Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Margin of Error

American Research Group, which doesn't have a particularly great track record thus far during the Democratic primaries, has a new poll up out of the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, and the results look a little something like this:

Hillary Clinton: 45 percent (51 percent in late March)
Barack Obama: 45 percent (39 percent in late March)

From the internals of the poll:

Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 53% to 36% among men (46% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 52% to 39%.

Clinton leads 52% to 36% among white voters (80% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 89% to 9% among African American voters (16% of likely Democratic primary voters).

Obama leads 52% to 38% among voters age 18 to 49 (52% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 52% to 38% among voters age 50 and older.

27% of all likely Democratic primary voters and 41% of likely Democratic primary voters age 18 to 49 say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 25% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

As alluded to before, ARG's performance throughout this year's primaries doesn't instill a whole heck of a lot of confidence in the veracity of this particular poll. Then again, looking through the other recent polling out of the state from both Pollster.com and Real Clear Politics, four out of the past five surveys (including this ARG survey) show the race within the margin of error. As such, there's real reason to believe that the race in the Keystone state has seriously tightened upSo even in just the past couple of weeks (even though Pollster puts Hillary Clinton's lead in the state at 9 points and RCP put it at 6.6 points).

What is important to remember now is this, though: In previous contests we have seen the situation in which Barack Obama has been able to eat away at Clinton's lead ahead of balloting only to come out the eventual loser in the end. In states like Texas, Ohio and New Hampshire, Obama's seeming (though not necessarily actually apparent) late momentum ended up hurting him in the long run as expectations were raised but not met. So while it seems apparent that Obama has cut away much of Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania two weeks out from the state's Democratic primary, a lot can and still will happen before voters go to the poll, so nothing should be taken for granted on either side of the contest.

Tags: Democratic primaries, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Primary (all tags)

Comments

58 Comments

Let's wait on this

Our safest bet is to ignore this poll for now until 1 or 2 more reputable pollsters confirm or debunk ARG's result.

To quote Al Gore quoting Mark Twain: "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

by barath 2008-04-06 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's wait on this

PPP has done very well this year and have it within MOE.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-04-07 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's wait on this

Just looking at the poll dates, everything AFTER 3-30 shows the race getting closer.  Whereas the two showing it +11 (SUSA and MORNING CALL) started before this date.  When did the Bosnia lie start hitting the papers... THAT may have been a difference.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-04-07 05:39AM | 0 recs
Now Obama has to win

He can't fumble another one like this.

by doyenne49 2008-04-06 10:31PM | 0 recs
...has to win, or what?

And what will happen if he happens to lose by 0.5%?

This is just amusing. Honestly: Obama's is far in the lead, it's not him who sorely needs a win in PA, it's Clinton.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-06 10:35PM | 0 recs
Re: ...has to win, or what?

I think the goalposts just moved again!  Man, they move fast!!!!

by LordMike 2008-04-06 10:50PM | 0 recs
Re: ...has to win, or what?

Lol true. I think that's my favorite phrase from this 08 Primary. From Gulliani to Clinton, if you lose a state just make the next one "really matter"

by beve83 2008-04-07 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Now Obama has to win

Does HRC have to drop out if she loses in PA?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-06 11:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Now Obama has to win

It looks like Obama needs just two more lies from Hillary on the stump and he wins PA.

by vermontprog 2008-04-07 02:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Now Obama has to win

This is a big problem for HRC, imo. Her campaign is now at the point where her every utterance is scrutinized by reporters. They hope they can get one of those 21st Century investigative "scoops" by Googling a few things and catching her in a "lie."

Honestly, the health care anecdote-gone-bad could happen to any politician. But when a campaign is caught in this kind of cycle where the media looks for excuses to run with another "Hillary Lies!" pseudo-scoop, it can create some big problems.

by BriVT 2008-04-07 03:45AM | 0 recs
It's not really fair...

But it wouldn't have any legs at all if Clinton didn't already have a history of misstatements and half-truths.

Example, outside of this site, nobody even bats an eye at Obama's silly story about his parents meeting at Selma.  Because it's both an understandable error and he's got a history of honesty, it didn't have any legs.

Sadly Hillary seems to have inherited a lot of Bill's public perception of being a word parser.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not really fair...

But we have an exact analogy for that -- the "named after Edmund Hillary" thing.

Whatever the sources or motivations for either, they were both pretty much noted, then blown past.

by Rorgg 2008-04-07 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Now Obama has to win

Yeah, the Bosnia thing was inexcusable.  The Mark Penn Colombian thing was probably not her fault, but now it takes away that attack for her, something she was hitting Obama with before Ohio and Texas. And the Healthcare thing was just poor research, but could easily happen to anyone.  

She needs to avoid this though since the untruthful tag has been applied to her for years.  Obaam faces the same issue with the patriotism tag.  He has to be EXTRA careful now and move quickly to squash anything.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-04-07 05:45AM | 0 recs
I'm for Obama, but...

... health care in this country sucks. If the details around one anecdote are debatable, that doesn't change the larger and more important issue. It's a mirror image of Bush's TANG story, where getting one minor detail wrong invalidated the whole story for the MSM.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-07 07:47AM | 0 recs
While some fact-checking would have helped

I'm not so sure that Hospital-gate will have much impact. She can easily say that she was misinformed on that one.

Besides, even if she had given it as a hypothetical, the message that our health care system is deeply flawed would still resonate. If framed that way then it merely needs to be plausible, not actual fact.

by professor 2008-04-07 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Now Obama has to win

Really?

It's like you think he put out this poll as a marker.  It's ARG, for christsake.  They suck at polling and shouldn't be given a dimes worth of credence.  

Yet people will let this set expectations.

by bawbie 2008-04-07 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

when are expectations going to stop mattering?

When Obama has a 150+ delegate lead after all the primaries and caucuses, can Clinton just say, "we'll, I did better than we thought" and then get the nomination?

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-06 10:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

Just when the primary campaign became more civil again, this tightening is going to result in more dirty, ugly campaigning...  all the while, John McCain gets to vacation in Pakistan or wherever and pretend that he's playing president....

by LordMike 2008-04-06 10:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

BlueGAinDC asks a great question. After all, Obama's losses have all mostly in places where he came from being down 20-30 points up until a month or so before the day. He's consistently outperformed expectations, starting with Super Tuesday. And now he's so far ahead that even winning by a couple of points leaves Clinton treading water,not catching up.

by jlmccreery 2008-04-06 10:57PM | 0 recs
Obama did not exceed expectations in NH

a counter example.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-06 11:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama did not exceed expectations in NH

He did exceed expectations.  Poll results from 2 days before the election aren't really "expectations".  He was never closer than 10 points (or so) until within 4 days of the election.

by barath 2008-04-06 11:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama did not exceed expectations in NH

Sorry, but you are wrong and Carl is right.  THE MEDIA sets expectations and the EXPECTATION was an Obama win and the end of Clinton's campaign.  THere were rumors BEFORE the returns that Clinton was going to drop right after NH.  Don't forget that.  

Just as I am convinced Jeb made some votes disappear in Florida, I am convinced that Hillary's crying (which I DO think was genuine and sincere) led to her NH win.  The polls show evidence of that.

by yitbos96bb 2008-04-07 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama did not exceed expectations in NH

Well, he didn't outperform the polls from 3 days before, but he did pick up a few points over the 2-3 weeks before NH, and pretty much any time frame you'd care to measure past that.

If you set the bar at 3 weeks, which is what all the polling data has, we have 24 states with polling data in that range.  Hillary extended her lead in Rhode Island.  In the other 23, Obama made up ground.

IF Pennsylvania fits the mold, which it very well may not do -- this contest differs from the others in at least a couple significant ways -- you'd expect Obama to pick up about 5 points from the 21-day-out polling average, which is something like Hillary+7.

by Rorgg 2008-04-07 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

"In previous contests we have seen the situation in which Barack Obama has been able to eat away at Clinton's lead ahead of balloting only to come out the eventual loser in the end."

Only two previous contests showed that--Ohio and Texas, and Hillary had a lot of help from Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" attempts, which was new and were not reflected in the polling prior to the contests...  I assume that the polling outfits are now compensating for Limbaugh vote crossers...  It also doesn't help Hillary that in PA it is a closed primary... while, I'm sure many Limbaugh Republicans did switch their registrations, if the polls remain close on election day, she won't get the help of last-minute Republican party switchers who are determined to muck up our primary...

by LordMike 2008-04-06 11:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

"In states like Texas, Ohio and New Hampshire, Obama's seeming (though not necessarily actually apparent) late momentum ended up hurting him in the long run as expectations were raised but not met."

Obama won Texas.  The delegate count, like it or not, is the only metric that matters.  Not only were expectations met, they were exceeded.  And this was a "goalpost" state.

by haystax calhoun 2008-04-07 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

ARG's errors are often in giving Clinton too much support.

by TheWinch 2008-04-06 11:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

Granted, New Hampshire is a counterexample. But California is another big state where Clinton was supposed to have it all sewed up. A couple of polls suggested that Obama might win, which allowed people to play the "Oh, he lost" game. Fact is, however, that Super Tuesday marked the death of the "She's inevitable; it will all be over" meme. And while his campaign seems to go from strength to strength, in fundraising, grassroots organizing, picking off super delegates, hers seems to go from blunder to blunder. At the end of the day, the "experience" thing seems more a matter of stuck in a rut than smart, fast adaptation to changed circumstances.We need a 21st century president, not another retread.

by jlmccreery 2008-04-06 11:35PM | 0 recs
Early Voting

Yeah, it's true. Obama got a late surge in several states only to still lose those states in the end. Here's the thing, though: often times early voting was a factor. This was certainly the case in CA. He also had a late surge there but it wasn't enough to win in the end. Now, I think (but am not sure) that Ohio and Texas also had early voting. What about PA then? Is there early voting in PA? If so, it might be less of a factor because the campaign in PA was much longer than in CA, TX or OH. And it might be the first big state where Obama might overcome Clinton's early advantage.

by Sven at My Silver State 2008-04-07 04:18AM | 0 recs
Clinton is still up 12%

that is the last poll that is good and believeable.  Therefore Clinton will win by 12% (I am managing my own expectations).

by Student Guy 2008-04-07 04:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is still up 12%

Can you define, then: SUSA is the only pollster that is "good and reliable"?  Because, while it's not out off the charts or something, it's at one end of the polls for the time frame:

C+12 SUSA (29-31 Mar)
C+10 Muhlenberg (27 Mar - 2 Apr)
C+9 Quin (24-31 Mar)
C+8 SV (28-30 Mar)
C+5 Ras (31 Mar)
C+2 IA (2 Apr)
Even ARG (5-6 Apr)
O+2 PPP (31 Mar - 1 Apr)

I don't believe ARG or PPP, either, but make note that PPP has been almost as good as SUSA this cycle, and the crosstabs look believable on that O+2 poll.

This week should be interesting.

by Rorgg 2008-04-07 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is still up 12%

I saw the PPP crosstabs and they used the exact same formula for weighting folks from different parts of the state.  What looks to be happening is he is starting to clean up in Philly and those suburbs and cutting a little bit into her lead in the northern and western parts of the state.  

Also, PPP decided to poll both usual primary voters and only general election voters since which I think produces a more accurate result.

by regina1983 2008-04-07 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is still up 12%

Interesting, but other polls are nothing getting the same data as PPP and it's been this way for a while.

I believe PPP is slanting to Obama so his numbers look good.

Too much discrepancy with these polls.  Also, Hillary has been polling well on the ground (talking to people are her speeches).  Texas as supposed to be Obama's and he still lost.  He needed to dig up caucus votes to look like he "won".

Hillary still polls better than Obama against McCain.

by stefystef 2008-04-07 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is still up 12%

I'd actually dispute that.  She peaked retroactive to him at the heat of the Wright thing, but over the last two weeks, and before that, she's shown behind or even in head-to-head.

Electoral projections have gone from "both win" to "both lose" (see the front page here, for an example) but it's still a long time out, and again, Obama generally shows up better.

I've seen the Clinton campaign pushing some "well, she does better here, here, and here, so ... win!" stories, but I've not seen a comprehensive analysis deeper than "one poll says Clinton by 1% over McCain and Obama down 1%, ergo we can call this 100% over each way" that shows her ahead head-to-head.

by Rorgg 2008-04-07 09:36AM | 0 recs
I will admit I am playing

an expectations game with myself, after all the trends in TX looked different and in the last 3 days Sen. Clinton seems to do really well.

by Student Guy 2008-04-07 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

Obama needed to close the gap.  There's no way he could have done that and not caused the expectations of some to switch.  I'd much rather have Obama lose by 2 and have people say that Clinton won than have him lose by 15 but have it spun as a loss for Clinton.

The fact is that a close contest in PA will all but destroy the larger arguments that Clinton is trying to make.  A good one day spin would be quickly lost when people look at the big picture.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-07 04:29AM | 0 recs
I'd stake Mark Penn's life on ARG

California wasn't just a few early voters, either.  Two million early voters, most of which were cast well before Obama seriously campaigned in California.

Rendell has the Clinton expectation of a "big win" in Pennsylvania at 4% - 9%, so I expect that the truth of the matter is that Obama is currently at 10% (Rendell said 5% - 10% earlier in that segment on Meet the Press so I expect he corrected himself when he thought about their internals).  I believe Obama's internals have him losing by 5%.

Either way, Clinton needs a much larger win than that for any significant delegate change.  All she gets with a 4% win is the satisfaction of being able to move the goalposts again and crow about winning big states that any Democrat is going to win in the general anyway.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-07 04:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

I don't know if I'd agree that increased expectations have actually HURT Obama.  I mean, he went right out and won after Ohio and Texas.  NH might have done the most damage as he was on the ropes coming out of NV, but rebounded in SC and has pretty much had the little bit fo momentum apparent in this race, since that point.  

But I do think his campaign NEEDS to manage this... Saying things like, "Polls fluctuate.... we are going to work hard to win PA, but the state definately favors Clinton on Paper and in nearly all polls."  THe closer he makes it, the less effect it has on Indiana... which could end up being the deathblow to Clinton along with NC.

by yitbos96bb 2008-04-07 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

Obama won Texas.  Yes, he did it because of the Texas "2 step" primary process.  But, Texas Democrats have that process because Texas allows crossover votes and the 2 steps help keep the results from distorting too far from the will of the party members whose primary it actually is.  Pretty smart considering that we had Limbaugh crossovers to deal with.

And I know the Limbaugh factor existed because one of them bragged to me about how he and his buddies took Rush's advice and voted in the "Democrat" primary for Hillary.  

by oldbattleaxe 2008-04-07 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

Maybe so... and YES, he won in the same way he "won" Nevada and "tied" NH"...  But he did NOT win the primary and THAT is what the media does the most reporting on and THAT is what would have hurt Clinton more in the short term.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-04-07 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

I guess so.  I'm not going to argue semantics about what a "primary" is or is not.  Obama won texas no matter how.  And the fact that Limbaugh wanted to spike that win by encouraging his listeners to crossover and vote for Clinton tells me that, at the very least, the Republicans fear an united Democratic party no matter who leads it.  Which tells me that we can win with either Obama or Clinton as long we unite.  Are you listening out there?

by oldbattleaxe 2008-04-07 07:56AM | 0 recs
Obama will win Pennsylvania

Because she needs to win by 20% to make any dent into the pledged delegate race and there is no way she will win by 20%.  

The Penn strategy (which is still there despite the man "leaving") is to concentrate on big states like "Penn"sylvania.  So she has to win big because she lost so badly in the small states.  

So for Obama, a loss within 20 is a win.  A loss within 10 is a big win.  And a loss within five is a triumph. If he actually gets more votes or delegates, then she's out the next day.

by drjk 2008-04-07 04:54AM | 0 recs
There has been a repeatable pattern

Clinton starts with an enourmous lead.  Obama closes to within the MOE.  In the final 72 hours Clinton then retakes the lead.  States where this has happened:

New Hampshire
Arizona
California
New Jersey
Massachussetts
Ohio
Texas

The problem for Clinton is that a 5 - 8 point win isn't going to cut it.  It will not net her enough popular votes or delegates to take the lead in either.

by fladem 2008-04-07 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: There has been a repeatable pattern

That list needs to be trimmed. I looked up the data on pollster and this is what I found:

Ohio - The only poll that had it close right before the election was Zogby and they showed a tie not a lead for Obama. In any event, Zogby has been uniformly horrible this cycle. Since California no one has taken them seriously. All the other polls had Clinton ahead by a margin larger that the MoE.

NJ - Zogby again was the closest: 46% Clinton vs. 41% Obama with 10% undecided and 3.4 MoE. All the other polls showed Clinton with a comfortable lead. Never was Obama shown to be in the lead, the closest was a tie (Zogby) that was soon erased with a new poll that I have cited here

Mass - SUSA and Rasmussen gave Clinton big leads. Some no name 7NEWS/Suffolk gave it to Obama. Pollster doesn't even link to the actual poll itself.

by tessellated 2008-04-07 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: There has been a repeatable pattern

As a matter of fact, Arizona should be removed from your list as no poll ever showed Obama with the lead there.

by tessellated 2008-04-07 07:10AM | 0 recs
Not sure I believe their model entirely

18-49 year olds as 52% of the electorate seems a little high, considering that Pennsylvania trends old and old voters are the most likely to turn out. That said, I haven't seen turnout figures broken down by age for other primaries, so I could be completely wrong here.

16% blacks also seems a little low, since they're about 12% of the population at large, they're overwhelmingly Democratic and since the Obama campaign is going to do everything possible to push up turnout in Philadelphia to net them extra delegates out of PA-01 and 02.

I'm also not sure what to make of those who say they won't vote for Clinton/Obama in the primary. It's hard to tell if that's hard support for the other candidate or if some of those are likely defectors in the general.

And, of course, it's ARG. I think we're better off sticking to the trendlines. It looks like Obama's closing, but a fair few polls have still put the gap at around 12.

by Englishlefty 2008-04-07 05:17AM | 0 recs
Expectations

We are getting past the point where expectations count for much. This is the last contest where the size and demographics of the state are set up to allow Hillary the chance of the kind of crushing victory that could change the outcome of the contest.

If she winds up winning by single digits or even by 10% that pretty much seals her fate. With each passing week Obama has been adding super delegates while Hillary's super delegate numbers have been stagnant for months. Without at least the popular vote on her side she has no chance of flipping the super delegates. PA is her last chance to get the numbers she needs and she needs Obama collapsing in the polls, not closing the gap to make it happen.

Had the Wright story broke a few days before the PA primary she might have had a chance but that's history now. Barring some unforeseen disaster for Obama it's not looking good for Clinton.

by hankg 2008-04-07 05:19AM | 0 recs
How 'strong' a candidate

Just to add to my above comment.

Look at Hillary's advantages in PA. It has an older population then average, part of the state falls in Appalachia were Obama has done extremely poorly, there are lots of blue collar ethnic white voters, she has the support of the popular black mayor of the state's largest city, a popular governor and the whole powerful party machine behind her.

A strong candidate with those advantages should be winning by 28% with no problem. This is where the reality had better match the spin or your narrative crumbles.

by hankg 2008-04-07 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

I still believe that Clinton will win by 12 points or so. Perhaps many of these polls are undercounting the rural vote in PA.

by alex100 2008-04-07 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

Why would they be undercounting the rural vote? This isn't 1936 when a fair number of people don't  have phones.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-07 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

I think that rural areas can get overlooked because the population is much lower then more urban districts.

the very fact that Hillary has been pulling in a relatively large majority of these counties/districts leads me to believe that pollsters are undercounting them. Perhaps I'm wrong but Ohio polling seems to be a perfect case study.

by alex100 2008-04-07 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

I think there's alot of problems with the polls because the time and locations they are polling.

Also, a lot of people don't like talking to pollsters on the phone. There has been cases where some of these polls are over-sampling certain populations to get the results the pollster is looking for.  

I believe they are not polling rural or suburban.  I don't think they are polling cross-over Republicans either.  I really think many of these polls are polling for results that favor Obama.

by stefystef 2008-04-07 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

Pollsters use random digit dialing, which gives coverage of all exchanges. They have an incentive to get the numbers as close as possible to reality and so use techniques to help them do that.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-07 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar
By the way, Clinton is only +24 in superdelegates right now -- with 53%, down from 71% of superdelegates back on January 13.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ superdelegate-history-tracker.html
by politicsmatters 2008-04-07 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

I'm surprised by the speed with which so many polls have tightened. I doubt even the Obama team thought the picture would change so abruptly.

My guess is that as much as the Tuzla episode, this is the result of Obama's much larger ad buy. I think the differential in advertising firepower is having a real impact.

Of course, the impact may diminish somewhat if Hillary is able to purchase more advertising closer to the primary. I recall the Obama was first up on the air in many states only to fall a bit short on primary day.

by drmark 2008-04-07 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

If she doesn't win huge in PA she's simply out of places to close the gap.

by DeskHack 2008-04-07 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar

And if Hillary wins big in PA, will Obama followers finally shut up and let the race run its course?

Thank you.

by stefystef 2008-04-07 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar
Hillary can't win even if you give her Florida and Michigan.
http://the-independent13.blogspot.com/20 08/03/clinton-vs-obama-stats.html
by tomanderson13 2008-04-07 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Fourth Penn. Poll in Five Puts Race Within Mar
Three weeks or so ago..Clinton supporters were outlining scenerios that she could catch up..
PA by less than 10 wasn't there.
Remember we do have a debate before this...
Look at the numbers from the beginning of March..
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php
by nogo war 2008-04-07 08:23AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads