Reality Check: Quinnipac Poll Shows Hillary far ahead in swing states Ohio & Pennsylvania

[LulaMay]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1142


The poll shows her leading by very wide margins, despite the negative media coverage of her (and promotion of Obama). She also won Fl by a huge margin.

No candidate has prevailed since 1962 without winning at least two of these important swing states.

She is ahead in Texas as well.



She has won and will win the largest most important state contests in this primary, showing how much better she will fare in these key states in a general election. She got 300,000 more votes than McCain during the FL primary.

[1awake]

1. Saw a poll today that put Obama up by 6 in Texas..

oh well.. we will see soon enough one way or another.

[tandem5]

3. I saw another that put her up 16 in texas - mixed bag today

[RememberWellstone]

68. Me too.

I saw that poll on MSNBC tonight. She's got a tough road ahead of her.

[NJSecularist]

2. Reality check: These states are 2 weeks and a month and a half away respectively.

[Barack_America]

5. It's the poll that will not die.

How many times has this been posted now? lol.

[Obamaniac]

56. lol This is what Clinton supporters do...

They post the same poll over and over again when it's favorable because on election day they tend not to have very much to cheer about it.

[JanusAscending]

4. I live in Ct., and I don't trust the Quinnipiac Polls any more!!

They have been wrong a lot, lately! Don't count your chickens!

[LulaMay]

12. Their polls have been among the more reliable. Zogby has been far off the mark.

And truly, I believe it is Obama supporters who have been behaving like they're counting their chickens.

[JanusAscending]

31. I'm an Obama supporter, but................

OH !! You already know that, because I have a personal profile that shows it!! Where's yours? No tellin' who the heck you are, or where you come from, or who(as if I didn't know)you support. From the number of your posts, you haven't been around that long. I hope you realize that after the primaries are over, we all want to go back to being united Democrats, as well as WELCOMED on DU !

[John Q. Citizen]

43. I am convinced the math is going to make it impossible for Hill after the 3/4 primaries.

At this point, the pressure has got to be intense.

Just today her campaign is now saying that even if she doesn't win Ohio, it won't be the end. This is a 180 degree turn from a day or two ago.

So it's not that we are counting our chickens, it's just that we like our odds. The math seems to work in our favor. Yes, it's still mathematically possible for Hillary to win, it's just not likely. And my guess is the 3/4/08 primary is going to do it.

We are not monsters and bad people. We just like our candidate better than your candidate. Just the same as you like your candidate better than ours.

There's nothing wrong with that. And it doesn't make Hill supporters any better or any worse than Obama supporters.

Ultimatly we are all in this together.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. very well put.....n/t

[gaiilonfong]

47. Quinnipiac are LIEberman HACKS

They are notoriously skewed to the desires of the ReTHUGs

[MadBadger]

6. Reality Check, look at the date of the poll.

[UALRBSofL]

11. The date is feb 14th

Is what I saw

[MadBadger]

15. Nope, the polls were done from Feb 6-11, which largely doesnt include Obama's recent Momentum.

Half the poll occurs before his sweep last saturday, and all of it before Potomac.

[jackson_dem]

54. That momentum isn't showing up in Wisconsin polling

Nothing changed there after the Beltway trimary. No one except the people in those states and junkies like us cared about that. Folks care about Iowa, New Hampshire, and to a much lesser extent South Carolina and to an even less extent Nevada. Super Tuesday matters because of its sheer size. February 12th was as irrelevant as February 9th.

[MadBadger]

70. The only poll Ive seen pre Feb. 9-12 had Obama losing.

So its hard to say it didnt matter.

[LulaMay]

14. February 14th

[MadBadger]

18. Read Above: Poll was taken Feb 6-11

[LulaMay]

21. Released the 14th, polling dates the most recent of any. Your nit picking.

[MadBadger]

25. I'm not nitpicking. Im merely pointing out that things could have greatly changed since then

I dont think those polls accurately take into account Obama's 8 in a row MO

[CreekDog]

65. Most recent polling dates are Rasmussen, not the Q poll (except in PA)

Ohio
Rasmussen 2/14 B 37 C 51 U 12
Quinnipiac 2/6-12 B 34 C 55 U 9
SurveyUSA 2/10-11 B 39 C 56 U 2

Pennsylvania
Quinnipiac 2/6-12 B 36 C 52 U 11

Texas
Rasmussen 2/14 B 38 C 54 U 9
Insider Adv 2/14 B 41 C 48 U 11
ARG 2/13-14 B 48 C 42 U 7

[Birthmark]

7. Obama will win all of those states...

...by at least 900%. It's in the Bible. :sarcasm:

[LulaMay]

8. No chance.

[Birthmark]

13. Really? I thought it was in the book of Numbers.

It's probably not in Deuteronomy, but I like saying and typing Deuteronomy. It sounds vaguely disreputable.

[saltpoint]

9. We'll see. Now and again, polls tighten up considerably just prior to

a statewide ballot.

Betcha that happens this time, too.

[Alhena]

10. Reality check: Pelosi basically endorsed Obama today- the party is behind him

and the superdelegates will give him the win.

[LulaMay]

19. The entire party isn't behind him. Voters have a say too. Nobody gets to crown him king...

with their endorsements. She has many important endorsements and super delegates.

The DNC should focus on what they are going to do about FL and MI, FL especially as all candidates were on the ballot and it was a fair election.

[earthlover]

34. MI and FL broke the rules...you don't change the rules in the middle of a game...

especially when it would give one side an unfair advantage.

It really wasn't a campaign in these states....since campaigning was illegal. No debates, interchange of ideas, or any of that.

These states knew full well what was going to happen if they pulled their stunts, and they went ahead with it anyway.

If seating FL and Mi takes a victory away from Obama, there may not be rioting in the streets, but neither will there be lines to the voting booths in November among the Democrats. The Republicans, of course, will get their wet dream come true of running against the one opponent who can get their troops to the polls this time.

It is, of course, a fantasy. In order to seat the FL and MI delegates, there needs to be a vote. If Hillary is short the votes (meaning she needs FL and MI), then she ain't likely to get the votes to seat these delegates.

This should be seen for what it is....an act of desperation from a candidate who knows she probably will lose, and is willing to risk dividing the party a la 1968, in order to get the nomination at any price.

FOrtunately, I don't think it is likely this transparent scheme will work.

[jackson_dem]

55. The "change" candidate has the party establishment behind him?

[AtomicKitten]

16. She walked in the door, took off her coat, and was at 50%.

She was even further ahead than she is now. She is losing ground, but it isn't because she hasn't had every advantage, because she has.

[LulaMay]

30. I don't know what TV you're watching to claim she's had every advantage. The media promotes Obama &

slams her on a daily basis. That has affected the race, but she will still win those states.

[AtomicKitten]

32. you appear to be of the tribe that considers factual information biased

[LulaMay]

35. Part of the 'tribe'? I don't even know what that is suppose to mean.

[totodeinhere]

17. People like to trot out the polls that present their candidate in the best light.

You very seldom see a poster start a thread about a poll that shows their candidate losing. So they are selective about which polls they talk about. So I guess it's to be experted that you will quote that poll which has Hillary up by a wider margin than any other poll does.

[LulaMay]

20. People like to trot out biased media promotion of their candidate even more.

Obama has been given a free pass by the media, while they slam Clinton daily. Everyone knows it. It's so blatant as to be absurd.

[totodeinhere]

22. But isn't that another topic?

I thought we were talking about polls.

[skipos]

28. That's funny, I remember the media telling me Hillary was our nominee for months

And then the voters of Iowa let them know that the coronation of Hillary wasn't going to be as easy as they had expected.

[jackson_dem]

57. You keep saying that without any regard to the tone of coverage

Why is Obama getting four out of five newspaper endorsements? The corporate media wants "change"?

[Thrill]

23. Reality Check: Obama has yet to campaign in either state

[LulaMay]

26. He is behind too far behind for even the media lovefest with him to matter.

[MadBadger]

29. Did you know that a month out of Nevada he was down 30 points?

He ended up losing by 6. Did you know that a week before Minnesota, he was down by seven? He ended up winning by over 30

[LulaMay]

33. and he still lost, despite the media promotion of him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. but you didn't address Minnesota?

[earthlover]

42. he lost by a few %....point is that Obama gained hugely from polls 3 weeks back

Obama does not have to win Texas or Ohio. He just has to remain close enough so Hillary doesn't get roughly 60% of the delegates. Hillary, on the other hand, not only has to win, she has to win big! Given the fact that Obama has more money, will have the momentum of 10 states in a row, including media coverage of same, it would be very surprising if Obama does not narrow the gap in the polls in TX and/or OH. Actually, one poll has Obama actually ahead in Texas now! Even if Hillary wins big in TX and OH, all Hillary has done is survived...it is still a tossup.

This is interesting to watch. I think, at this point, Obama has to make a big mistake (soon) to lose this thing.

You can bet his staff are preparing him for the debates....knowing full well that Hillary is very likely to go very negative....and coaching him on the safe way to get through the debates with out a major flub.
At this point, he does not have to win the debates, he merely has to avoid losing them. Most debates do not have a clear winner/loser....so chances are these won't be any different.

Sorry, but this is the first time I have been able to say this, but at this point Obama is the front runner, and has the best chance of getting the nomination. It is his race to lose. Hillary's future is no longer in her own hands, it now depends on Obama goofing up.

[Tarheel_Dem]

36. oops! you must have hit a nerve. LulaMay took a hike....

<crickets>.

[jackson_dem]

58. That was after the Iowa hype, the second was after South Carolina

Those primaries don't compare to Nebraska and DC.

[MadBadger]

61. How so?

[jackson_dem]

64. In importance in the media and hence the public eye

Everyone forgot about Nebraska by Monday.

[MadBadger]

66. But if Obama wins Hawaii and Wi, the whole 10 in a row Thing will be much more important.

[jackson_dem]

67. It depends on how the msm reports it

If they start a "10 in a row, inevitable" meme then it will be. I don't see the television msm doing that because Clinton vs. Obama is great for ratings. Maybe the print press will. It also depends on the score, assuming Hill loses (if she wins it will be another New Hampshire). Let's say she loses by 4 as the polls are showing. Will the msm spin be "10 in a row for Obama" or "Obama wins Wisconsin, home state, but Clinton surprisingly strong"? Edwards finished much closer than expected to Kerry in Wisconsin and the latter was the story and kept him alive until Super Tuesday, which was in March that year.

[bluestateguy]

24. sounds like BOWL SHIT to me

nt

[LulaMay]

27. Brilliant remark...as expected.

[Skwmom]

37. Oh please. Clinton gets PLENTY of positive media coverage,

which is one of the reasons she is still in the game.

[LulaMay]

40. Really? Where and how much? That is baloney. MSNBC slams her every day.

[MadBadger]

41. Have you ever seen the ratings of MSNBC?

[earthlover]

46. The media CREATED Hillary as the front runner before 04 was even over!

Up until late October (after Clinton flubbed the debate question about drivers licenses for immigrants), Clinton had the majority of the press coverage, was basically viewed by the media as the heir apparent, and most of her press was positive.

Every wonder why someone with only a little over one term of elected office is considered the front runner?

The problem with this scenario, of course, was that there was a growing number of democrats who were not exactly turned on by the Hillary campaign. Part of this is Hillary's fault....she basically ran on the idea that the nomination was her birthright. She didn't give a positive reason to support her other than she was ahead in the polls, it was her time, she was inevitable. So, given this vaccuum of ideas and inspiration, comes Obama with a change message, and idealistic vision of unity.

The Hillary campaign were not really prepared for what happened. The voters gave a lot more support to Obama than their worst nightmares. Actually, they never dreamed there would be such opposition to her coronation. Out of desperation, they went negative. This backfired.

What has happened is an interesting dynamic. The establishment candidate, annointed by the media as the front runner, was basically dethroned by an upstart campaign and a rush of people who hungered for something different. There would be no coronation. Not this time.

So now the media have caught up with what is going on with the people. It is no longer a Hillary coronation. The media are no longer in bed with the Clintons. Gasp: Obama gets some media attention as the front runner.

The Hillary Herd is no doubt frustrated at the media coverage they thought was their birth-right....but them's the breaks.

The people will make their decision.

[emilyg]

48. She does NOT.

[jackson_dem]

60. These folks are so biased they think even mentioning St. Obama has a record is a smear

[jackson_dem]

59. Which must be why 81% of newspapers are endorsing her opponent

[Straight Shooter]

69. And usually, for the Republican, they've been steadily endorsing McCain

Many of the endorsements come from conservatives. Why would so many conservative newspapers endorse Obama on the one hand, and McCain on the other?

Because it's heads we win, tails we win.

[Eurobabe]

39. Reality check

I don't pay much attention to newbies who hide their profile and shill for one candidate. :hi:

[Eric J in MN]

45. I'm against applying primary results to the general,

...whether it's to promote Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Both Clinton and Obama would win NY. Both Clinton and Obama would lose SC.

[Political Heretic]

49. If you want some more reasoned analysis

You can take this, or choose to just ignore it because I have an Obama icon by name. But believe it or not it is possible for some people to think beyond just trashing the "other guy."

If I was consulting with the campaign, I would say that the biggest worries for the Clinton campaign in these states are the following:

1) Trend data
2) Ground organization / mobilization
3) Avoiding a spending war

1) Tend data has Clinton's numbers in states she must win either stagnating, declining or in the absolute best case scenario, only marginally increasing at a pace that does not keep up with her rival. On the other hand, Obama's trend data in Ohio for example is not only continually increasing over the last month, it is increasing at a much greater overall rate. This is bad news when you are still 2.5 weeks away. Thus the Clinton campaign has to find some way to reverse that Obama trend and/or reverse (or best case, improve) that Clinton trend. And that's what we see going on - the campaign has been backed into a corner where they feel forced to "go negative" to try to shake something up. Obviously it would be a major win if they could have somehow pressured the Obama campaign into agreeing to a lot more debates, but they shouldn't have expected that to work - it would be idiotic for her rival to agree to any of that in the position he is in: it would be nothing to gain and lots to lose.

2) Ground organization / mobilization - yes, Hillary Clinton can draw a crowd. But like it or not, the reality is that Clinton has never been strong at the ground game. These are people who have intense media and message discipline, and are used to running a very top down campaign with large figure donors, national media strategy and message event after message event. Start talking to them about field organizing, precinct captains, CATS and RATS (county action teams and regional action teams, respectively) and they are not so experienced. Part of that is because of the kind of people Hillary Clinton chose for her campaign. She planned a campaign that would have been completely different from the kind of campaign she is now forced to run. The Obama campaign has a massive, massive, ground organization and planned to run a ground-based campaign from day one. They have the infrastructure and the mobilization. And with the major union endorsements the Obama campaign just got effecting upcoming state battles, they now have state of the art mobilization support from them as well.

I'm not sure what to advise other than to tell the Hillary campaign to start pleading for their supporters to drive to Texas and Ohio and help.

3) Avoiding a spending war - the Obama campaign is out raising the Clinton campaign. If Obama manages to turn any state into a massive spending war, Clinton will be in serious trouble because her already lagging resources will be strapped even further. Getting into a negative ad tit for tat in Wisconsin is a good example: the Clinton campaign needs to be willing to cut that off soon, even if they don't get the last word, before they end up blowing huge amounts of money for media markets where it won't make a significant different. Obama can afford it, she can't. It's a bad place to be I admit, because to some extent the campaign with the most money can kind of dictate how much you have to spend to have a chance. If Obama camp is covering targeted districts with direct mail, you've got to have something there too. If they are mass phonebanking, you've got to have something porportional as well. It's tough, because he can outspend her.

These are the things I would be worried about.

[Major Hogwash]

50. When does Pennsylvania vote?

And does anyone know if Governor Ed Rendell intends to apologize for the comments he made this week?

[saltpoint]

51. PA votes on April 22.

[Major Hogwash]

52. In that case, woo-hoo! Go Pennsylvania!

Because this will be over by then.

[jackson_dem]

62. Rendell? You mean the guy whose campaign staffers got threatened by Nazis because he's Jewish?

What is he supposed to apologize for again?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

53. Just like Cali

Does not matter if she wins it if Obama gets more than 40% in both he will still be ahead in delegate count..

[CreekDog]

63. Survey is from Feb. 6 to 12th

before the latest primaries were complete.

let's see what later results show.

[Leopolds Ghost]

71. "the largest most important states"

There you go again...

[LulaMay]

73. Delegate rich, and historically important to win a general election with.

[LadyVT]

72. Texas polls from pollster.com as of 2/14 are right here

Pollster Dates N/Pop Clinton Obama Undecided
Rasmussen Reports 2/14/08 577 LV 54 38 9
InsiderAdvantage 2/14/08 403 LV 48 41 11
American Research Group 2/13-14/08 600 LV 42 48 7
Texas Credit Union League 2/11-13/08 400 LV 49 41 8 (kind of a funny institution to do a poll! ;)

LV=likely voters