Monday’s campaign round-up

April 21, 2008

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* So, what do the latest polls in Pennsylvania say about tomorrow’s primary? Quinnipiac has Clinton up by seven (51-44); Strategic Vision (R) also has her up by seven (48-41); Mason-Dixon has her up by five (48-43); Zogby has her up by six (48-42); ARG has her up by 13 (54-41); Suffolk shows her leading by 10 (52-42); and SurveyUSA has her up by six (50-44). Public Policy Polling (D) is the oddball, showing Obama leading by three (49-46).

* On Saturday, the first time in several weeks, the Gallup Poll Daily tracking report showed Clinton taking a narrow, one-point lead over Obama. By yesterday, however, Obama had reclaimed the lead, 47% to 45%.

* The Clinton campaign still has some financial trouble: “Financial reports released to the Federal Election Commission around midnight this morning show that Clinton raised around $20 million in March and had roughly $8 million available at the beginning of April for use during the primary. But the campaign also reported debts of $10.3 million, which makes it in the red leading into contests in Indiana and North Carolina.”

* Most of Pennsylvania’s newspapers have endorsed Obama, but Clinton picked up the support yesterday of the right-wing Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned and published by Richard Mellon Scaife, who helped finance the anti-Clinton crusade of the 1990s. (Just as an aside, the paper said it supports Clinton in the “Democrat [sic] primary.” Even when endorsing, conservatives have to use the grammatically incorrect name for the party.)

* Bloomberg takes a look at what it would take for Clinton to win the Dems’ popular vote: “Clinton would need a 25-point victory in Pennsylvania, plus 20-point wins in later contests in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Even that scenario assumes Clinton, 60, would break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon — a prospect that’s not at all certain. More than just big margins, Clinton would need record voter turnout too.”

* Clinton picked up three new superdelegates on Friday.

* Obama had the single biggest crowd of his campaign on Friday night, when 35,000 people jammed into Independence Park in Philadelphia to see him.

* Michael Moore endorsed Obama.

* SurveyUSA has Obama up by five in Indiana (50-45).

* This Senate race should be all manner of fun: “In a move that will make Alaska a battleground in the 2008 election, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) will make his candidacy for Senate official on Monday, his campaign said Sunday. Begich, who currently has an exploratory committee, was widely expected to enter the race eventually. He will make stops in Anchorage and Fairbanks to launch his candidacy for the seat of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who is under federal investigation for his ties to the Veco Corp.”

“Clinton picked up the support yesterday of the right-wing Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned and published by Richard Mellon Scaife, who helped finance the anti-Clinton crusade of the 1990s”

Wow, what an honor…that really makes me want to vote for her. NOT. (I’m not in PA, but have yet to vote as my state’s primary is next month).

  • Popular vote, schmopular vote. The Clintonistas don’t care what the little people want, so long as they’ve got connections to the good old boys. To quote: “Screw ’em.”

  • I wonder if Hillary would smile if Scaife announced that he endorsed “that Communist c*nt.”
    Maybe he wants her to give his ex (or soon to be ex) wife some guidance.

  • That PPP poll may be the clear oddball of the last group of polls, but remember that PPP was very accurate when it came to Ohio, back when so many other ones were off. SurveyUSA was also very good on Ohio, though, so hard to say which one will be proven right this time around.

    The PPP poll has a sample of nearly four times the size of the other polls — 2300+ LVs as compared with SUSA’s 710 LVs, for instance, or Zogby’s 600 LVs — so there’s reason to believe they might have a better read than the others.

    A detailed look at the internals here: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/4/21/10827/5540

  • Has everyone forgotten that Hillary already sucked up to that other right-wing media troll Rupert Murdoch years ago when she was running for Senate? This, combined with her totally Republican campaign strategy should be reason enough for her to be no more than the “Plan B” candidate to simply make sure that McCain doesn’t get in, no matter what.

  • Most of Pennsylvania’s newspapers have endorsed Obama, but Clinton picked up the support yesterday of the right-wing Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned and published by Richard Mellon Scaife, who helped finance the anti-Clinton crusade of the 1990s.

    Because they are just so afraid of Obama!

  • I liked this passage from Michael Moore:

    “Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I’ve watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name “Farrakhan” out of nowhere, well that’s when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the “F” word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama’s pastor does — AND the “church bulletin” once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin! “

    Well put.

  • According to today’s Gallup tracker, Obama’s lead is back to 49-42, same as it was four days ago. Something’s really screwy about those weekend numbers.

  • Bloomberg takes a look at what it would take for Clinton to win the Dems’ popular vote: “Clinton would need a 25-point victory in Pennsylvania, plus 20-point wins in later contests in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Even that scenario assumes Clinton, 60, would break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon — a prospect that’s not at all certain. More than just big margins, Clinton would need record voter turnout too.”

    Ah, but if you use Rob Reiner Certified Hollywood Math, and include in her “victory” in Florida, she can too win the popular vote and convince the Supers to annoint her Empress Of Idiots.

  • doubtful: Bloomberg’s just saying what we’re all thinking.

    Indeed. But here is what irks the danders of my ire:

    The Clinton dead-enders are using the closeness of the national poll to argue that the prior votes really don’t matter because Clinton is more electable now. That’s the stake they are starting to pound here and there.

    It is the funniest and evilest damn thing going down. Pure dead-enderism. Not just because it won’t work. Not just because the national poll means nothing in terms of the convention rules. But mostly because of the way the voice of the people is being manipulated for selfish gain:

    Hillary offers up the proud lie that even though she can’t win, everyone’s voice should be heard. And she is going to be sure everyone has a chance. So she is staying in this election. Like hell.
    Yet simultaneously: Total voices don’t matter. It is electability that counts.
    Yet simultaneously: Total delegates don’t matter. It is electability that counts.
    Yet simultaneously: Voices from the big states matter more than voices from little states.
    Yet simultaneously: Pledged delegates shouldn’t stay pledged to the voices they represent.

    Hannity-Cheney-Scalia couldn’t simultaneously contort the truth more…
    Sure saying anything to win is ugly. But trying to steal an election by telling lies to destroy a fellow democrats character and then win it with less votes? On some hokey-ass self-defined variable of “electability?”

    That is dead-ender ugly. It doesn’t get any worse that this…

  • PA voters please don’t be fooled by Clinton.

    I discovered two powerful videos that presented a convincing argument in the case of Paul vs Clinton. The video is titled, “The Shocking Video Hillary Does Not Want You to See” (Parts 1 and 2). The associate producer of the video stated mission is to expose “the greatest campaign finance fraud that has ever been committed.”

    One of the claims made by Paul is that he sponsored and financed a fund raising gala for Clinton’s bid to become a Senator. Quoting Paul he believed that in exchange for organizing the gala, “I had accomplished the hiring of the president of the United States to work for me when he left the White House.”

    After viewing these two videos one can only imagine how many other shady characters and governments are claiming the same thing. Even more troubling that the above-mentioned statement is the thought that the Bush Justice Department may have already uncovered smoking gun evidence to prove that part of the 109 million dollars made by former President Clinton since he left the White House is tainted or worse illegal.

    The fact that Senator Clinton admitted on national television that she lied about sniper fire makes it easier for voters to accept any evidence and/or cases that may be presented to discredit/destroy Hillary. Just imagine what the “Right Winged Conspirators” are planning for Hillary in she wins in PA.

    Fox News employs Karl Rove and he will defeat the Democratic Party if Hillary is the nominee. As the nominee Hillary will help Rove and Fox News to rally the Republican and the Christian Right to the polls. Clinton has stated that she can survive the Rove attack machine but can the rest of America survive it. PA voters of all races and economic classes please vote for Obama on Tuesday because we can’t take a chance on having another four years of the failed Bush policies if Clinton is our nominee.

    Vera Richardson author of “A Case of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation Real or Imagined.”

  • This point is really trivial so I really shouldn’t keep harping on it (not here, but I’ve posted it elsewhere). But Florio and Kean aren’t superdelegates they’re add-on delegates. It doesn’t matter much, but referring to them as supers and lumping them in with, for instance, the Ohio super suggests that three prominent people decided the other day to support Hillary. And that isn’t true, only one did.

    The point here is that each state gets one or two (I think? The whole thing is really complicated as you all know) of these add-on delegates, which get selected at the Democratic state convention. Since the convention is dominated by whoever’s supporters won the state, that effectively means one or two extra delegates for the state’s winner. Hence, two former governors, who are HIllary supporters, got the nod.

    But these two aren’t prominent delegates who announced that they are supporting Hillary. They are two people who were chosen to be delegates because they support Hillary.

  • On April 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pm, ROTFLMLiberalAO said:
    Hillary offers up the proud lie that even though she can’t win, everyone’s voice should be heard. And she is going to be sure everyone has a chance. So she is staying in this election.
    _________________

    Does that mean it’s cool for Pennsylvanians to still vote for Richardson, Biden, Edwards, etc.? 🙂 I mean AFTER ALL, if EVERY voice should be heard, shouldn’t it be heard for Pennsylvanians whose favorite horse is no longer in the race?

    No, of course not, everyone’s vote FOR HILLARY should be heard. Justice for she, not for thee.

  • Here is the best reason for everyone in PA to vote for Obama tomorrow.

    Rush Limbaugh is going to take credit for a Clinton victory.

    Don’t let Rush win. Please!!!!

  • Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is broke again. Is this how she’s going to fix our economy?

  • Where are the Obama donors? Not in the barrio, nor in the housing projects nor in middle class America. just about making ends meet to keep their homes. His money is Dirty and is coming from friends, families and employees of corporations, PACS, and BIG OIL (since he voted for Cheney’s oil give aways after their illegal behind closed doors sessions). Which brings me to the behind closed door politics of Obama; say one thing then flip flop to re-define your words. I was not Bitter before yet watching this slime of a guy connected to Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc makes me MORE bitter!

  • Dane NM @19, please cite the proof of your allegation. I opened my wallet for Obama and folks don’t get a lot more blue-collar than me.

  • “Michael Moore endorsed Obama.”

    Finally, a compelling endorsement. Opps, too late. I’ve already voted.

    Re the Pennsylvannia Polls, I expect ALL the undecideds to go to Clinton, so I’d be surprised if Senator Obama got more than 42-44%.

  • Dane NM @19,

    At least for my part, I am part of that lower middle class that has contributed small amounts to Obama’s campaign. And from where I stand, a majority of his donors are people like me.

  • Finally, a compelling endorsement. Opps, too late. I’ve already voted. -Lance

    Oh, so you’re joining the Obama team now? 🙂 Did you also become a Giants fan in the fourth quarter of the Superbowl this year? Haha. 😉

    Moore did take his precious time deciding, didn’t he? But I imagine, like most of us, he started this ‘season’ liking all of the major candidates somewhat. Things change.

    If we’re going to make predictions, I’ll say Clinton with a single digit lead, say 9 points. Ultimately it doesn’t matter because she won’t win by enough to win it; just by enough to continue to bite our ankles until the next primary.

  • Predictions from Independent Thinker (for what limited value that has).

    Pennsylvania – Clinton +7-10%
    North Carolina – Obama +10-12%
    West Virginia – Clinton +15-17%
    South Dakota – Obama +9-11%
    Puerto Rico – Clinton +8-11%
    Oregon – Obama +9-12%
    Kentucky – Clinton +15-18%
    Indiana – Obama +3-5%
    Montana – No idea, but with only 16 delegates it isn’t likely a deal changer.
    Guam – No idea, but we’re only talking about 4 delegates. So let’s call it a tie.

    Net result? Obama completes the primary season with roughly 1930-ish delegates to Clinton’s 1780-ish—meaning he will only need about 100 more super delegates to earn the nomination. THAT is why Clinton should not take this thing all the way to the convention. Sure, take it to the end of the votig season, but then it is time for her to gracefully concede and work to bring the party together.

    Now, if something magical happens and Obama pulls off a surprise win in Pennsylvania, then Clinton should get out right then.

  • Michael Moore just doesn’t know that all REAL white people believe that black people know each other and have a secret handshake…(snark)

    Hillary doesn’t even know it yet, but Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdoch are just waiting for the date rape drug to kick in. Scumbags!

  • Nice post @ independent thinker…

    Which also gives me a change to fix the punctuation in a sentence of mine upthread:

    But trying to steal an election by telling lies to destroy a fellow democrat’s character, and then win it with less votes? On some hokey-ass self-defined variable of “electability?” That is dead-ender ugly. It doesn’t get any worse that that…

  • Hey, ROTFetc, @26,

    If you’re going to get all het-up about punctuation (admittedly, my weakest point), how about fixin’ the “win it with less votes” to “win it with *fewer* votes”? 🙂

  • Bloomberg takes a look at what it would take for Clinton to win the Dems’ popular vote: “Clinton would need a 25-point victory in Pennsylvania, plus 20-point wins in later contests in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Even that scenario assumes Clinton, 60, would break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon — a prospect that’s not at all certain. More than just big margins, Clinton would need record voter turnout too.”

    Exactly what does Clinton’s age have to do with this? Not nice, by halfway, Carpetbagger. However, if you choose to do this then it’s fair then that Obama’s age gets used: he’s only 46-years old and thus has limited experience in national government and foreign affairs. Thus, his electability is seriously questionable; it’s dangerous.

  • Mabelle (#28),

    You may be correct that if one candidate’s age is relavent, then so is the other’s, but you incorrectly assign the blame for including Clinton’s age to carpetbagger, when in fact, the entire passage is a quote from Bloomberg.

    Just thought I’d point that out in the interest of accuracy 😉

  • Hey Libra (#27),

    You said “If you’re going to get all het-up about punctuation (admittedly, my weakest point), how about fixin’ the “win it with less votes” to “win it with *fewer* votes”?”

    I might be wrong, but isn’t the correction you propose here, in fact, an error in grammer, not punctuation? 😉

  • Exactly what does Clinton’s age have to do with this?

    This would seem to be a bit of a tic with Bloomberg. From elsewhere in the article:

    A popular-vote victory is vital to Clinton’s chances because she is likely to end the primaries still trailing Obama, 46, in the race for delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

  • @ #27 and #30,

    It’s not an error at all, either in grammar or in punctuation. An error in grammar would be something such as lack of agreement in number between a subject an its verb, such as “we finds a problem”, or treating an object as a subject, such as “we can see they”. The less/fewer distinction (less for uncountable (or “mass”) nouns such as milk, air, or determination; fewer for countable nounts such as items or voters) is one many but hardly all writers favor, but even those who maintain the distinction allow less with countable nouns when the noun semantically represents a mass of things even if grammatically it is a countable noun. So if your native-speaker ear tells you that “we waited for less than ten years”, “candidates with facial tattoos generally get less votes”, and “less people care about interracial marriage these days than in the past” are fine, then go with them. If they sound bad to you, then use fewer instead. Of course, there are times when both are appropriate but many readers will interpret them differently: If product A has fewer advantages than product B, then product A’s advantages are less in number. If it has less advantages, then its advantages are less in degree.

    • Comments are closed.