May 1st, 2008
02:27 PM ET
14 years ago

Blitzer: Should Clinton's swing state edge be a factor?

[cnn-photo-caption image= caption=" Blitzer: Could new polls sway some superdelegates?"] WASHINGTON (CNN) - There are new polls suggesting Hillary Clinton might fare better against John McCain in three key Electoral College battleground states in November than Barack Obama. These are states the two parties will be fighting over desperately in the general election – Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The polls are snapshots and are certainly not conclusive evidence that she would in fact be a more formidable candidate against McCain in those states than Obama. A lot, of course, can change between now and November. But the polls are significant because they could influence those still-undecided superdelegates – and perhaps even some decided superdelegates who can change their minds.

The Quinnipiac University poll shows Clinton is currently ahead of McCain in Florida, 49 percent to 41 percent. In the same poll, McCain is statistically tied with Obama, 44 percent to 43 percent.

In Ohio, the poll shows Clinton ahead of McCain, 48 percent to 38 percent. McCain is statistically tied with Obama, 43 percent to 42 percent.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton is ahead of McCain, 51 percent to 37 percent. Obama is also ahead of McCain in this state, but by a slightly smaller margin - 47 percent to 38 percent.

As you know, Clinton defeated Obama by about ten points in both Ohio and Pennsylvania. In Florida, there was no campaigning because the state had moved up its primary against Democratic Party rules. But all the candidates’ names were on the ballots, and Clinton won decisively.

Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania will see a lot of campaigning in the months ahead. McCain is already spending lots of time there – as he should if he wants to be president. So should these latest polls be a serious factor in the minds of superdelegates?

Filed under: Wolf Blitzer
soundoff (325 Responses)
  1. butler

    If Obama can't win in states like NY, Pennsylvania, California, Florida and Texas, how can he win the White House in November. Expect another Republican victory.

    May 1, 2008 04:32 pm at 4:32 pm |
  2. Petrus

    I believe that the polls are a snapshot at one point in time. if Obama is the eventual democratic nominee, then i believe the majority of democrats who will cast a vote in the general election will rally behind him. I believe the superdelegates beleive this to be the case as well, as you see Barack Obama keeps collecting more superdelegates even after Hillary won Pennsylvania.

    May 1, 2008 04:32 pm at 4:32 pm |
  3. Mfelder

    Cindy, CA:

    I suppose Hillary is uniting us when she plays tag team with John McCain against Senator Obama. Uniting with our republican opponent against another Democrat is unacceptable. It shows no leadership or concern about the democratic party.

    May 1, 2008 04:33 pm at 4:33 pm |
  4. Lewis

    Wolf, what a misleading headline! Do you honestly find yourself objective?

    April polls are meaningless, but these show that Obama can win PA, and has a good shot at Ohio. HRC won Ohio over the NAFTA lie that had absolutely nothing to do with Obama. It will be forgotten in the general election. I really think McCain will swing for Charlie Crist to pick up Florida, in which case neither candidate would have a chance there. If McCain doesn't tip his hat to Crist, these polls fail to account for the impact of either candidate campaigning earnestly in Florida.

    Furthermore, the numbers in states like Texas, Missouri, and even Nebraska show strong potential for Obama.

    May 1, 2008 04:33 pm at 4:33 pm |
  5. Cam of Kentucky

    Neither that BOY nor that GAL will be running the White House of this US of A.

    McCain 08

    May 1, 2008 04:34 pm at 4:34 pm |
  6. Robert

    Why, Oh why do we keep doing this? Polls, Polls, Polls, in less than 2 weeks after winning Pennsylvania, Hillary has jumped conciderably in polls, now mind you she has her problems, she had her baggage; but there is something to say about a woman who keeps getting back up to fight and i say fight! We can say all we want to about Hillary and we can say all we want about Obama; but the reality is she will fight for what we want; this is not her race it's our race; we can break this down that we need change; and again reality is that when she wins the nomination; their will be change; a fighter for all; Obama needs to be seasoned a little more; by a few years +. He's a great talker, but has he given us what he's going to accompolish if and when he's president; the answer is NO. We don't know what this guy can do, he has'nt proved anything in his years of service; she has...wake up people, she's a fighter; we can't take that away from her.

    May 1, 2008 04:34 pm at 4:34 pm |
  7. Watch the Sniper Fire

    Here we go again! Can this guy be any more biased?

    Wonder what his comments are about the fact that Obama is drawing in Superdelegates at the ratio of 4:1 since the beginning of March.

    At this rate, I'd like to know how many supers will be *left uncommitted* before the line of thinking that the author is trying to push sinks into their heads...

    I've asked this before and will do so again. Is he just so pro-Hillary as to try to find any iota of nonsense that is *arguably* in her favour to harp on about? Or is he just trying to increase his ratings by making it seem like things are closer than they are?

    Please, for once, post a comment that is a positive critique of the case this author is trying to make. Thanks!

    May 1, 2008 04:34 pm at 4:34 pm |
  8. Mary

    Obama can not win the general election. If the Democrats decide they do not want the White House in November, they should put Obama on the ticket.
    I am beginning to wonder just how intelligent are the Superdelgates.

    May 1, 2008 04:35 pm at 4:35 pm |
  9. Colette Binkley

    I really get upset when this is a Country that the people are supposed to be able to control by voting their Candidates into office. In my state I voted for our Govenor and also the majority of this state voted for Clinton to represent us against the Republicans in November. Now our Democratically elected govenor and others like Bill Richardson have taken it upon themselves to vote against their constitutes(sp) and give their Super Delegate votes to Obama. I thought this country was Of the People, For the People and By the People not just one person of authorities vote.

    It is time for Americans to step in and say enough is enough. Vote with the people who put you in office or beware of the consequences.
    You too can be replaced.


    May 1, 2008 04:35 pm at 4:35 pm |
  10. vict

    That all you guys know the polllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll he is going to win and your sniper fire will lose

    May 1, 2008 04:36 pm at 4:36 pm |
  11. Monte Brown

    Yes. If Obama is the nominee the Democrats will punt the ball back to the Republicans. Plain and simple. Go with Hillary.

    May 1, 2008 04:36 pm at 4:36 pm |
  12. E Juarez

    I have watched you faithfully during this presidential campaign. I truly think that you are very much pushing Hillary to the American public. I do wish you would try to be neutral or strart looking like FOX news.

    May 1, 2008 04:36 pm at 4:36 pm |

    Can anyone at CNN say, "Peter Paul, Peter Paul, Peter Paul?????"

    May 1, 2008 04:36 pm at 4:36 pm |
  14. tupac

    Wolf Blitzer, what kind of crap question is this? The democratic rules are clear, the nomiee is obtained by looking at the pledged delegates. What are you trying to do, drum up support for your girl Hillary? Cut it out

    May 1, 2008 04:38 pm at 4:38 pm |
  15. Voter

    First of all, The Clinton's have been dissmissed from the Paul case. The man is a crook and trying to entangle the Clintons, but the judge found his cases against the Clintons to be false and he dismissed Hillary from the case. Nonstory.

    Second of all, for all of you Obamabots and your Hillary Clinton pastor stories, THIS IS NOT TRUE! The pastor who was convicted was a pastor from CLINTON, NEW YORK, not Hillary's former paster. No relation! Go to and you will see that. You are not reading your headlines correctly! "Former Clinton Pastor" means "Former Clinton, NY (the town) pastor. "

    The reason why there hasnt been any media attention about this and linking it to Clinton is because they ARE NOT linked!

    Also, even if it happened to be her former pastor (which it isn't) you cannot begin to compare the situation. Obama sat in a pew and listened to his pastor spout of hate speech for 20 years. He even called his pastor a mentor, even though the guy blames the US government for AIDS, Katrina, and 9/11, as well as whites for everything that is wrong in the world.

    Do you think that a pastor convicted of child molestsation was spouting off how he planned to molest children during his sermons? How would anyone know what he was doing behind closed doors?

    This hypothetical situation is completely different. There is no comparison. To suggest there is shows your ignorance, and quite frankly, a lack of sound reasoning.

    May 1, 2008 04:38 pm at 4:38 pm |

    PAUL VS CLINTON Why are you not reporting on a CIVIL lawsuit against the Clintons??? McCain has this HUGE card in his back pocket!

    May 1, 2008 04:39 pm at 4:39 pm |
  17. Yes we can!

    Wolfe, the states that vote overwhelmingly democratis will be Obama's states...he's already showed he does well with independents and obamicans.....that keeps the swing states wide open for the end of the day, it's the economy, iraq war, no or poor healthcare, education funding, global warming, bad infrastructure, no or poor jobs, trading and just bad 8 years of republicans that's going to decide this race!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    May 1, 2008 04:40 pm at 4:40 pm |
  18. Diane kennedy

    Congratulations, Wolf, you have actually NOT referred to Rev. Wright on your blog today. You are continually perpetuating any negative you can come up with and refuse to let Rev. Wright go -the media has paid far too much attention to this and you and CNN are as guilty as MSNBC (actually they're worse).
    You are so obviously a Hillary supporter – and try so hard to be an antagonist –

    May 1, 2008 04:40 pm at 4:40 pm |
  19. Ohio Steve



    May 1, 2008 04:41 pm at 4:41 pm |
  20. Jo Ann Brown

    Can't you here the thunderous roars from superdelegates Joe Andrews and Bill Richardson? The "political theatre" as potrayed by cable news and candidate spins have no influence when people are seeking change. Sen. Clinton's pandering, such as drinking boilermakers (chasing whiskey with a beer) and standing by a gas pump watching someone fill up a brand new 4×4 truck is not enough. This lessens here credibility and represents another cheap shot.

    May 1, 2008 04:41 pm at 4:41 pm |
  21. FRANK






    May 1, 2008 04:41 pm at 4:41 pm |
  22. Terry Caffery

    Mr blitzer, Have you watched the Clinton Chronicles????

    May 1, 2008 04:42 pm at 4:42 pm |
  23. Nick

    People didn't know who Obama is.
    Media and bias journalists favored him with no reason. Voters are not stupid, and they can see through the candidacy of "hope" and "change"...

    May 1, 2008 04:42 pm at 4:42 pm |
  24. Truth

    Wolf, I thought you are a fair man,
    You and may be all the CNN is now trying hard to resuscitate Hillary's caompaign. Are you really supporting her or you are trying to help McCain?.

    May 1, 2008 04:42 pm at 4:42 pm |
  25. Harrison

    Well of course, Wolf. Why not report on this and other fantasies that you and CNN have about HRC being President and you leading the WH Press Core.

    Why not be a real reporter and address the Peter Paul v. Clinton law suit? Or are you setting HRC up for more CNN ratings due to scandal in the WH?

    CNN – getting to be as bad as Fox News.

    McCain 08

    May 1, 2008 04:42 pm at 4:42 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13