things and hanging Florida and Michigan out there with the complete understanding that they'll never be given delegates and to exploit them for campaign donations;

(B) Convincing super-delegates (many of whom are supers because they were elected into some office) to overturn the pledged delegate count;

(C) Convincing the pledged delegates to overturn the will of the people that made them pledged delegates in the first place

So who, exactly, is the one that's advocating for the disenfranchisement of voters here? She's basically saying John Kerry was an idiot for conceding defeat in Nov 2004 because he still could have convinced the electoral college to vote for him later.

Posted by socctty | April 8, 2008 10:18 PM

Obama supporter here. It hasn't measurably tightened. You are comparing one poll against another. We are going to lose big. I only hope we can keep it to single digits.

Posted by evie | April 8, 2008 10:20 PM

"Also PPP has NEVER been wrong in predicting winners in the primary season even when their percentages were not quite in line... Obama's going to finish behind Cinton in low single digits and he may even win, especially if he does well in next week's debate.

Posted by Keith Hood"

So you are saying PPP will be wrong for the first?

"Also PPP has NEVER been wrong in predicting winners in the primary season"

And just how many primaries did PPP poll? I was just wondering how they did with say NH or maybe NV.

Anyway you might take a look at pollster.com's report card:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/surveyusa-report-cards/

Posted by hadenough | April 8, 2008 10:26 PM

PPP was correct for the South Carolina, Wisconsin, Ohio and Texas primaries (predicting Obama wins for the former, and Clinton wins for the latter). Pretty good track record. That said, I still believe that the Survey USA poll is more accurate in regard to Pennsylvania. Obama will have a min-"surge," as he has had in other primaries, but late-deciders will swing the state decisively to Clinton.

Posted by Abby | April 8, 2008 10:32 PM

hadenough - to be fair, isn't that SurveyUSA's own report card, not pollster.com's?

Also wise to note (which I think you were alluding to) in regards to PPP predicting the winner all the time (if that's even the case): predicting the winner isn't relevant when it comes to proportional systems like the Democratic primaries. It isn't even extremely important in winner-take-all scenarios. What's more important is how close you are to the actual results. Predicting that Candidate A wins 51 to 49 when they actually lose 52 to 49 is much more impressive than predicting Candidate A losing by 80 to 20 with the same actual results.

Posted by socctty | April 8, 2008 10:35 PM

"There has been no corresponding attention on Obama's fitness for the office." Excuse me, there has been unremitting attention for three months now on Obama, from every conceivable reportable angle, not excluding Mrs. Clinton's unremitting derogation of his abilities. Voters everywhere know these two candidates to a far greater extent than in any previous presidential primary season since primaries and caucuses were invented. Voters in Pennsylvania have not been hibernating through this saturation coverage. Stop looking at tactical shifts, Ambinder, and look at the tectonic shift that may now be underway -- a curdling of the rationale for Clinton's candidacy, and a rising comfort with Obama as a front-runner, and therefore as a national leader.

Posted by Tribunus Plebis | April 8, 2008 11:09 PM

"Anyway you might take a look at pollster.com's report card:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/surveyusa-report-cards/"

THAT'S NOT POLLSTER.COM'S REPORT CARD!! That's SUSA's Pollster report card! HUGE DIFFERENCE! Pollster.com has done report cards, but I've not seen one lately.

You can find them in the archives, tho.

Posted by Prantha | April 8, 2008 11:23 PM

Marc? "No corresponding attention on Obama's fitness for the office"?? What the hell does that mean? Apparently Obama hasn't told any thumping lies recently, and David Axelrod hasn't been caught peddling his candidate's influence, and the campaign hasn't perpetrated any outrageous smears. So are you suggesting that reporters make up some bad stuff so that we can have "corresponding attention"? Honestly, you seem like an intelligent person, even though your spelling is awful. I realize there aren't many honest arguments to be made for Hillary Clinton, but you should be able to find something better.

Posted by phillygirl | April 9, 2008 12:04 AM

Yeah, sure...after endless scrutiny of Obama by the media from the week leading up to Ohio/TX until the Wright issue, he still hasn't received "corresponding attention." Let's see: "plagiarism," Goolsbee/NAFTA, national security fitness (3 AM ad, Hillary's "less experience than McCain" comment, etc), Wright comments played over and over, etc, etc.

Just because one candidate is giving the media more things to scrutinize doesn't mean they're scrutinizing her unfairly. More importantly, if this were anyone else, would the media still be considering her a legitimate contender? Why hasn't she been taken to task for her being disingenuous on FL/MI, among other things?

Sorry, I'm just not buying this "the media loves Obama" meme, especially after Hillary keeps on being treated like a legitimate contender when no one else would have been.

Posted by S Zaman | April 9, 2008 12:06 AM

Here's why: http://acropolisreview.com/2008/04/top-reasons-to-give-barack-obama-your.html
Spread the word across Pennsylvania.

Posted by Tina | April 9, 2008 12:15 AM

Heckuva post, Marc. Your insight is worth every cent I paid for it. I just wish I had those eighteen seconds back, though.

Posted by Jeff Larson | April 9, 2008 12:15 AM

I don't know if the phrase "natural tightening" is accurate, but it is certainly true that we have seen the same basic pattern over and over again: once the active campaigning in a state starts, Obama tends to gain in the polls. Of course that doesn't mean he always wins, but in any state he has contested, he has at least ended up considerably closer than he started.

I personally don't think this is at all mysterious. The basic setup is that Hillary Clinton often starts with huge leads largely because she has quasi-incumbent status within the Democratic Party thanks to her association with Bill Clinton. But Obama is a compelling candidate for this particular election, and he is generally a very skilled politician, so he tends to pick up support as he campaigns. Clinton, in contrast, really isn't a very good politician, and she has never really come up with a compelling reason for her candidacy in light of the current political context, so she struggles just to hold steady.

All that said, PA is an extremely favorable state for Clinton--indeed, that is why she has tried to convince the media to exaggerate its importance, with some degree of success. So, she is probably still going to win the state, but again it won't exactly be a surprise if Obama finishes closer than he started.

Posted by DTM | April 9, 2008 12:21 AM

Marc,

I think an even better question to ask is, "Why is anyone in Pennsylvania still supporting Hillary Clinton when she has been caught on video four separate times lying about her flight into Bosnia?"

I'd really like to hear a response to this from a Hillary supporter. What part of 'lying' don't you understand? Am I setting the bar too high by expecting that a candidate for President should be someone who doesn't lie?

Posted by elrod | April 9, 2008 12:27 AM

I suggest you all check out the last month of Ohio's polls. You'll see that Rasmussen consistently underestimated Clinton final margin of victory, and PPP was way off 2 weeks out.

In short, believing any of these polls at this point is moronic.

Posted by Cal | April 9, 2008 1:25 AM

Wait! I thought the fact that Obama bowled a 37 was evidence of how unfit he is for office? If that isn't it, why do I keep seeing it everywhere?

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 9, 2008 1:30 AM

The rolling average of the Ohio polls at RCP during the last month showed the race closing from about 17 points to about 7, and Clinton won by 10 (which was the product of the usual pattern of the last few undecideds breaking in her favor on election day).

So, the Ohio polls overall weren't that bad, and the tightening they showed was in fact reflected in the final results.

Posted by DTM | April 9, 2008 3:23 AM

A couple more:

RCP showed Texas tightening in the last month from about 10 to about 2, and Clinton won by 3.5 (again consistent with getting a favorable ratio of late undecideds).

In Wisconsin, the polls had Clinton ahead in 2007, Obama taking about a 4 point lead after Super Tuesday, growing to about a 10 point lead during February. The final result was Obama by 17.

Posted by DTM | April 9, 2008 3:38 AM

Both RCP and Pollster.com show Clinton ahead but it's no longer a double digit lead.

I tend to trust RCP and Pollster.com more than any one poll. It accurately can be said you can find A POLL! To support just about anything.

When looking at composite polls. You're using an assortment of polls and averaging them. This tends to give clearer and most times more accurate polling data.

Posted by SC Rose | April 9, 2008 9:44 AM

Isn't the real story the utter non-tightening of NC? I mean, if PA+NC is a net gain for BHO, then game over man, game over!

Posted by Charlotte Durham | April 9, 2008 10:26 AM

SC Rose,

Of course sometimes even in aggregate, the polls have been way off in terms of the final number (with the actual results sometimes being more favorable for Clinton than the final poll averages, and sometimes being more favorable for Obama than the final polls).

But that is more about the difficulty of developing a reliable likely voter model for the primaries than anything else. Accordingly, generally the aggregate of the polls appears to have gotten the basic dynamics of the contests right, even if they may not have gotten the final numbers right.

All of which means it is a fairly safe bet at this point that if the aggregate of the polls for some particular contest shows Clinton's lead shrinking (or Obama's lead growing) by a significant amount, that is probably reflecting a real trend. What we can't know from these polls is exactly what the final margin will be. Which means we also won't know the eventual "winner" in close contests until the actual results come in (although given proportional allocation, the concept of a "winner" is not particularly meaningful).

Posted by DTM | April 9, 2008 10:28 AM

"hadenough - to be fair, isn't that SurveyUSA's own report card, not pollster.com's?

Posted by socctty"

No. That is pollster.com's report card. surveyusa just makes easier to find.

Posted by hadneough | April 9, 2008 12:43 PM

Ignore the polls! The queen of inevitable will prevail. Ignore the polls, except one! And ignore that Mark Penn behind the curtain. He's not there - his title has been fired. He's not sending jobs to Colombia. Ignore the polls!

Posted by Pete from Boston | April 9, 2008 2:31 PM

I think the Hillary fans and Hillbots might be a tad too optimistic.

But then again it's not like they have a history of underestimating their opponent (Obama) and overestimating their own candidate (Hillary) now is it?

I love how they think every Obama flap is his deathkneel but all of hers are irrelevant. I'm with the other posters here maybe after a week and a half of poor management and lie after lie, she's actually being hurt in the polls. Nah, that couldn't be.

Posted by John | April 9, 2008 6:34 PM

How it was put elsewhere...

How Hillary lost my vote
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20080409_How_Hillary_lost_my_vote.html
You were blindsided by Barack Obama - and felt he needed more seasoning, that it wasn't "his turn." And I stayed with you, rooted for you (even though I've admired Obama for four years). Perhaps I could have continued to hold on, if only you'd stayed on the moral high ground and told the truth. To a great extent, I have to vote for the person of greater integrity, who will try to do the right thing most of the time - and I've lost faith in you. You finally lost me at Bosnia. Your claim to have been there during active hostilities has been roundly disproved, and your explanation that you misspoke or were too tired is, at best, lame.

Posted by kravitz | April 10, 2008 1:26 AM