.
April 21st, 2008
05:20 PM ET

Heading into Pa., does Obama or Clinton have the advantage?

ALT TEXT

ALT TEXT

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

After a 6-week lull, we will actually get to hear from the voters tomorrow when Pennsylvania holds its long-awaited and much publicized primary.

The stakes are enormous. If Obama wins, Hillary Clinton may be asked by the party leaders to stay home and bake cookies. If Clinton wins – as she's expected to – the battle moves to Indiana and North Carolina.

Both campaigns are hedging expectations about tomorrow's results in Pennsylvania. An average of recent polls shows Clinton with about a seven point lead. Political experts have been saying Clinton must win Pennsylvania by double-digits for her campaign for the nomination to remain viable. Her supporters, not surprisingly, beg to differ. Clinton has vowed to carry her campaign all the way to the convention.

The two candidates have spent tons of time and money in Pennsylvania, although Obama has outspent Clinton by perhaps as much as 3-to-1.

If he's unable to get the support of blue-collar workers, it could make some uncommitted superdelegates question how strong he'd be in the general election.

Meanwhile, The Politico reports that the historic spike in Democratic voter registration could help Obama cut into Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania. One pollster has taken a look at people who have switched parties in order to vote Democrat this time around. They represent about 7% of the 2 million Democrats expected to turn out tomorrow... and 62% of them prefer Obama. This pollster says these voters could help Obama cut Clinton's margin of victory by 2 to 3 percentage points.

Here’s my question to you: Who has the advantage on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton • PA Primary
April 21st, 2008
04:45 PM ET

How can McCain catch up with Democrats’ money?

ALT TEXT

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Money talks, and these days John McCain is getting an earful. And it's not good.

McCain raised $15.4 million in March. Barack Obama raised more than $41 million in March, and Hillary Clinton raised $20 million in March.

Overall, McCain has raised one third of the $240 million Obama has raised and less than half of Clinton's total. The Los Angeles Times reports that Obama has raised more in small donations than what McCain has raised in his entire campaign.

McCain's advisers and some Republicans insist he'll have enough money to run a competitive race in the general election, but not everyone is convinced.

One thing working in McCain's favor is the Republican National Committee, which is overwhelmingly outraising the Democratic National Committee.

The Republicans have about $31 million in the bank, compared to $5 million for the DNC. Also, after his party's convention in September, McCain will probably opt for public funding of $84 million to run his general election campaign.

But that figure likely will pale compared to what Barack Obama might be able to raise with his network of about 1.5 million donors. Another problem for McCain is that several traditional Republican donors have been leaning Democratic thus far in the race. For example, the securities and investment industries have given nearly $7 million to Obama compared to $3 million to McCain. And, the real estate industry has given close to $6 million to Hillary Clinton, compared to $2.5 million for McCain.

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to money, how can John McCain catch up with the Democrats?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Election Funding • John McCain
April 21st, 2008
02:18 PM ET

Are the Democrats’ negative attacks working?

 Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The people of Pennsylvania probably can't wait until tomorrow's primary election is over. The campaign between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has turned into a truly nasty affair, with the two trading accusations about who's been more negative in their campaigning.

Front page stories in both today's New York Times and Washington Post talk about how Obama has sharpened his tone and his attacks on Clinton, which is a departure from how he's treated her in previous primaries. Obama is questioning whether Clinton is honest and trustworthy and going after her as an expert in old-school, special-interest politics.

For her part, Clinton is calling Obama's approach "so negative" and says he's copying Republicans in his attacks on her universal health care plan. She's suggesting his message of hope has morphed into old-style politics. Both candidates unleashed TV ads yesterday in Pennsylvania, accusing the other of holding onto ties with special interests.

Meanwhile, Obama has been gaining support from establishment figures in the Democratic party after Clinton's repeated attacks on his "bitter" remarks. Former Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren backed Obama late last week. Also, Robert Reich – President Clinton's labor secretary and a longtime friend of the Clintons – is supporting Obama, saying he was "appalled" by her "mean-spirited" attacks.

An average of polls in Pennsylvania shows Obama trailing Clinton by 7 points heading into tomorrow, which is down from her double digit lead just weeks ago. Clinton is expected to win tomorrow, but the focus will be on the margin of victory. What's not clear is who, if anyone, is gaining from all this negativity.

Here’s my question to you: How effective are personal attacks by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on each other?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton • PA Primary