Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Take PA. polls with a grain of salt.--I still think Clinton will likely win by 20-25pts.
I'll take criticism for this. I'll be told that numbers don't lie. And yes, I understand most polls show a close race in PA. But my gut feeling hasn't changed about the broad margin Hillary will win by in PA. I hope it doesn't happen but I've stuck with their original projections.
Not because of quantitative reasons, but rather qualitative reasons. The arc of the narrative.
Sometimes when you downplay expectations, like Governor Rendell and the Clintons have been doing since they made claims that Hillary would win by 15-25pts in PA, there's some truth to it, but more likely, it's marketing.
The Clinton campaign has led the election narrative going into this primary with the assertion that Obama can't win blue collar workers and that "the road to Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania."
Think what you want about Wednesday's ABC debate, but from my perspective, it's as if the Clinton campaign wrote the script for the moderators, and hammered away at three "media-leavened" issues they think would resonate most negatively with Pennsylvania voters;
1) Obama is elitist and condescending2) Obama can't represent the "real" values of "real" Americans (My opinion is that this is deliberately charged with racist tones and plays on Governor Rendell's long-held assertion that there are still white people in PA. that won't vote for an African American.) A big component of this is painting Obama as unpatriotic. (Flag pin)
3) Obama has a sordid history with black racists and terrorists.
This strategy is tailor-made for the state of PA. and the unelectable argument has been shoved in the face of the superdelegates since late December 2007/ January 2008.
Obama's "bitter" gaffe was unfortunate. It was his mistake. Something the Clintons have been waiting for with baited breath.
From the debate perspective, it's fair to bring up issues that are relevant to PA. voters.
What was so suspect about the ABC debate though was the complete absence of any discussion about the Colombia Free Trade controversy or free trade in general.
There's more going on with the dynamic right now than I believe the polls are letting on.
Comments (13)
I don't understand why media coverage is so poll driven? I usually take them with a grain of salt because intervening circumstances can influence results and sometimes people take polls just to get the poll taker off their line and back.
April 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary Cohen:
And Bill O'Reilly considers himself a journalist.
April 18, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, it's fine to set your expectations low - I try to do the same. But for the polls to be THAT wrong?? I don't think so.
April 18, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, the polls can't be that wrong. But my gut and my brain don't always agree.
April 18, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colbert would approve. ;)
(Did you know that your gut has more nerves than your brain?)
April 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very true! On the Guts not sure about Colbert.
April 18, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what the results in PA will be. I know that I'm totally disgusted by this process, the media and congress.
April 18, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary, is there any recent example of the actual result falling as far outside of the range as
your guess at a 20-25% HRC lead ?
It's easy to agree/fear that you're right that the polls underestimate HRC's lead. But by that much ?
If that is the outcome it'll be a long summer and a dismal November.
April 18, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
SUSA's latest still had her up by 14. With the margin of error and undecideds, if they're accurate then a 20 point margin isn't out of the realm of possibility. The polls are just all over the place for Pennsylvania, so whatever the results end up being, some of them are going to be way off.
April 18, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this will happen, but it's very wise to reminds ourselves that it could.
But in terms of media narratives, I'm also intrigued by the fact that the Clinton camp hasn't been pushing their "It's all about Pennsylvania" line as much as I would have thought lately. I remember at the start of this long six-week stretch the Obama camp trying hard to remind everyone that there were primaries (specifically NC and IN) after PA and chiding Clinton to accept a debate in NC after PA (and Clinton resisting). Now it's Clinton pushing for debates after PA.
So I think there are competing signs that Clinton isn't as optimistic about PA as she once was. What do you think?
April 20, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for not responding sooner, bdh. I have noticed they're not pushing the "Pennsylvania avenue runs through Pennsylvania" line.
Maybe they're not saying it because it reminds them of Mark Penn, and any word with "Penn" in it is now banished in their world.
April 20, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it to Clinton's advantage to push the idea of a close race pretty much regardless of her expected margin of victory?
As long as she wins, she's either met or exceeded expectations.
April 20, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have noticed that the MSM continues to push the fact that "white" people, men, PA small town people will not vote for a black man. I have been stunned by the blatant racism in this dialog. But when you couple this with the fact that Obama is an insurgent in their minds, both Republicans and Democrats who are the ESTABLISHMENT are shocked that Obama has made it this far and know the only way to knock him out of the race is to brand him as an angry black terrorist.
For weeks they have been saying the PA voter who is a white male and is racist and will not vote for a black man so Hillary being white thinks she can court these voters. Unfortunately for her she doesn't know these small town men very well because come the general election there is no way they will vote to have a woman as "Commander In Chief". Just as they believe America should always have a white leader they also believe only a man should command our military.
If we were not a war, a woman would have a better chance. The question is in a general election are there enough voters out there who are progressive enough to vote for a black man.
I have to say I am encouraged as my husband was supporting Hillary, as he is, shall we say not so progressive regarding blacks. But Obama's speeches and his message of hope and his funding base has won him over. Miracles can happen.
April 20, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment