|
|
Post by pieter on Apr 19, 2008 17:06:43 GMT -7
Hillary's Pennsylvania Lead Growing
Inch by inch, New York’s Hillary Clinton is building a lead over rival Barack Obama of Illinois leading up to Tuesday’s presidential primary in Pennsylvania, a key late contest on the road to determine who will win the party’s nomination, the latest Newsmax/Zogby daily tracking poll shows.
She now leads with 47% support, compared to 42% for Obama, just four days before the polls open. The two-day tracking survey, which was conducted April 17-18, 2008, showed that 11% were either undecided or supported someone else. This is the first of the tracking polls to be conducted entirely after the fiery Clinton-Obama debate Wednesday night.
On Thursday, Clinton led 47% to 43%, and on Wednesday by 45% to 44%.
Pollster John Zogby: “Undecideds are down to 8% and they have slowly begun to break for Clinton. Obama slipped in the one-day sample to only 40%. His lead in the eastern part of the state is still in double-digits but slipping, and his huge advantage among young voters is narrowing a bit. Clinton has a 39-point lead among Catholics and a 19 point lead among whites. She continues to get higher marks on ‘understanding Pennsylvania’ and handling the economy.”
This latest Newsmax/Zogby two-day tracking poll shows Clinton had a good day in central Pennsylvania, where she has moved ahead of Obama by 20 points, a significant improvement over earlier polling. In western Pennsylvania, she continues to enjoy a solid lead, while Obama continues to enjoy a double-digit lead in eastern Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia.
Clinton has also been able to minimize her disadvantage among men while maintaining a solid lead among women. And she has closed the gap among likely Democratic primary voters age 35 to 54 – a key demographic in this race. Voters younger than age 35 heavily favor Obama, while voters older than 54 strongly favor Clinton.
She leads among Catholics, 63% to 24%, while Obama leads among Protestants by a 54% to 38% margin. The two religious demographic groups are roughly the same size in Pennsylvania.
Among the very liberal Democratic Party voters, Obama leads by 19 points, but it is the only philosophical demographic group that gives him the edge. Clinton leads by a small margin among mainline liberals, and by larger margins among moderates and conservative Democratic primary voters.
The economy continues to be the most important issue to voters, and they continue to favor Clinton over Obama in terms of choosing a candidate who would both help their personal financial situation, and help the U.S. economy at large.
Clinton was also seen as the candidate who better understands Pennsylvania – 56% said as much, while just 29% said Obama better understands the state, this most recent polling showed.
|
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Apr 21, 2008 14:44:15 GMT -7
Hillary Slaps Obama for Praising McCain
Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:36 PM
Article Font Size
The latest Democratic soap opera in Pennsylvania erupted this week when Sen. Barack Obama seemed to praise Republican Sen. John McCain.
At a campaign stop in Reading, Pa., Obama said “either Democrat would be better than John McCain. … And all three of us would be better than George Bush.”
Speaking at a rally in Johnstown, Pa., with Congressman John Murtha, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton struck back.
“Senator Obama said today that John McCain would be better for the country than George Bush,” Clinton said. “Now, Senator McCain is a real American patriot who has served our country with distinction, but Senator McCain would follow the same failed policies that have been so wrong for our country the last seven years.”
“We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain. And I will be that nominee,” Clinton said.
The McCain campaign was pleased. Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman, told Fox News: “The remark underscores that John McCain has the strength to change America and move this nation forward. Barack Obama is a new face who represents old ideas.”
This is not the first time Hillary sought to gain ground on Obama for praising a Republican.
Back in January, Obama told a Nevada newspaper:
"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times ... I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
|
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Apr 21, 2008 15:43:09 GMT -7
I think Obama was right in what he said about Reagan and Mccain, he is honest and tells the truth. And that is not popular among the traditional democrats, who think in terms of polarisation and traditional liberalism opposed to conservatism. Conservatism is seen in that perspective as Republican.
Fact is though that Clinton has Conservative voters, fans, fundraisers and supporters like Rupert Murdoch and Billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife of Pittsburgh! She has a stronger grassrootsmovement than Obama, who is to dependant on young people, part of the African-American voters (the not Clinton voters, because Clinton has Black votes, especially women, but also male Clinton fans from the ninetees), and a liberal elite! The working class is Pro-Clinton, and so is a part of the Middle-class.
Pieter the Obama fan
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Apr 21, 2008 16:33:16 GMT -7
I think Obama was right in what he said about Reagan and Mccain, he is honest and tells the truth. And that is not popular among the traditional democrats, who think in terms of polarisation and traditional liberalism opposed to conservatism. Conservatism is seen in that perspective as Republican. Fact is though that Clinton has Conservative voters, fans, fundraisers and supporters like Rupert Murdoch and Billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife of Pittsburgh! She has a stronger grassrootsmovement than Obama, who is to dependant on young people, part of the African-American voters Pieter the Obama fan Peter, I agree with you. I like Obama trying to say what he thinks which is not partisan. I also do not understand why Murdoch gave money for Hillary. I think he hates her but he would like FoxNews to have Clintons to talk about. Did you hear that many Republicans vote for Hillary Clinton because they want to see her not Obama against McCain since they think she is easier to beat. I do not agree that Clinton's is a grassroot caompaign, just the opposite. Obama has many people who give him very little money, Clinton just the opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by freetobe on Apr 21, 2008 18:53:05 GMT -7
Jaga,
In primary elections, only registered party members may vote in their respective party's primary. Some states allow independents to vote in either primary. Registered republicans cannot vote in a Democratic primary. Insiders say McCain will likely trounce Obama, but Hillary's a winner. Not my opinion as it is still way too soon make any kind of educated guess. Just a lot of political posturing and unending meaningless polling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Apr 21, 2008 22:35:47 GMT -7
Jaga, In primary elections, only registered party members may vote in their respective party's primary. Some states allow independents to vote in either primary. Registered republicans cannot vote in a Democratic primary. Insiders say McCain will likely trounce Obama, but Hillary's a winner. Not my opinion as it is still way too soon make any kind of educated guess. Just a lot of political posturing and unending meaningless polling. There are rumours that some Republicans switched their party membership just to mess up Democratic elections in order to vote for Hillary Clinton against Obama. This action was initiated by Rush Limbaugh. |
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Apr 22, 2008 0:19:43 GMT -7
I have no political party and in Alaska we used to be able to vote for the best person we saw in the primary election, since there were no party limits and just a general primary election. One primary for everybody, get the best candidates out there and vote for them. Then it seems the conservative wing of the Republican Party feared Democrats and us Independents were deliberately voting for weak candidates in THEIR party so the opposition would be in a better position in the fall election. So they had the law changed to where only members of their own party can vote in the Republican Primary. They cheated me out of my free vote for the Best. I owe my allegiance to the State and Country, not to a @#$%^&* political party! The current Republican governor was elected in spite of opposition form the Party Apparatchiks in her own (Republican) party!
Well, along with us Independents, they disgusted enough of the moderate Republicans with this and other diktats that we now have TWO Republican parties in Alaska! "Conservative" and "Moderate".
I still vote for the best qualified, screw the Party. They are too much like Communist Party when they demand God-Like loyalty!
We should end ALL public funding from primaries that support only private political party primaries. Let them (Political Parties) pay for their own primaries instead of socialistic leaching off the people!
If I cannot vote for the one best candidate from all tickets, it is not a free election.
Kai
|
|
|
|
Post by rdywenur on Apr 22, 2008 4:43:46 GMT -7
Go Hillary!!!!!! I hope you win today and go from Pensylvania straight to Pensylvania Avenue.
|
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Apr 22, 2008 6:17:20 GMT -7
Jaga, In primary elections, only registered party members may vote in their respective party's primary. Some states allow independents to vote in either primary. Registered republicans cannot vote in a Democratic primary. Insiders say McCain will likely trounce Obama, but Hillary's a winner. Not my opinion as it is still way too soon make any kind of educated guess. Just a lot of political posturing and unending meaningless polling. There are rumours that some Republicans switched their party membership just to mess up Democratic elections in order to vote for Hillary Clinton against Obama. This action was initiated by Rush Limbaugh. You are exactly right Jaga, the day before yesterday I saw a Dutch team in America interviewing conservative Republican voters who switched from party to vote for Clinton, to weaken the Democratic campaign. They want to creat division under the democratic electorate. Pieter |
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Apr 22, 2008 8:05:04 GMT -7
You are exactly right Jaga, the day before yesterday I saw a Dutch team in America interviewing conservative Republican voters who switched from party to vote for Clinton, to weaken the Democratic campaign. They want to creat division under the democratic electorate. Pieter That is interesting Pieter. I don't follow it too closely, but what I kept hearing weeks ago was the unhappiness of the 'conservatives' with McCain, and how they could not vote for him. It is not surprising to see them vote 'anti-Democratic' instead. Now none of the candidates is taking a strong anti-debt stand, all seem unwilling to speak against the debt-is-good policies of Bush. It is an interesting and strange election, though American politics has been strange for quite some time now. Kai |
|
|
|
Post by freetobe on Apr 22, 2008 20:46:49 GMT -7
|
|
