Will it be white men who decide Pennsylvania?
April 21st, 2008
Can Hillary do well enough to stay in the race?
We are finally there after what has seemed a lifetime since the last primary. The voters of Pennsylvania go to the polls tomorrow for what could determine whether Hillary’s can still entertain her dream of becoming the first female President.
This is a closed election which means that unlike many other states only those who are registered as Democrats can take part - a factor that should help the former First Lady. For in earlier elections she has done best amongst those with the strongest allegiance to the party. Obama has mostly made his inroads where he’s been able to capture independents and Republican switchers.
But there’s one demographic group that is central - white men. Hillary has no problem getting the enthusiastic support of white women (the AP picture above is very telling) while Barack has usually picked up a convincing proportion of the black vote - both white and black male and female.
We have seen in other states how these two strands have turned out in big numbers to support the candidate they most associate with. The turnout levels amongst white men, however, have been smaller.
As the Christian Science Monitor notes “A recent poll from Temple University in Philadelphia asked likely Democratic voters to rate the favorability of Clinton and Obama on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being most favorable. The contest was closest among white men who gave Clinton an average of 6.4 and Obama 6.9. When only voters over 30 are considered, the numbers get even tighter: 6.5 for Clinton and 6.7 for Obama.”
Overall Hillary is not enjoying the massive poll leads in the state that we saw a few weeks ago - but, except with one or two rare exceptions, she is ahead and looks like the winner. The big question is how big a winner. Does she need to have a double digit lead or will a small victory suffice?
For the various betting markets click here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Or will it be men in white coats that finally carry her off the stage, still protesting that she is the winner?
1. She certainly looks like she’s got a screw loose in that photo.
From the last thread (sorry to go OT so early): Nick Robinson on the Six O’ Clock news seems to be suggesting theres a chance of the Labour rebels bringing down the government!
Surely that’s an exaggeration? I cannot think of *any* precedent in the history of the Commons where the government has been defeated on a confidence motion while enjoying a solid majority!
Right across all demographics it’s turnout fall stop !!!!!!!!!
…………………………
Latest Gallup Presidential and Primary Trackers :
McCain 46% .. Clinton 45%
McCain 45% .. Obama 45%
Clinton 42% .. Obama 49%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106678/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Regains-Lead-Over-Clinton-49-42.aspx
Turnout analysis for Pennsylvania :
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
“Barack has usually made picked up a convincing proportion of the black vote - both white and black”
Ignoring the “made picked up” part of that sentence, what is the white bit of the black vote?!
2. Robinson is prone to a bit of sensationalising. Would they go that far?
I think Brown has some similar characteristics to Hillary though. Both seem determined to follow their own ambitions ruthlessly and don’t really give a damn about the damage to the political movement they represent.
2 Can’t see why Gordon would pop up to Buck House and hand back the keys to No 10 just because he was defeated on a single issue - it would need to be a confidence vote either stated as such by himself or one called by the Opposition (and only the Loyal opposition - Lib Dems etc can’t apparently).
It would be a further blow to Gordon’s already weakened leadership but not irrecoverably.
5- He meant to write “both male and female” I guess
re 5. well spotted - corrected.
2. “Nick Robinson on the Six O’ Clock news seems to be suggesting theres a chance of the Labour rebels bringing down the government!”
Meaning either that he’s simply taken the Jackie Ashley piece at face value and not considered the arguments made on here this morning; OR things are even more jittery in the Westminster village than we’ve been led to believe. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
It’d be good to see a market on who leaves the stage first: Gordon or Hillary?
2. Robinson’s report did seem to be rather OTT, unless of course no one will back down. The tone and language did seem somewhat histrionic. But is the knieves are out then…
Broon has done little to show that he is prepared to rethink this much heralded change, and he has had plenty of time to consider the consequences. He has boxed himself into a coner, and next month’s council electiosn may show a lack of competence and humility could cost Labour dearly.
7. No, the point is that if the government lost a Commons vote, even if it won a current vote of confidence, Gordon would be irreparably damaged. Which is probably true. But I don’t think the government will lose the vote UNLESS enough Labour MPs really think this will cost them their seats.
2. Gladstone with Home Rule was in a somewhat similar position, but I find it hard to think of a similar instance since then. The Liberals in 1910, and Conservatives in 1923 sought new mandates, rather than find themselves in the position of being defeated on any issue that the Prime Minister considered an issue of confidence.
2: ‘Surely that’s an exaggeration?’
Sounds like Robinson is doing his master’s bidding - ratcheting up the political hoo-ha in the hope that the rebels will get cold feet and Brown will be saved!
11,12,14 Robinson’s online report says that Whips have told Labour MPS it’s a confidence issue.
“Party whips have told MPs a vote against the bill will be a vote of no confidence in the government.”
That’s a good question for PMQs “Does the Prime Minister (or He as Cameron seems to prefer) confirm that the votes on the issue will be treated as votes of confidence or no confidence?”
ITN now: Is Brown about to become the victim of a Blairite plot?
13. Forgot about Gladstone, Sean. Doh!
7. I believe the whips have said that a vote against this measure would be considered a vote against the budget - ie a vote against supply, and hence an automatic vote of confidence.
ITN: Brown likely to lose his head…
15. Knowing Brown, he won’t know, he’ll be too busy dithering about it!
The DailyKos looks at where and why the demographics are tilting the Pennsylvania polls in various ways. Their prediction C-51/O-49 :
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/121146/932/310/500056
16. The thing is that the majority of the Labour movement were more in line with Brown’s politics than Blair’s. However there comes a point where the backbenchers might say it’s better to have a Blairite winner than a Brownite loser’.
17 It isn’t though - other measures in budgets have been lost before without it being a vote of confidence, has to be a rejection of the whole Bill or the Government has to declare it a vote of confidence.
Perhaps though the Ladybird version of Eskine May & the British Constitution that this Government seems to use isn’t clear on the point.
18- Lose his head, probably not. Losing his temper on the other hand…
Is Brown unable to compromise with hsi backbenchers on anything?
I think this is about power. Brown thinks he can treat them as he likes. And they’re telling him otherwise.
ICM shows Labour closing gap on Cameron! 39:34:19 (weekend poll though?)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/21/polls.labour
The mystery of the ICM Guardian poll continues…
A report where Obama thinks Clinton will win Pennsylvania
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/wireStory?id=4694982
25 no doubt rod will pitch up confirming the tories are 80 short of a majority! ho ho ho
What is a good result for Obama, getting within 5%, or will keeping it in single digits do?
21 Frank The thing is that the majority of the Labour movement were more in line with Brown’s politics than Blair’s. However there comes a point where the backbenchers might say it’s better to have a Blairite winner than a Brownite loser’.
That logic encapsulates Hillary Clinton’s strategy.
-The thing is that the majority of the progressive movement are more in line with Obama’s politics than Hillary’s. However there comes a point where the superdelegates might say it’s better to have a Clintonite winner than a Obama loser.
This is why imho superdelegates need to be convinced by Obama that he will win the key rustbelt states like Ohio vs McCain.
13 but there was a degree of decency and principle in politics then
29.
Good for Obama will be 7% loss or better. If Clinton gets +12% or more that will keep her greasy bandwagon rolling on its last wheel for a few weeks longer. +20% for Clinton would reopen the whole game…but lets face it, that ain’t happenin.
I expect Clinton by 7%…
30 This piece (albeit from the conservative periodical National Review) seems to suggest that Obama still has some hurdles in the rustbelt…
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzBkNzNhNmE1NjA5MjE5OWU2OWE4NDYxMDc3MzM0MjE=
Talking about ‘white men’ I thought the BNP made a reasonable fist of their PPB. Possibly more effective than the rather odd Jackanory version that the Tories produced the other day.
30.
The superdelegates will go with the pledged delegate winner, esp. if that is the vote winner as well.
Also the Clinton’s have been in a powerful position for 20 years. Longevity breeds hate and resentment from colleagues. There will be many SDs who can’t wait to put the boot in.
25 Must be plenty of secret cynical voters who think I quite like a cut of income tax from 22p to 20p.
But better not say that, as I should be saying it doesn`t help the poorest in society.
Off topic, but crazy ICM poll on the Guardian
Tories down 3, nu lab up 3, gap only 5%, taken over the weekend
34 - Well you do have a bit of a closed mind towards the Conservatives, Roger
37 see 25
25,37 - There is no way that Labour could possibly have gained 5 points in the last month.
What is it about the Guardian ICM poll? Are the questions different to the other ICM offering? Or the filtering? This is now a serial difference between them, and the other polls are much more in line with the non-Guardian ICM.
13. Not sure you’re right on 1923 Sean - I don’t think Baldwin was ever in danger of Commons defeat, but chose to have an election in order to gain a mandate for protection. But correct me if I’m wrong.
channel 4 news reporting that brown has promised a ‘review’ into the 10p/lowest paid issue at the plp meeting. dithering?
It is most unusual if not unique for any ICM poll to have been conducted at the weekend and therefore the figures should be treated with caution .
For those interested the detailed data for the Yougov mayoral poll and the Populus Sunday Mirror polls are on the respective websites . Of interest is that the Populus weighting for past vote has changed in this poll compared to all previous polls this year . Previously they used Con 19 Lab 23 LD 12 Others 5 remainder did not votes etc , This time they used Con 21 Lab 25 LD 13 Others 5 . As the proportions of Con/Lab/LD are virtually the same I doubt whether this change has had any effect on the published results .
the latest ARG poll for Pennsylvania
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=44006
they got Ohio almost right.
37 - how can you call the ICM poll “crazy” when the changes since the last poll are all within the +/-3% margin of error?
Why do folk, especially on this website of all places, continue to think polling is exact to the precise %age?
46 - The ICM poll is not within the margin of error of their last one.
35 Paul on the ball
I agree that many can’t wait to put the boot in, but they won’t do it if they see Obama behind McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania. They want Obama to be President for sure, but I suspect some are still uncertain about his electoral merits as nominee in swing states.
Shocked at that ICM poll. Completely goes against yesterdays Populus, and I can’t see any possible reason for such a dramamtic narrowing between Labour and the Conservatives? Bizarre!
37 25. I don’t mean to be a heretic but it’s possible that not everyone shares the world view of the Tory teenagers of PB.Com. For my money Cameron jumping on the 10p tax rate shows him to be a shrill opportunist. No-one believes for a secod that Tories care about the low paid.
Over in the US, it’s make or break for Hillary Clinton. If she loses in Pennsylvania she’s out. If she wins she is still very much in it.
Both that election and the Mayoral one are exceedingly important. One can’t help but think the Clinton vs Obama race is increasingly looking like the run off for President.
Here at home I maintain that the London mayoral result is going to be of near seismic political importance which ever way it goes. If Boris does do it then I think it will send shockwaves through New Labour. Remember - they won the Olympics for London and this would be a complete kick in their teeth. It would be the first proper victory by Cameron, and would show that he and his group are actually, really, electable. On the other hand, if Ken holds on it will send a shiver down Tory spines. It would suggest that Labour can hold on - that for all the Tory rhetoric and promise at the end of the day Labour can still be back in power.
There is so much at stake here for the narrative towards the next General Election. I can think of nothing to compare with it in a long time.
50 - Oh Roger!
The last two ICM polls showed;
ICM/Sunday Telegraph 2008-04-04 Con 43 Lab 32 Lib 18 Con lead 11
ICM/Guardian 2008-03-16 Con 42 Lab 29 Lib 21 Com lead 13
More interesting in the Guardian is Martin Kettle’s column on the 10% tax stuff in which he has obviously been briefed by some very close to Blair that Brown deliberately lied to Blair about the impact of the changes, claiming there would only be 25,000 losers.
“the implication appears to be that Brown not only underestimated the effects of his budget tax measures (which is proved by the current revolt), but also that he deliberately underestimated them. It appears that Brown lulled Blair, and through Blair his other ministerial colleagues and the parliamentary Labour party, into a state of misplaced confidence about the budget plans. If so, it was a very foolish and egregious error. It suggests to me that in this, and perhaps in other respects, Gordon Brown may be less the victim of his party’s misfortunes and more their author.”
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/martin_kettle/2008/04/the_10p_crisiss_biggest_loser.html
46 When there are two ICM polls with a series of results which are very divergent despite being conducted close together, then it is more than a margin of error issue.
I would have thought that ICM might have some comment as this has been mentioned before and the regular divergence in these polls by the same company is odd.
It can’t be the basic sampling methodology as ICM gather data for other pollsters, don’t they? Unless, of course the Guardian requires a very different approach to the norm.
Note that the change since the last ICM poll (ICM/Sunday Telegraph 04/04) is Tories down 4, Labour up 3, LD up 1 (was 43, 32, 18). Changes published above are since last ICM/Guardian poll on 16/03.
Still a whacking great change, though, and I suspect that Mark Senior has a very good point above (weekend poll)
New thread - Will the happy times return to Number 10?
Re.53. With thanks as ever to Anthony Wells;
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention/icm
47 If the true figure was midway between these 2 polls and there had been no change in public opinion in the last month then they would both be within the M of E but see my post 44 .
Re the ARG poll - Clinton 54% Obama 41%
Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 48% to 47% among men (45% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 59% to 36%.
Clinton leads 63% to 32% among white voters (81% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 86% to 12% among African American voters (15% of likely Democratic primary voters).
Clinton leads 52% to 43% among voters age 18 to 49 (51% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 56% to 39% among voters age 50 and older.
Clinton leads 59% to 36% among voters without a college degree (63% of likely voters) and Obama leads 50% to 45% among voters with a college degree.
ICM/Guardian result is bizarre. Apparently fawning on US TV shows, being upstaged by the Pope and doubling the income tax band of the poorest are all vote winners.
Bear in mind also that ICM (I believe) conduct the field work for Populus, who then process it themselves. From memory, I believe that the Populus process diverges it from the ICM one to the tune of (usually) a reduction in Tory lead of about 1-2%, so the very recent Populus set alongside this ICM shows that one is very likely to be rogue.
Whichever one is rogue we can argue about
(Bear in mind also that a rogue poll is no judgement on a polling company, merely the inexorable rules of chance ensuring that every so often the polling company rolls snake-eyes on its sample)
How many of the “10p losers” are actually the “poorest in society”, and how many are married women, students etc just taking a part-time job?
I find it a bit difficult to believe the claims that this is harming “5 million of the poorest in our society”.
Central probabilistic forecast ICM
Con 280
Lab 286
LD 48
Nats 15 (SNP +13%)
Oth 3
NI 13 (SF abstain)
Hung Parliament: Labour 37 short
6-poll moving average
Con 313
Lab 256
LD 43
Nats 17
Oth 3
NI 13
Hung Parliament: Tories 10 short
63. If they are below median income, then technically they are “of the poorest” (half).
Not if their household income is significantly larger.
At last! White men deciding an election!
Zogby says that yesterday Clinton led 53-38%.
If he is right, and with a continuing drift of don’t knows and nuisance Republicans to her cause, she could be 20%+ ahead by tomorrow.
This no help to the Democrats, and Obama will have to come back hard in Carolina, but he says he will not partake in a debate there, and the Clinton camp will treat that as “Chicken”.
If I was in the Democrat heirachy I would be looking for a third way.
There’s been an avalanche of new PA polls today. Best way to track is through RCP http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html
My bet’s on a seven point lead for Hillary.
I think the range will be Obama win - 5 points for Hillary - Obama claims victory - 5-10 points for Hillary and both claim a victory - 10 points plus and it’s looking a good night for Hillary.
But I think it’s all a contest for bragging rights as, unless she can get a huge victory (20 points or so) then she’s not got a chance of denting Obama’s lead enough to make a different.
Re. 2 and 7, the Major government was defeated on the planned increase in VAT in fuel in 1994 (thanks to the Whipless Nine). The government didn’t fall, Clarke just came to the Commons the next day and announced some increases in alcohol duties etc. So Darling isn’t being strictly accurate in saying that he can’t go back and rewrite his Budget.
She has to win by at least 10% more to stay in the race, but my prediction is Obama is going to win by small margin 51 to 49>