What’s the matter with Pennsylvania?
Dante Chinni
Posted: 04.10.2008 / 8:20 AM PDT
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was out front. Then she was way out front. Then Sen. Barack Obama closed the gap. Then suddenly, gasp, he took a lead.
If you have been watching the polls coming from Pennsylvania for the past few weeks before the state’s April 22 primary, you may be wondering what’s going on. The daily and weekly polling hiccups in Pennsylvania tracked by sites such as RealClearPolitics.com and Pollster.com seem to show an erratic – or at least difficult to read – electorate in the state.
On Monday, for instance, two polls came out on the Clinton-Obama race. One showed a five-point advantage for Mrs. Clinton, while the other showed an 18-point bulge for her. The next day, one poll had Clinton ahead by five points and another poll had her up by 10.
Those numbers followed polls from a few weeks ago that showed Mr. Obama closing the gap with Clinton. In one poll, he actually took the lead.
So what’s happening in Pennsylvania? Is the race tightening or not? Patchwork Nation correspondents in Philadelphia have mixed answers.
Some say that despite the “bad weeks” Clinton has had – the questions about the “sniper fire” she faced in Bosnia, the demotion of a key campaign strategist, the release of her tax information – they don’t think her support has changed much either way.
“I don’t sense much movement in Philadelphia between those who support Obama and those who support Clinton, and I don’t sense that those ‘national’ stories are influencing local opinions,” one wrote in an e-mail.
“The talk is more and more ‘Barack has a chance here’ but that talk is among people whose job it is to pay attention to minute details and is probably more wishful thinking than anything,” wrote another.
But John Saler, a Democratic strategist in Philadelphia who’s not affiliated with either campaign, wrote that “change is in the air” in Pennsylvania and talk of Obama’s gains were real.
Political observers say reading polls is always difficult, but as a rule, people should discount outlier numbers for both candidates. If you do that, says Philadelphia political ad man Neil Oxman, you see roughly a 5-1/2 point lead for Clinton in Pennsylvania. Obama has closed the gap a bit, he says.
“I think he has the magic back a little bit. He was here for six days on his cross-state bus trip, and he got wildly positive coverage across the state.”
Terry Madonna, director of Franklin and Marshall College’s Center for Politics and Public Affairs, jokingly calls Obama’s bus tour, “the most covered political event in state history” and says the tour, plus a huge infusion of campaign cash, have whittled away Clinton’s lead. Obama is outspending Clinton on ads by a nearly 3-to-1 margin.
Mr. Madonna says the Clinton campaign’s missteps haven’t helped her either.As for the polls, he says, different methods (recorded calls versus live-person calls) and different ways of weighting the results account for the differences. So in the end what do all those Keystone State poll numbers show?
“I think the state shows what all the other states did,” says Mr. Oxman. “She starts out with a big lead and he closes.”
Both Oxman and Madonna pointed out, however, that the next two weeks will be critical. Even if the polls show the race narrowing, voters who decide in the last few days before the primary could break one way and throw the numbers off yet again.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 10th, 2008 at 4:48 pm PDT
i guess with polls we have to know who’s getting counted, what’s the sample population. seems this race has some divides that are measurable at times along lines of gender, age, race - all those things that are secondary to being human first or a person first. but practical matter is, some discernible differences in tastes and enthusiasms are showing up.
so when you have this poll or that poll, my question is, who’s being asked? what’s the methodology and probably after people vote we can all look back and things will be more clear.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm PDT
Well from the looks of it, McCain going to win the election anyways. American will hobble along in Iraq for the next 4 to 8 years and our county will bankrupt because of it.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pm PDT
I hope the voters of Pennsylvania totally confound the media. I’m tired of the media’s predictions. Let the people vote. Wait for the outcome rather than predicting it
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pm PDT
Having just spent the last 2 weeks in Pennsylvania, what intrigued me was the tremendous number of Ron Paul signs which were up in the suburbs of Philadelphia. I love the fact that Obama is gaining in PA, especially since we in Ohio blew the vote to end all of this.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 10th, 2008 at 6:09 pm PDT
With respect to the one who asked if 1,000 people are “enough” to sample public opinion nationwide, I must conclude that you do not know about statistics. There is a very good reason that margins of error of about 5% are quoted in most polls, and that is due to the sample size. Because of the studies they do to test these predictions and the controls about how randomly people are selected, they have a high (95% or more) confidence that the actual numbers are within the range they selected.
It’s true that some people use deliberately biased polls, though. But that’s why smart people only look at a few non-partisan poll sources. If it’s, say, a Fox news poll showing the Republicans ahead by 99%, or a Clinton campaign poll showing her ahead by 50%, or something like that, you can safely ignore it.
Another good measure of a poll is whether or not they disclose the questions they asked. One way to bias a poll is to ask a question in a biased way, or to misrepresent what was asked. I saw that recently on a CNN poll, where they were unclear about whether they were asking who people *wanted* to win, or who they *expected* to win. The difference there is anything but minor.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 10th, 2008 at 6:24 pm PDT
Obviously, you deem any response on this article as inappropriate. So, inappropriately, I’ll add that erratic polls mean nothing except that many of the polls are unprofessionally conducted. Even at their best and conducted by the best in the business — someone like Peter Hart, who usually does only private polls for candidates — are inherently weak in the horse-race numbers so enamored by the media, professional and otherwise, until they get down to fourth- and fifth-level questions that never make the stories.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 10th, 2008 at 6:51 pm PDT
Patriotism manifests itself in many ways. Public Service is also a very patriotic endeavor. Many great historical deeds have been accomplished through public service that affects many lives each and every day, so although military service is obviously patriotic, we should not diminish the patriotism of public servants in many walks of life.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:59 pm PDT
Hello all,
It’s nice to see so many in here posting so passionately, that’s what this space is for. But please hold down the personal attacks.
Cheers.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 10th, 2008 at 8:38 pm PDT
I am Hillary’s supporter. I don’t believe polls, who like polls, they are Obama’s supporters. They just want him look okay.
Poeple changed, many poeple did not like anymore. May Americans forgave him, but make him to be a president, I don’t think so.
Why should we make him a president? Tell me
April 10th, 2008 at 8:41 pm PDT
Someone above suggested that all recent polls show that Hillary is 10% or more ahead of Obama. And that polls a week ago “all” showed Obama ahead.
That was the whole point of the article. I wish people would bother to read it before commenting.
Some polls have Obama “closing” while others show Clinton ahead by wide numbers. And that was true a week ago and it’s still true.
Today’s InsiderAdvantage (4/8/08) (N=681 LV) shows Clinton with a ten point lead (48% to 38% w/ 13% Undecided). But yesterdays PPP poll with about twice the sample size (N=1124 LV) shows Clinton with 46% to Obama’s 43% (11% Undecided). Rasmussen (4/7/08;730 LV) has a 48% to 43% Clinton lead (9% Undecided). It was the SurveyUSA poll several days back that had Clinton with a huge lead (4/5-7/08 597 LV) 56% to 38% with only 2% Undecided. But ARG, covering essentially the same dates (4/5-6/08 and with a similar sample size: 600 LV) Had the race essentially tied at 45% (6% Undecided). Strategic Vision, again covering the same dates as the SUSA Poll had it 47% to 42% for Clinton. A large Quinnipiac Poll (4/3-6/08 1340 LV) showed the race within 6%: Clinton 50% Obama 44% with 6% still deciding. TIME’s survey started earlier and showed Obama behind 8% (4/2-6/08 676 RV) 49% vs. 41% (10 Undec.)
I should point out that all of these polls are based on whatever the pollster’s models as “Likely Voters”. In other words some pollsters will ask questions about whether you voted in the last General Election, or the last Primary…or they’ll look at things like income or zip-code or years you’ve lived in the same house. All of these are predictors of whether someone will vote in a primary election under normal circumstances. But SUSA has underestimated African-American and Young Voter participation by double digits, and in some cases by 25%. This is because their models do not accurately evaluate the “enthusiasm factor” involved with new registrants and particualr sectors of the community that usually don’t vote, or don’t vote in Primaries. I suspect that’s why it shows such a difference from the other polls.
That said, where AA’s and young voters are smaller parts of the surveyed populace SUSA has been fairly accurate vs. other polls. And to be fair ALL the pollsters were wrong in places like South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland and other places where AA voters came out in twice the expected numbers that the pollsters thought.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:52 pm PDT
Stephan…only Zogby had Obama 10% ahead of Clinton in California. And nobody trusts Zogby. Zogby isn’t even polling in Pennsylvania.
In the week prior to the California Primary ARG had Clinton up by 4% (49% - 45% 3). SurveyUSA had Clinton up by 10% (52% - 42% 2)and 12% (53% - 41% 2)
Rasmussen had it a dead heat statistically: 44% - 45%
A week before the election ARG gave Clinton an 8% lead: 47% - 39% (8 Undecided). And the MSNBC-McClatchy/Mason-Dixon had Clinton ahead by 9% (45% - 36% w/ 16% Undecided). No survey, other than Zogby, ever predicted a big Obama victory in California. It turns out that Obama did better than most of those surveys predicted.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 10th, 2008 at 9:16 pm PDT
If you read the postings of persons on the web there has not been much change. Some of the news articles seem to indicate that Obama should be gaining, and those articles often suggest that there has been change to his favor. But the conversation of people on the web seem to be unaffected by the news. In the article ‘Bias May Influence Pa. Primary Voters’ (this website, dated April 10, 2008; author Brandon Taylor of the Daily Collegian) indicates, and I quote the article: …although no concrete data exists to explain why few minority candidates are elected in Pennsylvania, Penn State Harrisburg Public Policy Professor Matthew Woessner said “…bias may account for the disparity…the question is how much?” He certainly believes that there are still some people scattered throughout the commonwealth … who have racial biases… That pool of voters is relatively small, and we hope it will continually shrink. (end quote). I was supprised when I watched the Ohio primary coverage to find how much deep racial hatred there is there. I was not supprised to see the same hatred in Texas as I have lived there and had bi-racial children-I knew first hand how they felt in Texas. I would have liked to think that Pennsylvania was not like that, but they made a dicision long ago for Clinton and that is not going to be distrubed by thought.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:18 pm PDT
Man, at this point, I don’t really care who wins. As long as they do a good job and fix the country.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 10th, 2008 at 10:37 pm PDT
I find it funny that there was actually a comment that those who vilify Clinton are acting like an “undereducated” child. The funny thing is that the less than educated people tend to be Clinton’s fan base and that should scare everyone. It would be nice…if those with a greater grasp of intellect were able to choose the President of the most powerful nation in the world, rather than those who suffer from a lack of education. Those that follow Clinton and actually refuse to call her lies an exaggeration are clearly misguided and showing excessive bias…the same bias they thrust towards those that support Obama. How many of you would actually be able to forget that there was no gunfire at all when entering anywhere at all? Those who have experienced such a traumatic event would never forget it, nor would they speak of it in a way other than to try and convey the horror and this is not what she was doing. I have always been Republican minded, but this country has forgotten that the rest of the world is watching and they have been waiting for us to grow up as a nation and evolve into something even greater and if we don’t grasp this opportunity now…we will simply fall behind as the rest of the global communities unite even more than they have already. I am not the youngest of people, nor am I one of the older…I am in the middle and I am tired of the old acting as if they can dictate what is best for the future when all they care about is their present. It is time to grow up…not old and it is time that the educated of this country guide us and not Clinton’s appeal to the less educated and the elderly. The only way we can take care of the elderly down the line is if we can give the youth the best chance possible to help this country succeed…the retired have had their shot. I want my son to have his.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 10th, 2008 at 10:59 pm PDT
Think of this ccountry as an organization or company. Would you not want it run as smoothly and efficiently as possible? Would you not want someone who does not allow for the operation to go bankrupt or suffer financially in general? Would you not want the employees of this person to be loyal and work in harmony to produce optimal results? Would you not want someone who seems to make the organization stronger with each passing day and proving that he can take something that starts off small and then surges to something that seems to have no limit? Would you not want someone who inspires those around him to rise up and work harder than they ever have before to achieve a higher goal? There has been only one candidate that has done so and that is why he is being lauded by so many. Clinton and McCain have suffered financial setbacks…McCain at the beginning and Clinton throughout and neither of them have invigorated as many new voters as Obama has done. The people around Clinton have been fighting amongst themselves. Do you really want her running your company? She can’t control her people or her money right now…why would you think it would change later?
April 11th, 2008 at 12:24 am PDT
I am fearful of a Obama democratic nomination. I don’t believe he can survive the attacks that will come from the GOP. When you dig just a little into his past you find all sorts of information completely contrary to his rhetoric. He is a career politician through and through…who took every advantage he could get to climb the political ladder in the least amount of time (which included using his constitutional law degree to weasel his opponents out of past senate competitions…hmmm sounds an awful lot like FL and MI), and yet because of his silver tongue he has this pied piper like quality that draws the ear of his accolades. He is american idol, mtv, youtube, and the 30 second sound bite all rolled into one. My problem has never been with his race or rhetoric, it is his judgment and character that I continue to call into question.
If convenience combined with shrewdness and a few good political strategists is all it takes to become president, well, I guess america deserves obama.
Make the only intelligent choice and support Hillary Clinton for President in 08. She will be the only democrat who can win.
I know I will be voting for her here in PA on April 22nd
April 11th, 2008 at 12:53 am PDT
Much has been talked about these two candidates.Both will create history if elected.No one is perfect in the world so are these two candidates with their SWOT.Simply lady Clinton is too long in the limelight so looks has more controversies but even at a short time of national limelight Mr Obama too has a load of controversies.You become thief when caught but otherwise there are many thiefs who are taken as honest until exposed or caught.Politics is a prime sector so if we look back almost every ex presidents had their own controversies.In view of no lady so far has become president of USA while they constitute half of entire society lady clinton is qualified & competitive. Why deprive such a vast majority of mommy gender this first real oppurtunity. Who knows when another woman will have a close shot at it. To save party, himself & lady Clinton Mr. Obama shd give this oppurtunity to his mom gender & join the dream ticket thereby creating multiple historical precedents.He has age, needs more exposure & i am sure with his gifted talent will surely get another clear oppurtunity to become President.Ram Bahadur K.C. from land of Mt. Everet & Lord Buddha.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:01 am PDT
Okay, folks. I live in Eugene, OR and I have been to see both Obama and Clinton speak in the last month. Still haven’t made up my mind, but I am quite tired of polls and news media telling us who is winning, or has won…ex…news networks calling winners before the polls even close on west coast. Don’t pay much attention to polls anyway. I try to pay more attention to the issues, and integrity. The process continues; I’m glad. Yes, it takes time; it’s been a long campaign cycle, but I still find it exciting that my choice is between a woman and an Afro-American. My original choice was for Mike Gravel, whom I actually TRUST because 1. he was brave enough to help ‘out’ the Pentagon papers at great personal risk, and 2. his filibuster that helped stop the draft is the reason neither of my sons are in Iraq fighting a war right now. That said, I still went to see what both candidates had to say.
I think it is great that our ‘late’ primary here will be instrumental in shaping who the Dem. candidate will be. I have voted in every election since 1972, and take this civic duty seriously and always have. My preferred candidates have not always won, but I still keep voting (otherwise I would have no right to complain, would I?). While I liked what both candidates had to say, I did notice that Hillary Clinton took questions from the audience, while Barack Obama did not. These were obviously not ‘plants’ as one of them was an Obama supporter whose question was obviously intended to put Hillary on the spot. His question was re: whether certain things she had said hurt Obama’s campaign. Her reply: this is a contest: it’s hot in the kitchen-if you can’t stand the heat…, think of it as an extended job interview for the job of president. MY questions would have been: where do you stand on the right of people to know what they are eating; for instance, labeling of GMO products, which agri-giants have fought tooth & nail. Or…are you prepared to stand along with the American people and the rest of the world at global conferences on climate change, non-obstructively. While currently undecided, I find the two candidates not that far apart on policy. Clinton is more specific; Obama obviously inspirational to many. I did find the Obama appearance somewhat like a highschool/college pep rally & was very surpised he took no questions; Clinton’s appearance calmer, mature. Which flavor is best? I still haven’t made up my mind. They are both members of CFR, which really turns me off. The Rezko thing concerns me; I am glad that there will be more time for that to play out a bit before I cast my vote (one advantage, I suppose, of long campaign cycles).
I think either one on a bad day is better than George Bush on a good day!
April 11th, 2008 at 1:24 am PDT
The person who keeps saying that he doesn’t think his comment adds to the discussion is 100% correc–but why does he keep repeating it–no better way to spend his time, poor fellow? He really should realize that he’s cluttering up the Comments section and get a different hobby.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:14 am PDT
Jim Natural Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 6:15 pm EDT
-2Flag this post as inappropriate
I see that Obama’s fan base is out in force.
Just once I’d like to see them argue the merits of policies, of Obama vs Clinton.
But because most don’t seem to actually know anything about Obama’s policy positions, let alone Clinton’s, they do what any undereducated child would do, they vilify Clinton and crow about Obama’s popularity.
It’s, like, totally high school.
——————————–
Jim Natural, you state: “But because most don’t seem to actually know anything about Obama’s policy positions, let alone Clinton’s, they do what any undereducated child would do, they vilify Clinton and crow about Obama’s popularity.
It’s, like, totally high school.”
Obviously you are unaware that Hilliary’s strongest base consists of people with a highschool education or less. These are mostly people who probably depend on our tax dollars to help support and feed them and to pay for their free medical care.
On the other hand, one of Senator Obama’s major voter bases consists of people who are in young people in their senior year of highschool with college plans, people with Bachelor Degrees, Masters Degrees, and PHDs and who have very good jobs. Are you going to call us undereducated and totally highschool?? I think not!! We actually make the time and the effort to educate ourselves on the candidates.
Guess in your case, your ignorance speaks for itself.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:19 am PDT
Jim Natural Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 6:15 pm EDT
-2Flag this post as inappropriate
I see that Obama’s fan base is out in force.
Just once I’d like to see them argue the merits of policies, of Obama vs Clinton.
But because most don’t seem to actually know anything about Obama’s policy positions, let alone Clinton’s, they do what any undereducated child would do, they vilify Clinton and crow about Obama’s popularity.
It’s, like, totally high school.
——————————–
Jim Natural, you state: “But because most don’t seem to actually know anything about Obama’s policy positions, let alone Clinton’s, they do what any undereducated child would do, they vilify Clinton and crow about Obama’s popularity.
It’s, like, totally high school.”
Obviously you are unaware that Hilliary’s strongest base consists of people with a highschool education or less. These are mostly people who probably depend on our tax dollars to help support and feed them and to pay for their free medical care.
On the other hand, one of Senator Obama’s major voter bases consists of young people in their senior year of highschool with college plans, people with Bachelor Degrees, Masters Degrees, and PHDs and who have very good jobs. Are you going to call us undereducated and totally highschool?? I think not!! We actually make the time and the effort to educate ourselves on the candidates.
Guess in your case, your ignorance speaks for itself.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:30 am PDT
For those who are so concerned about Rezco; may I remind you that Mr. Rose has filed a fraud lawsuit at the tune of over $1 Million against Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. It is up for trial in August this year. Don’t believe the Clintons will be able to get out of this one; since the proof is in the tapes, just like Hillary’s fraudulant claim that they landed in Bosnia amidst sniper fire and having to duck their heads and run to their cars. Tapes proved her to be lying BIG TIME!
Senator is not implicated in any way, shape, or form in Rezco’s trial; you are just spewing garbage and ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Does it make you feel “intelligent” and “wise” to say things that are not true? Hillary, too, has a history saying things that are not true! Birds of a feather stick together. :):)
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 11th, 2008 at 3:43 am PDT
The article is about polling discrepancies in Pennsylvania yet 90% of the comments had nothing to do with that.
Please take your Obama vs. Clinton support/crticisms to a different blog.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:36 am PDT
Well the basic thing is this. Lets discount the emotions.
There may be so called policy statements, promises etc from many candidates - but do you really trust them all? Do you really think the problems will vanish based on some figures being thrown around?
HRC just wants to win and will do anything for it. Tomorrow if the polls say most people are interested in item “ABC” she will become the biggest proponent of it. So anything is possible - If the polls say she is perceived as remote then make an appearance in a show and almost cry. If the polls say she is not so reachable - make a strategic appearance in some other show.
Can anyone ever forget the way HRC made an appearance holding Bill’s hand after the Lewinsky scandal and looked/starred into his eyes!
It is not her internal belief to make a difference that is driving her. It is just the need to win.
April 11th, 2008 at 5:22 am PDT
I think americans have relised who the true obama is
and have probably changed thier minds about Mrs HiLies- ry Clinton
who by all evidence CANT save America but rather lead us into distruction
with her lobbyist friends and sweet lies.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:37 am PDT
You know I find there is a lot of I’m right, you are stupid here. Also I guess the person who thinks High School Seniors know more about life and should control the election than Seniors who have a lifetime experience and oh yeah a lot of us are very well educated also! I could take the time to fill this page with all the new revelations on the prophet Obama,to spew hatred and ignorance (oh yeah I’m a senior although educated far beyond a Masters degree) so that would be all you would expect, guess that to those who are not willing to be open minded it would be a waste of time. You better watch out for what you wish for, there is still much out there that will come out! You are electing John McCain -he will defeat Obama!!
April 11th, 2008 at 10:04 am PDT
I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Why? because I will never vote for a
candidate who associate himself with a person who is a racist. People lies
candidates lies but of all the lies and controversy the Wright issue is the
worst. If you cannot disown a racist person then you have no place in the
White House. Period
April 11th, 2008 at 10:09 am PDT
Hillary stategy since she is losing. Stay in democratic race as long as she can. Sling every thing including kitchen sink at Obama,heck the whole house if she can. Do enough damage so that Mc Cain wins. Hope economy and war efforts remain unfavorable for next 4 years. Run again in 2012 under I told you so campaign.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:17 am PDT
Geezz… I’m sorry…. but Obama has been relatively truthful about all aspects of his life and has given the best speech concerning race in presidential history. Hillary on the other hand has touted false experiences (or her husbands as her own) and though she may claim there are more than 40books written about her, she’s more of a locked pandoras box than an open book. I think Stalin had a lot of books written about him also…
April 11th, 2008 at 10:28 am PDT
a poll is good not just for its sample size but also whether it is representative of the whole population.
example: the literary digest poll, before 1936, had successfully predicted the winners of four presidential elections. in 1936 the pollsters sent out 10 million ballots. 2.3 million were returned and based on these results, it was predicted that alfred landon would win. however it was franklin d. roosevelt who won. despite the large number of people surveyed, they belonged overwhelmingly to only a certain segment of the population.
nowadays they have better ways of taking polls so we expect that even with a small sample size there should be greater accuracy in predicting the outcomes.
polls are great, but at the end of the day a person will be making a choice on what he or she believes is best. they are both great candidates, i think. i just hope that by the time the actual elections come along, people will set aside differences and vote in favor of the person who will most benefit this wonderful country.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am PDT
Stop with these eannoying polls. Here’e my won poll that I conducted myself with a margin of error of +/- 0.00001: It’s really simple people. Be careful what you wish for. Obama hasn’t done anything. Even this past week you see Hillary at work fulfilling her Senatorial duties, questioning Patreus. Obama is out on the campaign trail giving “high-fives” and cocky hands behind the ears” I can’t hear you’s” and bowling while yours and my sons and daughters are risking their lives in Iraq. My humbe opinion is he is L-A-Z-Y as well as a bit cocky. I don’t like that. If you think Bush was a disaster just see what happens if he gets elected. He doesn’t vote but just gives “Present” votes alot.
So I say let the voters of Penn. decide for themselves. Stop publishing these useless polls that tell people what they should think since apparently everyone else thinks it. Stop influencing the vote in Penn. and let the votres decide without getting clouded with useless polls and useless issues over he-said she-said items and stick to the real facts and issues that matter in Penn. like where is my next pay check going to come from?
April 11th, 2008 at 11:12 am PDT
kmb08 i AGREE. We need someone who is going to actually get thigns done. At this point, I (almost) don’t care who that person is as long as they show a sincere effort and HAS shown a sincere effort towards workling for the citizens. But yes I am biased at this point because I know in my heart which candidate is just playing on popularity and which candidate means business and will not tire after a year in office. I sure don’t enjoy seeing these young whippersnappers, fresh out of high school pretending or believing rather, to know a candidate and what’s best.
Live another 40 or 50 years and then come back to the Pennsylvania polls. The elected’s laws enacted will affect all of us and until you really know things and have matured sufficiently enough, and hav experience life’s ups, downs, and dissapointments in people, you will not completely understand.
It’s great to be inspirational, we need that in a time of recession. However, what we really need now is a do-er and not someone just promising things that are goign to be hard to deliver- Not someone hoping to make a little money once getting elected. It would be nice if e could utilize the strengths of both candidates. NOT a joint ticket, those days are over. We need to thing about how to get both of these people to work for us in some capacity. Yes this would be new but times are changing.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:14 am PDT
I think Hillary has done an ok job at sustaining the lead in PA.
Barack Obama was expected to come and change the game a little bit - but he will probably not win the primary.
Actually, Hillary Clinton is demonstrating that she can take a licking (the Bosnia gaff) and keep on ticking! “YOU GO GIRL”
People go on about the Clintons and how they are making large sums of money. Personally, I would rather have a president that demonstrates that they can make big money - perhaps, they will make the country some of this big money, that’s ok by me!
As we all know, the Clintons left the White House and the country with a considerably “large surplus,” right now, that is what the country needs, big money!
Only a fool would complain that they don’t like the Clintons because they now have “super millions.”
April 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am PDT
It’s amazing that Hillary is still in the race considering the media continuing to conceal damaging info from the public about Obama.
The public may be interested in Obama LYING about his father’s connection to the Kennedy family in order to obtain the Kennedy endorsement. But the public won’t know about this Obama LIE - until after he’s the nominee.
Washington Post —
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/30/13655/6958
And most of Obama’s supporters believe his LIE about his opposition to the war “from the start.” His voting record indicates he opposed the war when he couldn’t vote - but over and over voted to continue the war and opposed any timelines for redeployment.
ONLY Obama was involved in contacting the Canadians - but that info is concealed by Obamedia.
Latest statement from Harper’s spokesperson - Hillary NOT involved…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home
The media sold us Bush in 2000, the Iraq War - and now Obama.
If you liked the first 2 - you’ll love Obama.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:29 am PDT
Better to go with the KNOWN, warts and all - than roll the dice on the UNKNOWN.
Besides - it’ll take a B***h to fix the Economy, health care, housing mess and deal responsibly with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.
Kumbaya won’t do!
April 11th, 2008 at 11:43 am PDT
Leadership and taxes
“It’s important to have core principles and values, but if you’re going to be active in policy and politics, you have to be a realist.” —Hillary Clinton
“We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re going to cut short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” —Hillary Clinton, in a 2004 fundraising speech to wealthy liberals in San Francisco
Bipartisanship and reaching across the isle
“I believe in evil, and I think that there are evil people in the world.” —Hillary Clinton, in 1993, stating her opinion not of the terrorists who had just bombed the World Trade Center for the first time in 1993, but of those who opposed her health care reform plan
“You have got to hand it to them, these people are ruthless and they are relentless.” —Sen. Hillary Clinton, just a few months after 9/11, giving her opinion of Republicans
Health care
“We just can’t trust the American people to make these types of decisions. …Government has to make these choices for people.” —Hillary Clinton circa 1993, speaking to Rep. Dennis Hastert on the issue of who should control the allocation of money in her health care reform plan
“We can’t afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.” —First Lady Hillary Clinton, in 1993, regarding health care reform
Free speech
“We’re all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gate-keeping function.” —First Lady Hillary Clinton, in 1998, days after the Monica Lewinsky story was reported
Blaming America
“I pledge allegiance to the America that can be.” —Hillary Clinton, reluctant to say the Pledge of Allegiance, according to Chris Matthews
“The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation.” —Hillary Clinton
Imagination
“The fact of the matter is, I’ve always been a Yankees fan.” —Senate candidate Hillary Clinton, soon after launching her campaign in 1999, and ignoring prior public statements about growing up as a Cubs fan in Chicago
April 11th, 2008 at 12:57 pm PDT
Statistics are for those who can juggle numbers and have an opinion to offer others. Those that provide stats are generally part of a partisan-ship that would sway the data.
I hope Obama wins in 2008. You can count that one.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm PDT
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Pennsylvania! Unless you are in the Hilary camp, of course. PA, like most of the country recognizes that war in Iraq will be pertpetuated by both McCain and Hilary (yes, Hilary). Hilary, Richard Holbrook, her national security advisor,are both ‘bought and paid for’ by the same northeast neocons that started the war and want to see this war go on.
Folks, she is a NY democrat for goodness sake. Her donors want this war to continue. She has lost any connection to the heartland. She and her husband made $108 million last year alone. That is a heck of a lot of speaking engagements. Before Bill came into office, they made low 5 digit salaries. She comes from a weathy political family from Chicago. She has no connection to working class folks.
In closing, Hilary is a watered-down version of John McCain and the McCain backers (joe lieberman). PA had to get over the race thing, as many have, and recognize that barack obama is the best choice. It’s that simple.
PA realized that Barak Obama is better for the country than Hilary is, period.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm PDT
IN 1992 THE CLINTONS WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO FIX THINGS
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
IN 2008 LETS SEND THEM BACK TO FINISH THEIR JOB
________________________________________
Posted by BLACKSPIRIT3 at 02:20 PM : Apr 11, 2008