Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2010 Senatorial Election Polls => Topic started by: mypalfish on October 19, 2010, 11:23:55 PM



Title: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 DROPS
Post by: mypalfish on October 19, 2010, 11:23:55 PM
senatus
senatus
47 minutes ago
Muhlenberg/Morning Call poll shows Sestak up 3, 44-41


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: sg0508 on October 19, 2010, 11:29:21 PM
I predicted Toomey's demise would start in August.  Maybe the black vote in Philly is the difference? 

Either way, the GOP is losing ground in the final weeks, just like I predicted.

CA is probably gone, WA is probably gone, CO is slipping, DE is gone, PA could be slipping, KY is slipping, MO is tightening and WI may be gone.

How we doing folks?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: redcommander on October 19, 2010, 11:36:26 PM
Is Pennsylvania seriously going to vote against Toomey? :P


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on October 20, 2010, 12:43:35 AM
PPP is once again vindicated. And if anything this poll has a Republican-friendly sample.


You mean it's gone for the Democrats?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Eraserhead on October 20, 2010, 12:46:13 AM
PPP is once again vindicated. And if anything this poll has a Republican-friendly sample.


You mean it's gone for the Democrats?

No, he means it could be gone for the Republicans, hilariously. He's basically the Anti-Beet. He's actually a good counterweight to have around.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: SvenssonRS on October 20, 2010, 01:12:34 AM
PPP is once again vindicated. And if anything this poll has a Republican-friendly sample.


You mean it's gone for the Democrats?

No, he means it could be gone for the Republicans, hilariously. He's basically the Anti-Beet. He's actually a good counterweight to have around.

He's a hopeless pessimistic fool. IMHO.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 20, 2010, 01:31:22 AM
PPP is once again vindicated. And if anything this poll has a Republican-friendly sample.


You mean it's gone for the Democrats?

No, he means it could be gone for the Republicans, hilariously. He's basically the Anti-Beet. He's actually a good counterweight to have around.

He's a hopeless pessimistic fool. IMHO.

     For someone whose first years of genuine political awareness were 2006 or 2008, the idea of Republicans actually winning may seem like a bizarre fantasy. We tend to be prejudiced towards expecting outcomes we have experienced personally, even if logic suggests other outcomes are possible or even probable.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Smash255 on October 20, 2010, 01:44:08 AM
Someone check on Phil.....


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Smash255 on October 20, 2010, 01:47:42 AM
http://www.mcall.com/media/acrobat/2010-10/56899431.pdf


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Tender Branson on October 20, 2010, 01:57:25 AM
Great.

:)

I wish though that they would poll 1000 likely voters, not only 400.

Another question:

How do we add these to the database ? Every day ? Or maybe every 3 days ?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Dgov on October 20, 2010, 02:15:05 AM
I predicted Toomey's demise would start in August.  Maybe the black vote in Philly is the difference? 

Either way, the GOP is losing ground in the final weeks, just like I predicted.

CA is probably gone, WA is probably gone, CO is slipping, DE is gone, PA could be slipping, KY is slipping, MO is tightening and WI may be gone.

How we doing folks?

HAHAHAHA.  Where shall we start?

1:  California is slipping for the Democrats.  Fiorina is closer right now than she's ever been in this race, and looks like an even chance to pull this one off.

2:  Washington is heading down to the wire.  Please give me one poll in the last 3 weeks that suggests this race is "Gone".  PPP themselves just released a poll with Murray up only 2--not a confidence builder for the Democrats.

3: Colorado is slipping towards Tossup.  Buck has gone from about a +3 average to about even.  Again, this just means a close race is going down to the wire--I don't think Buck's ever really had a big lead to begin with.

4: Delaware is gone.  But seeing as who we lost, i don't really count this as a loss for anyone but the GOP big boys.

5: Pennsylvania is again, a Tossup.  Do you think that the GOP can't win in any state that they don't lead by 10 in?

6: Kentucky is still Lean Paul, and likely to stay that way.  This race has been closer than it is now, and I don't see any reason Paul won't be able to pull this one off

7:  Missouri is going to be an R hold.  You can put money on that--A PPP poll showing him up 5 basically means he's going to win barring anything really big happening.

8:  Wisconsin is an easy GOP pickup.  Even the DSCC poll had Johnson up a few points.

Me?  I'm doing fine, thank you very much.  I happen to be busting my balls trying to make sure that first race falls the right way, rather than spending all my time whining on the internet about how major political parties don't bend over backwards to please me.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Tender Branson on October 20, 2010, 02:15:21 AM
Well, I´ll add this to the database and suggest that we use this thread for every release that´s coming out now.

I think it´s OK if we add the daily results to the database, because we´ll got tons of other PA polls in between.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on October 20, 2010, 02:17:53 AM
1:  California is slipping for the Democrats.  Fiorina is closer right now than she's ever been in this race, and looks like an even chance to pull this one off.


Fiornia was in better shape a month ago.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate/california



Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: SvenssonRS on October 20, 2010, 02:21:57 AM
I predicted Toomey's demise would start in August.  Maybe the black vote in Philly is the difference? 

Either way, the GOP is losing ground in the final weeks, just like I predicted.

CA is probably gone, WA is probably gone, CO is slipping, DE is gone, PA could be slipping, KY is slipping, MO is tightening and WI may be gone.

How we doing folks?

HAHAHAHA.  Where shall we start?

1:  California is slipping for the Democrats.  Fiorina is closer right now than she's ever been in this race, and looks like an even chance to pull this one off.

2:  Washington is heading down to the wire.  Please give me one poll in the last 3 weeks that suggests this race is "Gone".  PPP themselves just released a poll with Murray up only 2--not a confidence builder for the Democrats.

3: Colorado is slipping towards Tossup.  Buck has gone from about a +3 average to about even.  Again, this just means a close race is going down to the wire--I don't think Buck's ever really had a big lead to begin with.

4: Delaware is gone.  But seeing as who we lost, i don't really count this as a loss for anyone but the GOP big boys.

5: Pennsylvania is again, a Tossup.  Do you think that the GOP can't win in any state that they don't lead by 10 in?

6: Kentucky is still Lean Paul, and likely to stay that way.  This race has been closer than it is now, and I don't see any reason Paul won't be able to pull this one off

7:  Missouri is going to be an R hold.  You can put money on that--A PPP poll showing him up 5 basically means he's going to win barring anything really big happening.

8:  Wisconsin is an easy GOP pickup.  Even the DSCC poll had Johnson up a few points.

Me?  I'm doing fine, thank you very much.  I happen to be busting my balls trying to make sure that first race falls the right way, rather than spending all my time whining on the internet about how major political parties don't bend over backwards to please me.

You are my new favorite member right now.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Phony Moderate on October 20, 2010, 03:44:25 AM
Hmmmm, there seems to have been an avalanche of 'interesting' polls in the past day or so.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Dgov on October 20, 2010, 03:49:57 AM
1:  California is slipping for the Democrats.  Fiorina is closer right now than she's ever been in this race, and looks like an even chance to pull this one off.


Fiornia was in better shape a month ago.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate/california


A Poll has her leading.  That's a first (I think), even if it is her own internal.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Dgov on October 20, 2010, 03:50:49 AM
You are my new favorite member right now.

uh . .  Thanks?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 20, 2010, 06:59:41 AM
Best part of the poll: 49% claim to have voted for McCain while only 43% voted for Obama.  ;)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Brittain33 on October 20, 2010, 08:16:08 AM
One thing about this race... old white voters in Pennsylvania may be swinging heavily Republican, but Toomey is a truly awful candidate for them. We've seen a lot of seniors overlook this problem with Toomey and other candidates because they want to vote against Obama, but it has always been an Achilles heel. We'll see how much it matters on election day.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 20, 2010, 08:17:28 AM
so, the following races are tightening up:  CA, WA, NV, CO, PA, KY, WI, WV

                  
Goose: It's the bottom of the 9th, the score is tied. It's time for the big one.
Iceman: You up for this one, Maverick?
Maverick: Just a walk in the park, Kazansky.
Slider: Contact. Multiple bogeys. Two miles.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Phony Moderate on October 20, 2010, 08:26:20 AM
Best part of the poll: 49% claim to have voted for McCain while only 43% voted for Obama.  ;)

So Sestak could be ahead by 10 or more? ;)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Whacker77 on October 20, 2010, 09:55:24 AM
Considering there have been no major events that would account for such a sudden swing,  I admitt I'm confounded by the numbers.  Still, two polls in a row is saying something.  I will say this though.  I find it very hard to believe Toomey is just at 41%.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: minionofmidas on October 20, 2010, 10:40:13 AM
IIRC this race's polls always had a surprising lot of undecideds.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on October 20, 2010, 10:45:32 AM
Wow, and I was slamming the Public Policy poll the other day..........yowza.  I wonder if the nasty ads Sestak is running are having an affect.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 20, 2010, 11:02:33 AM
The two debates are still to come, correct? Who is considered the strongest of the two in debates? They could decide who wins.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 20, 2010, 11:12:21 AM
The two debates are still to come, correct? Who is considered the strongest of the two in debates? They could decide who wins.

There is one tonight here in Philly and another Friday night in Pittsburgh. The problem with tonight's debate for anyone interested in Southeast PA interested the race? It's on during the Phillies game.  :P



Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on October 20, 2010, 11:15:48 AM
Didn't someone here post on another thread that the DSCC stopped spending money in PA?  I don't get it.......if they are this close, why would they stop?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 20, 2010, 11:22:35 AM
Didn't someone here post on another thread that the DSCC stopped spending money in PA?  I don't get it.......if they are this close, why would they stop?

The other day, I said the DCCC (the House campaign committee) canceled their ad buy in Philadelphia (if that's what you're getting at).

The DSCC did scale back an ad buy a few weeks ago though.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on October 20, 2010, 12:19:55 PM
1:  California is slipping for the Democrats.  Fiorina is closer right now than she's ever been in this race, and looks like an even chance to pull this one off.


Fiornia was in better shape a month ago.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate/california


A Poll has her leading.  That's a first (I think), even if it is her own internal.

She led in multiple polls a month and a half ago. My link has a +1 Rasmussen and a +2 SUSA for her.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on October 20, 2010, 03:15:06 PM
Didn't someone here post on another thread that the DSCC stopped spending money in PA?  I don't get it.......if they are this close, why would they stop?

The other day, I said the DCCC (the House campaign committee) canceled their ad buy in Philadelphia (if that's what you're getting at).

The DSCC did scale back an ad buy a few weeks ago though.

Got my letters mixed up but at least the memory isn't a total loss......thanks for the clarification.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: bgwah on October 20, 2010, 03:33:43 PM
I refuse to get my hopes up here.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: SvenssonRS on October 20, 2010, 04:27:56 PM

Someone needed to bitchslap some sense into SG.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Sam Spade on October 20, 2010, 08:38:40 PM
stickied as daily tracking - please update here.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Sam Spade on October 20, 2010, 08:42:52 PM
Title of thread has been modified to warn people not to enter the poll again until 19th drops off - otherwise the database will become Muhlenberg-centric.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 20, 2010, 08:53:02 PM
What time does the next one come out?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43% Toomey 43%
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 20, 2010, 09:54:08 PM
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/ (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 20, 2010, 09:59:40 PM
If I were Sestak, I would definitely be running Toomey = Santorum ads.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43% Toomey 43%
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 20, 2010, 10:00:17 PM
If I were Sestak, I would definitely be running Toomey = Santorum ads.

He already did that.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 20, 2010, 10:01:32 PM
10/16 was heavily pro-Sestak, or 10/20 is heavily Pro-Toomey.

I had a feeling this would happen. This poll won't be very informative till we get a few of them in.



Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on October 20, 2010, 10:02:57 PM
If I were Sestak, I would definitely be running Toomey = Santorum ads.

Naw, he shouldn't implky that Toomey is that same as someone that liberal.

Lifetime ACU ratings:

Santorum 88
Toomey 97



Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43% Toomey 43%
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 20, 2010, 10:03:49 PM

Well atleast Toomey won't have to worry about one certain PA voter. :P


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Rowan on October 20, 2010, 10:06:55 PM
Day 2

Toomey: 43%(+2)
Sestak: 43%(-1)

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 20, 2010, 10:13:38 PM
If I were Sestak, I would definitely be running Toomey = Santorum ads.

Naw, he shouldn't implky that Toomey is that same as someone that liberal.

Lifetime ACU ratings:

Santorum 88
Toomey 97

Perception is reality in politics.

Of course reality is Santorum didn't lose because he was too extreme, he lost for the following reasons
1. Bob Casey
2. Iraq
3. Bob Casey
4. Bush's approvals
5. Bob Casey
6. Santorum's gaffes
7 oh and I almost forgot, Bob Casey

Without Casey that race goes to a 9-12 pt loss instead of 18.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: J. J. on October 20, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
The race is tighting, but I'd still give it to Toomey.

This was Santorum's pattern in 1994.

It will be close, folks, hang on to your hats. 


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Dgov on October 20, 2010, 10:27:01 PM
It's a mistake to think Santorum lost only because he was "too extreme" for Pennsylvania.  Moderate Republican Icon Mike DeWine lost in Neighboring Ohio by only a slightly smaller margin, and Ohio is slightly more Republican.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on October 20, 2010, 10:27:50 PM
It's a mistake to think Santorum lost only because he was "too extreme" for Pennsylvania.  Moderate Republican Icon Mike DeWine lost in Neighboring Ohio by only a slightly smaller margin, and Ohio is slightly more Republican.

Maybe Sherrod Brown doesn't suck as much as Bob Casey?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on October 20, 2010, 11:56:29 PM
Day 2

Toomey: 43%(+2)
Sestak: 43%(-1)

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/
Poll demographics when from 46-46 to 48-45 Republican.

What is Muhlenberg's track record?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 21, 2010, 12:12:35 AM
Day 2

Toomey: 43%(+2)
Sestak: 43%(-1)

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/
Poll demographics when from 46-46 to 48-45 Republican.

What is Muhlenberg's track record?

Pretty good...

Over their 20+ day span of their tracker poll starting in Mid-October ahead of the 2008 presidential election, the average margin for Obama was about +10.5 (went as high as 16 points to as low as 6 points...it never showed a lead for McCain).  The last couple days of the tracker showed Obama ahead in PA by single digits (6-8 points I believe)  Pennsylvania ended up going to Obama at +10.3 points.

Over their 20 or so day span of their tracker poll starting in mid-April ahead of the 2010 senate primary between Sestak and Specter, initially the poll showed Specter ahead.  The margin eventually tightened and Sestak went up (if I recall correctly) as high as 4 points before the tracker again tightened.  The last few days of the tracker showed flipping margins, eventually ending in a tie, indicating a rather tight race.  Sestak ended up winning by +7.8 points.

They did not do a tracker poll during the 2008 Presidential primary.  They did put out a couple polls, though.  One in mid-February showing Clinton +14, and one in early April showing Clinton +11.  The primary (held April 22) went for Clinton at +9.2.

I can't tell if they did a tracker for the 2006 Senate election, but they did put out polls every so often.  A mid-Sept 2005 poll showed Casey +8, a mid-Feb (2006) poll showed Casey +12, a mid-April poll showed Casey +8, a late July poll showed Casey +6, an early October poll showed Casey +5, and a late October/early November poll ahead of the election showed Casey +8.  Casey eventually won by +17.4 points.  (The only pollster to nail that blowout of a result was Keystone, sanctioned by a newspaper in Pittsburgh).


So all-in-all, they have a pretty good track record in my opinion.

(Disclaimer: all information obtained from RealClearPolitics.com)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Tender Branson on October 21, 2010, 12:44:32 AM
Title of thread has been modified to warn people not to enter the poll again until 19th drops off - otherwise the database will become Muhlenberg-centric.

So, the next poll entry should be on Sunday, with the sample from Oct. 20-23.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Tender Branson on October 21, 2010, 12:50:14 AM
Quinnipiac will also have a PA Senate poll out today.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: minionofmidas on October 21, 2010, 03:37:35 AM
It's a mistake to think Santorum lost only because he was "too extreme" for Pennsylvania.  Moderate Republican Icon Mike DeWine lost in Neighboring Ohio by only a slightly smaller margin, and Ohio is slightly more Republican.
You must be confusing DeWine with Voinovich. DeWine was a generic bushbot. Not an ideological uberconservative like Toomey is and Santorum talked like he was (and paid a price for it), but not a moderate by any standard either.

Lifetime ACU ratings (why not?) Voinovich 70 (same as Lisa Murkowski btw), DeWine 80 (or comparable to Frank Murkowski :P ).


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Dgov on October 21, 2010, 04:23:25 AM
It's a mistake to think Santorum lost only because he was "too extreme" for Pennsylvania.  Moderate Republican Icon Mike DeWine lost in Neighboring Ohio by only a slightly smaller margin, and Ohio is slightly more Republican.
You must be confusing DeWine with Voinovich. DeWine was a generic bushbot. Not an ideological uberconservative like Toomey is and Santorum talked like he was (and paid a price for it), but not a moderate by any standard either.

Lifetime ACU ratings (why not?) Voinovich 70 (same as Lisa Murkowski btw), DeWine 80 (or comparable to Frank Murkowski :P ).

You mean the guy who supports Gun Control, Raising the minimum wage, and the ANWAR drilling ban?  He got his ranking from being a Hard-core Social Conservative, and was considerably more Liberal on fiscal issues than the average Republican.

Anyway, my point still stands.  If you consider Pennsylvania to be about 6 points more Democratic than Ohio, he lost by about the same relative margin Santorum did despite playing the "moderate" card repeatedly.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: minionofmidas on October 21, 2010, 04:39:46 AM

...

(Oh and, the actual story here is that Bob Casey wasn't as strong a candidate as his early boosters made him out to be - which became quite apparent during the campaign - he probably would have lost to an incumbent capable of attracting crossover support, which Santorum never was, beyond the bare minimum needed to win election as an R in PA - and that a very unpopular Governor dragged DeWine down with him... which became easier because DeWine wasn't any sort of icon of any sort for anybody but basically Generic R. Perception being Reality in these things, of course.)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Dgov on October 21, 2010, 05:20:59 AM

... Yeah, he was the poster child for the SoCon wing of the Republican party.  I don't know what is so hard for you to understand; the guy was a solid Social Conservative and a "Moderate" Economic Conservative.  And he lost big to a Progressive Socialist, while Santorum lost big to a Pro-life Democrat.  That doesn't exactly scream "Ideology doomed him" like some people here think it does.

Oh, and I'd argue Ed Rendell's 21-point win in 2006 was a bigger benefit to Casey than Taft was to Brown.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: minionofmidas on October 21, 2010, 05:32:33 AM
Indeed, ideology certainly didn't doom DeWine. Genericity did him in. (That includes an inability to make the narrative about the fact that Brown is quite liberal.)

Oh, and as to the last sentence: No. Just no. Casey vs Santorum was the big one in PA that year. Not seriously contested races like Rendell's that year do not really have coattails.
In Ohio, Taft was the big story, Ney was a big story, general Republican corruption was a big story. DeWine couldn't break that narrative. It was a perfectly unnecessary defeat, if you will.

I note from your profile that you were 15 in 2006. Tell me, did you follow those elections in any detail?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 21, 2010, 06:54:00 AM
Casey wasn't strong on personality but he's always strong on name. That means a lot more here so he was clearly a strong candidate.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: minionofmidas on October 21, 2010, 07:00:31 AM
Casey wasn't strong on personality but he's always strong on name.
Well, yeah.

Seriously? Citation needed. :P
Quote
he was clearly a strong candidate.
Compared to what? To a paper candidate? Obviously. Utterly obviously. He was a "star candidate", handpicked to take out a high-profile, obviously vulnerable but not obviously doomed, incumbent, after all.
Compared to how strong he was made out to be? Not really. (Also obvious that early polls tend to be more name-dependent than final results.) Still good enough for an unendangered win in 2006's climate, of course.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 21, 2010, 07:08:56 AM

Come on. When you're a Casey in Pennsylvania, it's like being a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

Quote
Compared to what? To a paper candidate? Obviously. Utterly obviously. He was a "star candidate", handpicked to take out a high-profile, obviously vulnerable but not obviously doomed, incumbent, after all.
Compared to how strong he was made out to be? Not really. (Also obvious that early polls tend to be more name-dependent than final results.) Still good enough for an unendangered win in 2006's climate, of course.

He was strong because he gets to sit back, do nothing and always win (except 2002 when he wasn't liberal enough for the Democratic electorate) rather easily. Replace him with some stellar candidate that didn't have a great name and you'd see those big victories in many areas disappear.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: minionofmidas on October 21, 2010, 07:21:19 AM

Come on. When you're a Casey in Pennsylvania, it's like being a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

Probably worth more, nowadays, actually.

But hey, in Arizona it's enough to be a goddam Quayle. Compared to that PA is doing good.

(My point was about the relative benefits of a huge name in Pennsylvania as vs. other states, not about the relative size of the Casey name compared to other names. Anyways, I don't think we disagree much. Especially seeing as how my views on the race were partially shaped by your discussions with other posters. :P )


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 21, 2010, 10:59:18 AM
I doubt anyone in Ohio cared about DeWine's supposed "moderateness". I mean he supported gun control and opposed ANWR drilling. Is that really going to win anyone over in 2006? As Lewis said, he was seen as the epitome of generic R.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Badger on October 21, 2010, 11:04:04 AM
OK, we get it guys. Someone with a 98 lifetime rating from the ACU "isn't extreme". ::)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 21, 2010, 11:23:15 AM
But hey, in Arizona it's enough to be a goddam Quayle.

Not really. Quayle entered the race as a second-tier candidate seen as having little chance. He surged after releasing an ad that consisted of not much more than him saying "Barack Obama is the worst President in history." It went viral among the nutjobs, he raised tons of money, and won a plurality in a very divided primary. Even in the primary his name clearly hurt him and he only got where he was by tapping into idiotic anti-Obama sentiment (please note that I am not saying all anti-Obama sentiment is idiotic, just what he tapped into.)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: The Vorlon on October 21, 2010, 08:58:42 PM
Hmmmm, there seems to have been an avalanche of 'interesting' polls in the past day or so.

Everybody and their dog will be releasing a poll in the next ten days.

Colleges, Universities, Newspapers, Zoltan The Magnificent, Pete's All Beef Double Cheeseburger poll, Zogby, The Psychic Hotline....

The list of crap will get very thick and deep....





Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: Eraserhead on October 21, 2010, 09:01:22 PM
Hmmmm, there seems to have been an avalanche of 'interesting' polls in the past day or so.

Everybody and there dog will be releasing a poll in the next ten days.

Colleges, Universities, Newspapers, Zoltan The Magnificent, Pete's All Beef Double Cheeseburger poll, Zogby, The Psychic Hotline....

The list of crap will get very thick and deep....

I can almost smell it already!





Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: cinyc on October 21, 2010, 09:48:08 PM
Hmmmm, there seems to have been an avalanche of 'interesting' polls in the past day or so.

Everybody and there dog will be releasing a poll in the next ten days.

Colleges, Universities, Newspapers, Zoltan The Magnificent, Pete's All Beef Double Cheeseburger poll, Zogby, The Psychic Hotline....

The list of crap will get very thick and deep....





But are Zogby's polls more or less reliable than those by Zoltan The Magnificent or the Psychic Hotline?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Rowan on October 21, 2010, 09:56:33 PM
Day 3

Toomey: 43%(nc)
Sestak: 43%(nc)



Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 21, 2010, 09:57:40 PM
Are you sure those are new numbers? It looks like they just didn't update yet since the Gubernatorial race numbers are the same.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: Smash255 on October 21, 2010, 09:59:56 PM
Are you sure those are new numbers? It looks like they just didn't update yet since the Gubernatorial race numbers are the same.

And it also still says 17th to 20th.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Rowan on October 21, 2010, 10:02:05 PM
The magic of twitter:

"Mcall/Muhlenberg tracker poll tonight: #pasen still locked at 43percent each"

http://twitter.com/DCMorningCall/status/28366922254


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 21, 2010, 10:04:36 PM
The magic of twitter:

"Mcall/Muhlenberg tracker poll tonight: #pasen still locked at 43percent each"

http://twitter.com/DCMorningCall/status/28366922254

Nice


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 21, 2010, 11:44:06 PM
Yeah it is updated on MCALL.com, says 18-21: http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/ (right side of the page).  I can't seem to find a link to the PDF, thoguh.

Day 3:
Sestak - 43
Toomey - 43

Onorato - 40
Corbett - 49


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: MorningInAmerica on October 22, 2010, 01:03:37 AM
I'm still shaking my head at this one. What happened here? Toomey seemed to have anywhere from a 4-10 point lead for half a year. This one seems more and more like a toss-up, where I had assumed it would be a GOP pick-up.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 22, 2010, 01:40:40 AM
It is Pennsylvania.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 22, 2010, 02:28:14 AM
I'm still shaking my head at this one. What happened here? Toomey seemed to have anywhere from a 4-10 point lead for half a year. This one seems more and more like a toss-up, where I had assumed it would be a GOP pick-up.

1) Most importantly, the PA democratic electorate is finally coming home (as is the case with everywhere in the US, and in PA dem's outnumber republicans in registration).  If the election happened on any given day in August or September, of course without people knowing, Toomey would have won handily.  Obviously no major election is unknown to the electorate, so this is completely unrealistic.  I think that most voters in PA, and every other state for that matter, aren't as engaged as the people who use DailyKos, RedState, USElectionAtlas, etc. and only start getting involved in the last month.
2) Sestak is a closer.  He showed it quite well in May with the primary.  He was down pretty big early, and had the primary happened on any given day before April, Specter would have won handily.
3) PA is very blue collar, and I think a lot of voters still use television, radio, and even newspapers as their primary source of information (where as you and others on this forum probably use liberal/conservative blogs or news websites).  I am inclined to believe the electorate in PA is a bit more influenced by the media-based advertising machine.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 22, 2010, 02:57:08 AM
I'm still shaking my head at this one. What happened here? Toomey seemed to have anywhere from a 4-10 point lead for half a year. This one seems more and more like a toss-up, where I had assumed it would be a GOP pick-up.

1) Most importantly, the PA democratic electorate is finally coming home (as is the case with everywhere in the US, and in PA dem's outnumber republicans in registration).  If the election happened on any given day in August or September, of course without people knowing, Toomey would have won handily.  Obviously no major election is unknown to the electorate, so this is completely unrealistic.  I think that most voters in PA, and every other state for that matter, aren't as engaged as the people who use DailyKos, RedState, USElectionAtlas, etc. and only start getting involved in the last month.
2) Sestak is a closer.  He showed it quite well in May with the primary.  He was down pretty big early, and had the primary happened on any given day before April, Specter would have won handily.
3) PA is very blue collar, and I think a lot of voters still use television, radio, and even newspapers as their primary source of information (where as you and others on this forum probably use liberal/conservative blogs or news websites).  I am inclined to believe the electorate in PA is a bit more influenced by the media-based advertising machine.


Agreed.  I never saw this race winding up as a solid Toomey win.  Quite simply the math just doesn't allow for that.  Someone as far right to the right as Toomey doesn't have a chance in hell at suburban Philly.  Without suburban Philly you don't give yourself much room for error and give yourself no chance to win anything other than a nail biter.   

The real question is can Sestak run up the margins in suburban Philly that make it virtually impossible for Toomey to overcome elsewhere in the state? or is Toomey able to hold down the margins in suburban Philly enough to give him the chance to run up the margins elsewhere to win?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 22, 2010, 04:26:56 AM
I'm still shaking my head at this one. What happened here? Toomey seemed to have anywhere from a 4-10 point lead for half a year. This one seems more and more like a toss-up, where I had assumed it would be a GOP pick-up.

1) Most importantly, the PA democratic electorate is finally coming home (as is the case with everywhere in the US, and in PA dem's outnumber republicans in registration).  If the election happened on any given day in August or September, of course without people knowing, Toomey would have won handily.  Obviously no major election is unknown to the electorate, so this is completely unrealistic.  I think that most voters in PA, and every other state for that matter, aren't as engaged as the people who use DailyKos, RedState, USElectionAtlas, etc. and only start getting involved in the last month.
2) Sestak is a closer.  He showed it quite well in May with the primary.  He was down pretty big early, and had the primary happened on any given day before April, Specter would have won handily.
3) PA is very blue collar, and I think a lot of voters still use television, radio, and even newspapers as their primary source of information (where as you and others on this forum probably use liberal/conservative blogs or news websites).  I am inclined to believe the electorate in PA is a bit more influenced by the media-based advertising machine.


Agreed.  I never saw this race winding up as a solid Toomey win.  Quite simply the math just doesn't allow for that.  Someone as far right to the right as Toomey doesn't have a chance in hell at suburban Philly.  Without suburban Philly you don't give yourself much room for error and give yourself no chance to win anything other than a nail biter.   

The real question is can Sestak run up the margins in suburban Philly that make it virtually impossible for Toomey to overcome elsewhere in the state? or is Toomey able to hold down the margins in suburban Philly enough to give him the chance to run up the margins elsewhere to win?

Well the interesting thing is Sestak did remarkably well with conservative democratic voters in the Primary.  In the primary it was Specter who was hoping to run up the totals in the SE-PA counties, with the African American vote in particular in Philadelphia county.  There were some conspiracy theorists who believed that Anthony Williams was only on the gubernatorial primary ballot to drive up the African American vote in Philadelphia as he had no chance winning the actual primary itself (polls had him in a distant fourth behind Onorato, Wagner and even Hoeffel!).

With that said, I don't think Sestak has to run up the totals in SE-PA to be victorious.  Yes it would make things ridiculously simple for him if that were to happen, but it is interesting to note that Sestak was considered the "conservative" candidate during the primary in May, hoping to be able to overcome the vote totals in SE-PA (which he of course did).


On a quick interesting tidbit...
If you head to the PA department of state, they are testing out the returns system:
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/
I was trying to figure out what I was seeing since there are vote totals, % precincts reporting, etc.  Didn't realize it until I noticed "Testing" in big red letters at the top.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Phony Moderate on October 22, 2010, 04:33:57 AM
This thread is pinned why?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Tender Branson on October 22, 2010, 05:44:12 AM

So that not anybody creates a new thread each day.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 22, 2010, 07:42:53 AM

Because Pennsylvania is the most important state in the Union.  Without PA there is no Philadelphia, without Philadelphia there is no Independence Hall, without Independence Hall there is no signing of the Declaration of Independence.  Simple as that... :D


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 22, 2010, 08:35:42 AM
I'm still shaking my head at this one. What happened here? Toomey seemed to have anywhere from a 4-10 point lead for half a year. This one seems more and more like a toss-up, where I had assumed it would be a GOP pick-up.

1) Most importantly, the PA democratic electorate is finally coming home (as is the case with everywhere in the US, and in PA dem's outnumber republicans in registration).  If the election happened on any given day in August or September, of course without people knowing, Toomey would have won handily.  Obviously no major election is unknown to the electorate, so this is completely unrealistic.  I think that most voters in PA, and every other state for that matter, aren't as engaged as the people who use DailyKos, RedState, USElectionAtlas, etc. and only start getting involved in the last month.
2) Sestak is a closer.  He showed it quite well in May with the primary.  He was down pretty big early, and had the primary happened on any given day before April, Specter would have won handily.
3) PA is very blue collar, and I think a lot of voters still use television, radio, and even newspapers as their primary source of information (where as you and others on this forum probably use liberal/conservative blogs or news websites).  I am inclined to believe the electorate in PA is a bit more influenced by the media-based advertising machine.


Agreed.  I never saw this race winding up as a solid Toomey win.  Quite simply the math just doesn't allow for that.  Someone as far right to the right as Toomey doesn't have a chance in hell at suburban Philly.  Without suburban Philly you don't give yourself much room for error and give yourself no chance to win anything other than a nail biter.   

The real question is can Sestak run up the margins in suburban Philly that make it virtually impossible for Toomey to overcome elsewhere in the state? or is Toomey able to hold down the margins in suburban Philly enough to give him the chance to run up the margins elsewhere to win?

Well the interesting thing is Sestak did remarkably well with conservative democratic voters in the Primary.

Specter has never been popular out west and in the rural areas.

 
Quote
There were some conspiracy theorists who believed that Anthony Williams was only on the gubernatorial primary ballot to drive up the African American vote in Philadelphia as he had no chance winning the actual primary itself (polls had him in a distant fourth behind Onorato, Wagner and even Hoeffel!).

Polls didn't have Williams running fourth; he was running in second place for most of the race. He finished third which was surprising.

The theory that he was in it just to help Specter isn't really looney. Many respected people believe that since Williams and Specter have been very close and Williams is a big deal within the establishment.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 44/Toomey 41 (10/16-10/19) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: minionofmidas on October 22, 2010, 09:04:48 AM
But hey, in Arizona it's enough to be a goddam Quayle.

Not really. Quayle entered the race as a second-tier candidate seen as having little chance. He surged after releasing an ad that consisted of not much more than him saying "Barack Obama is the worst President in history." It went viral among the nutjobs, he raised tons of money, and won a plurality in a very divided primary. Even in the primary his name clearly hurt him and he only got where he was by tapping into idiotic anti-Obama sentiment (please note that I am not saying all anti-Obama sentiment is idiotic, just what he tapped into.)
Heh, don't confuse me with irrelevant detail. ;D


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Capitan Zapp Brannigan on October 22, 2010, 09:13:57 AM
So, I saw Bob Brady on Hardball yesterday and he seemed quite confident about his ability to get Philly votes in huge amounts, therefore being able to win it for Sestak.

Not that I would expect anything else from him, but I found it kind of interesting. Not sure how much of the machine is left in place/working well though.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 22, 2010, 09:22:34 AM
So, I saw Bob Brady on Hardball yesterday and he seemed quite confident about his ability to get Philly votes in huge amounts, therefore being able to win it for Sestak.

I was right behind him. Good showing for Toomey, eh?  ;)

Quote
Not that I would expect anything else from him, but I found it kind of interesting. Not sure how much of the machine is left in place/working well though.

The machine is very powerful but of course Brady is going to say he can deliver the votes. We'll see what happens on November 2nd.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: tokar on October 22, 2010, 09:31:36 AM
Quote
Specter has never been popular out west and in the rural areas.

...

Polls didn't have Williams running fourth; he was running in second place for most of the race. He finished third which was surprising.

The theory that he was in it just to help Specter isn't really looney. Many respected people believe that since Williams and Specter have been very close and Williams is a big deal within the establishment.



Frankly, second place was Wagner, regardless of what the polls said.  I voted Hoeffel (when I was registered in PA) but I believe that for those PA'ians who did not want to vote for Onorato (e.g. a very good, and very liberal friend of mine) the second choice was Wagner as it was generally believed that he had the best chance of beating Onorato (and I say "beating" since Onorato is considered to be a conservative DEM and was not first choice among liberals like myself even though he presented the best chance in beating Corbett).  And it ended up as Wagner being second by a pretty clear margin mind you.
And I know you aren't liberal, and probably aren't a registered DEM, but I think most democrats treated Hoeffel as #3 and Williams #4.  Obviously thats not how the result turned out, but most people on the DEM side (pre election day) treated Williams' entry as a the conspiracy theory mentioned earlier, i.e. expected to be last place.  If you consider a 2 point spread (final poll before the election) as a clear margin to indicate a clear #2 from a #4, then you should re-evaluate how you look at polls (final poll before the election: Quinnipiac 5/16: Onorato 39, Williams 11, Wagner 10, Hoeffel 9).  I would have considered that poll as Onorato #1, and the other three guys a distant tie for last place...lol.

I guess I did misuse the word "distant" though.  Distant behind Onorato, yes, but not too distant behind the other two guys I suppose.

I didn't say it was loony, just that it was a conspiracy theory (not all conspiracy theories are loony...a single bullet did kill three people in a car in Dallas almost 40 years ago, right?...hehe, quite relevant in this situation since we are talking about the PA Senate race here ;) ).


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: Capitan Zapp Brannigan on October 22, 2010, 09:38:12 AM
So, I saw Bob Brady on Hardball yesterday and he seemed quite confident about his ability to get Philly votes in huge amounts, therefore being able to win it for Sestak.

I was right behind him. Good showing for Toomey, eh?  ;)
Yeah, can't say I expected all the Toomey signs. And your guys chant and the boos in response drowned out the panel which was pretty funny. :P


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 22, 2010, 09:39:01 AM
So, I saw Bob Brady on Hardball yesterday and he seemed quite confident about his ability to get Philly votes in huge amounts, therefore being able to win it for Sestak.

Not that I would expect anything else from him, but I found it kind of interesting. Not sure how much of the machine is left in place/working well though.

What did you think of Mr. Runyan? (I ask since you are in NJ) :)

I saw his debate bit on MSNBC last night.  Name a Supreme Court case from the last 5-10 years you disagree with.  "Hmm, Dred Scott." *laughter*.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 22, 2010, 09:41:45 AM

Frankly, second place was Wagner, regardless of what the polls said.  I voted Hoeffel (when I was registered in PA) but I believe that for those PA'ians who did not want to vote for Onorato (e.g. a very good, and very liberal friend of mine) the second choice was Wagner as it was generally believed that he had the best chance of beating Onorato (and I say "beating" since Onorato is considered to be a conservative DEM and was not first choice among liberals like myself even though he presented the best chance in beating Corbett).

Wagner is far more conservative but had a better shot at beating Corbett.

Quote
I didn't say it was loony, just that it was a conspiracy theory (not all conspiracy theories are loony...a single bullet did kill three people in a car in Dallas almost 40 years ago, right?...hehe, quite relevant in this situation since we are talking about the PA Senate race here ;) ).

I just tend to think most people cite "conspiracy theorists" in a negative way. Either way, it isn't crazy to think that William ran for other reasons.

So, I saw Bob Brady on Hardball yesterday and he seemed quite confident about his ability to get Philly votes in huge amounts, therefore being able to win it for Sestak.

I was right behind him. Good showing for Toomey, eh?  ;)
Yeah, can't say I expected all the Toomey signs. And your guys chant and the boos in response drowned out the panel which was pretty funny. :P

We're very organized.  ;)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Capitan Zapp Brannigan on October 22, 2010, 09:42:26 AM
I'm not much of a fan(I'm a Democrat though, so not really unbiased, also a Giants fan), but I don't really like Adler too much either. I think Adler will pull out a win though.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: J. J. on October 22, 2010, 09:45:53 AM
Last night, wall to wall campaign ads on the local news.

All were Republican, though it is getting harder to tell.  Most were for Toomey, but perhaps one were from outside groups.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 22, 2010, 07:46:02 PM
Muhlenberg put up the PDF for day 3:
http://www.muhlenberg.edu/pdf/main/academics/polisci/2010TrackingRelease3_October22.pdf

Like day 2, there is an R+3 spread in the partisan makeup in day 3.
Sestak has gone from a +0 favorability to -4 to -3.
Toomey has gone from -2 to +1 and holding at +1.

Onorato has gone from -7 favorability to -10 to -6.
Corbett has gone from +9 to +11 to +12.


There is an interesting question in the poll process.
They ask people if they are voting for one candidate or the other if the election as held today, and if they say not sure they then ask who they are leaning towards.
For the senate, its:
Toomey - 43
Sestak - 41
Neither/Other - 4
Not sure - 12

Of the not sures:
15% Lean towards Sestak
6% Lean towards Toomey
79% Unsure

Which results in the final score of 43-43.

It is interesting to point out that on day 1 the leaners were trending towards Toomey 9% to 7%.  On day 2 that reversed and now Sestak seems to be leading quite significantly with leaners.  Day 2 was 14% to 6% and day 3 is listed above.
Sestak went from -2 to +8 to +9 now.  Its important to note that the number of undecideds in the leaners question has gone from 84 to 81 to 79 now.  So that group is shrinking by the day.
The sample size of the leaners was 52.

Side note, the governor's race is going the same way with leaners...(9%-9% day 1, 5%-10% day 2 in favor of Onorato, 3%-12% day 3 in favor of Onorato).


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Rowan on October 22, 2010, 09:54:26 PM
Day 4

Toomey: 45%(+2)
Sestak: 42%(-1)

http://twitter.com/DCMorningCall/status/28464242434


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 22, 2010, 10:31:13 PM
Darn. Come on, Joe!


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 D
Post by: tokar on October 22, 2010, 10:35:04 PM

In a race like this (which, at this point, mimics the primary in May), I don't think you will see a clear lead for either candidate, just flip-flopping leads and ties.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Umengus on October 23, 2010, 04:50:53 AM
Toomey stays the favourite because dems are overrepresented in polls like PPP and Mulhenberg. But I agree with Rasmussen: sestak has cut the toomey lead in solidifying his base.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Tender Branson on October 23, 2010, 05:24:03 AM
Toomey stays the favourite because dems are overrepresented in polls like PPP and Mulhenberg. But I agree with Rasmussen: sestak has cut the toomey lead in solidifying his base.

The 2 polls are actually miles apart when it comes to party registration:

Muhlenberg has 49% Republicans and 46% Democrats.

PPP has 48% Democrats and 41% Republicans.

By average it's 47% Democrats and 45% Republicans. While the Exit Poll will certainly show less Democrats and Republicans and more Independents, the 2% average lead for the Democrats should be OK, also in the Exit Poll.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Umengus on October 23, 2010, 08:40:03 AM
Toomey stays the favourite because dems are overrepresented in polls like PPP and Mulhenberg. But I agree with Rasmussen: sestak has cut the toomey lead in solidifying his base.

The 2 polls are actually miles apart when it comes to party registration:

Muhlenberg has 49% Republicans and 46% Democrats.

PPP has 48% Democrats and 41% Republicans.

By average it's 47% Democrats and 45% Republicans. While the Exit Poll will certainly show less Democrats and Republicans and more Independents, the 2% average lead for the Democrats should be OK, also in the Exit Poll.

The first muhlenberg had 46-46. Change the party id and, oh surprise !, the final result is changed...

Problem for dems is that indep will vote in large margin for toomey. Hence, overpolling dems and underpolling ind give a fake advantage to Sestak, even if the gap between dems and rep is correct.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 23, 2010, 12:03:24 PM
Toomey stays the favourite because dems are overrepresented in polls like PPP and Mulhenberg. But I agree with Rasmussen: sestak has cut the toomey lead in solidifying his base.

The 2 polls are actually miles apart when it comes to party registration:

Muhlenberg has 49% Republicans and 46% Democrats.

PPP has 48% Democrats and 41% Republicans.

By average it's 47% Democrats and 45% Republicans. While the Exit Poll will certainly show less Democrats and Republicans and more Independents, the 2% average lead for the Democrats should be OK, also in the Exit Poll.

The first muhlenberg had 46-46. Change the party id and, oh surprise !, the final result is changed...

Problem for dems is that indep will vote in large margin for toomey. Hence, overpolling dems and underpolling ind give a fake advantage to Sestak, even if the gap between dems and rep is correct.

What makes you think is oversampling of Dems??  The Democrats have a rather large registration advantage in PA (51-37 at the end of 09).  Even if you take into consideration party id not always matching registration, and stronger GOP turnout than Democratic turnout (Muhlenberg btw asks registration not ID) I don't see how you can really say the party id in the polls is off.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Umengus on October 23, 2010, 01:19:32 PM
Toomey stays the favourite because dems are overrepresented in polls like PPP and Mulhenberg. But I agree with Rasmussen: sestak has cut the toomey lead in solidifying his base.

The 2 polls are actually miles apart when it comes to party registration:

Muhlenberg has 49% Republicans and 46% Democrats.

PPP has 48% Democrats and 41% Republicans.

By average it's 47% Democrats and 45% Republicans. While the Exit Poll will certainly show less Democrats and Republicans and more Independents, the 2% average lead for the Democrats should be OK, also in the Exit Poll.

The first muhlenberg had 46-46. Change the party id and, oh surprise !, the final result is changed...

Problem for dems is that indep will vote in large margin for toomey. Hence, overpolling dems and underpolling ind give a fake advantage to Sestak, even if the gap between dems and rep is correct.

What makes you think is oversampling of Dems??  The Democrats have a rather large registration advantage in PA (51-37 at the end of 09).  Even if you take into consideration party id not always matching registration, and stronger GOP turnout than Democratic turnout (Muhlenberg btw asks registration not ID) I don't see how you can really say the party id in the polls is off.

DO you think that 46 % of the voters will be democrats ?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Rowan on October 23, 2010, 03:10:06 PM
Toomey stays the favourite because dems are overrepresented in polls like PPP and Mulhenberg. But I agree with Rasmussen: sestak has cut the toomey lead in solidifying his base.

The 2 polls are actually miles apart when it comes to party registration:

Muhlenberg has 49% Republicans and 46% Democrats.

PPP has 48% Democrats and 41% Republicans.

By average it's 47% Democrats and 45% Republicans. While the Exit Poll will certainly show less Democrats and Republicans and more Independents, the 2% average lead for the Democrats should be OK, also in the Exit Poll.

The first muhlenberg had 46-46. Change the party id and, oh surprise !, the final result is changed...

Problem for dems is that indep will vote in large margin for toomey. Hence, overpolling dems and underpolling ind give a fake advantage to Sestak, even if the gap between dems and rep is correct.

What makes you think is oversampling of Dems??  The Democrats have a rather large registration advantage in PA (51-37 at the end of 09).  Even if you take into consideration party id not always matching registration, and stronger GOP turnout than Democratic turnout (Muhlenberg btw asks registration not ID) I don't see how you can really say the party id in the polls is off.

DO you think that 46 % of the voters will be democrats ?

Do you think that 49% of the voters will be Republicans?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Rowan on October 23, 2010, 08:52:20 PM
Day 5 Muhlenberg Tracker

Toomey: 46%(+1)
Sestak: 43%(+1)

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Sam Spade on October 23, 2010, 08:55:13 PM
Day 5 Muhlenberg Tracker

Toomey: 46%(+1)
Sestak: 43%(+1)

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/

This can be entered in the polling database.  Nothing else until 23rd drops off.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/Morning Call: Sestak 44% Toomey 41%
Post by: The Vorlon on October 23, 2010, 09:09:17 PM
Hmmmm, there seems to have been an avalanche of 'interesting' polls in the past day or so.

Everybody and there dog will be releasing a poll in the next ten days.

Colleges, Universities, Newspapers, Zoltan The Magnificent, Pete's All Beef Double Cheeseburger poll, Zogby, The Psychic Hotline....

The list of crap will get very thick and deep....





But are Zogby's polls more or less reliable than those by Zoltan The Magnificent or the Psychic Hotline?

Pete's all beef Double Cheeseburger poll actually has a pretty decent record..... :)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 43 (10/17-10/20) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 19 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 23, 2010, 09:51:59 PM
Toomey stays the favourite because dems are overrepresented in polls like PPP and Mulhenberg. But I agree with Rasmussen: sestak has cut the toomey lead in solidifying his base.

The 2 polls are actually miles apart when it comes to party registration:

Muhlenberg has 49% Republicans and 46% Democrats.

PPP has 48% Democrats and 41% Republicans.

By average it's 47% Democrats and 45% Republicans. While the Exit Poll will certainly show less Democrats and Republicans and more Independents, the 2% average lead for the Democrats should be OK, also in the Exit Poll.

The first muhlenberg had 46-46. Change the party id and, oh surprise !, the final result is changed...

Problem for dems is that indep will vote in large margin for toomey. Hence, overpolling dems and underpolling ind give a fake advantage to Sestak, even if the gap between dems and rep is correct.

What makes you think is oversampling of Dems??  The Democrats have a rather large registration advantage in PA (51-37 at the end of 09).  Even if you take into consideration party id not always matching registration, and stronger GOP turnout than Democratic turnout (Muhlenberg btw asks registration not ID) I don't see how you can really say the party id in the polls is off.

DO you think that 46 % of the voters will be democrats ?

Better chance of that happening than 49% Republican, considering registration is 51-37 in the favor of Democrats.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 23, 2010, 09:59:21 PM
I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.

Have they released the day 4 pdf yet?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 23, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.

Have they released the day 4 pdf yet?

I can't find it, only day 3 is on Muhlenberg's website.  It is always so hard to find them.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 23, 2010, 11:25:13 PM
Probably safe to say that Toomey is up by about 2-4%. Hopefully Sestak closes well, he has before.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 23, 2010, 11:26:40 PM
I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.

Have they released the day 4 pdf yet?

I can't find it, only day 3 is on Muhlenberg's website.  It is always so hard to find them.

I waisted an hour myself looking for it.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 24, 2010, 12:17:18 AM
And then there were nine...

I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.


Yeah, I think the numbers are supposed to be reversed.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 24, 2010, 12:20:07 AM
I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.

Have they released the day 4 pdf yet?

I can't find it, only day 3 is on Muhlenberg's website.  It is always so hard to find them.

I waisted an hour myself looking for it.

It's on the right hand side of their Politics page but it seems like their Twitter account is updated before the website.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Smash255 on October 24, 2010, 01:55:12 AM
I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.

Have they released the day 4 pdf yet?



I can't find it, only day 3 is on Muhlenberg's website.  It is always so hard to find them.

I waisted an hour myself looking for it.

It's on the right hand side of their Politics page but it seems like their Twitter account is updated before the website.


The update is on the website for the results, but they were talking about the PDF file with the cross tabs.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Dgov on October 24, 2010, 02:14:52 AM
And then there were nine...

I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.


Yeah, I think the numbers are supposed to be reversed.

When did you hear this?  I'm pretty sure Protestants outnumber Catholics in every state in the US (Expect maybe Hawaii, but that doesn't count).  I think they even do in New Mexico given that the state has a large population of Protestant Hispanics.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: MaxQue on October 24, 2010, 02:29:25 AM
And then there were nine...

I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.


Yeah, I think the numbers are supposed to be reversed.

When did you hear this?  I'm pretty sure Protestants outnumber Catholics in every state in the US (Expect maybe Hawaii, but that doesn't count).  I think they even do in New Mexico given that the state has a large population of Protestant Hispanics.

Rhode Island is around two-thirds Catholic.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Smash255 on October 24, 2010, 02:34:52 AM
And then there were nine...

I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.


Yeah, I think the numbers are supposed to be reversed.

When did you hear this?  I'm pretty sure Protestants outnumber Catholics in every state in the US (Expect maybe Hawaii, but that doesn't count).  I think they even do in New Mexico given that the state has a large population of Protestant Hispanics.

NY, NJ, CT, RI, MA,VT, NH, CA & NM Catholic is the largest group.

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Dgov on October 24, 2010, 02:47:14 AM
And then there were nine...

I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.


Yeah, I think the numbers are supposed to be reversed.

When did you hear this?  I'm pretty sure Protestants outnumber Catholics in every state in the US (Expect maybe Hawaii, but that doesn't count).  I think they even do in New Mexico given that the state has a large population of Protestant Hispanics.

NY, NJ, CT, RI, MA,VT, NH, CA & NM Catholic is the largest group.

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm

You're not adding up the individual Protestant groups.  They add up to more than the Catholics do in New York, New Jersey, etc. (unless all the "others" are non-Protestant Christians,  which they most likely are)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Smash255 on October 24, 2010, 03:08:13 AM
And then there were nine...

I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.


Yeah, I think the numbers are supposed to be reversed.

When did you hear this?  I'm pretty sure Protestants outnumber Catholics in every state in the US (Expect maybe Hawaii, but that doesn't count).  I think they even do in New Mexico given that the state has a large population of Protestant Hispanics.

NY, NJ, CT, RI, MA,VT, NH, CA & NM Catholic is the largest group.

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm

You're not adding up the individual Protestant groups.  They add up to more than the Catholics do in New York, New Jersey, etc. (unless all the "others" are non-Protestant Christians,  which they most likely are)


I'm guessing you flunked Math.....



Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 24, 2010, 03:11:02 AM
     Is it me or do the numbers for New York in that link only add up to 93%?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 24, 2010, 03:14:29 AM
     Is it me or do the numbers for New York in that link only add up to 93%?

It is 93%, keep in mind you have some that are less than .5% that don't show up, that brings you into the 95 or 96% range, rest could be due to rounding.  It looks like its the same in most states.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Dgov on October 24, 2010, 04:37:14 AM
And then there were nine...

I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.


Yeah, I think the numbers are supposed to be reversed.

When did you hear this?  I'm pretty sure Protestants outnumber Catholics in every state in the US (Expect maybe Hawaii, but that doesn't count).  I think they even do in New Mexico given that the state has a large population of Protestant Hispanics.

NY, NJ, CT, RI, MA,VT, NH, CA & NM Catholic is the largest group.

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm

You're not adding up the individual Protestant groups.  They add up to more than the Catholics do in New York, New Jersey, etc. (unless all the "others" are non-Protestant Christians,  which they most likely are)


I'm guessing you flunked Math.....

Lets do the Math then:

100% -38% (Catholic) - 13% (Non-religious) - 5% (Jewish) - 1% (Buddist) - 2% (Islam) -2% (other--see below) = 39% (all other minor religions listed were Protestant or Christian in nature, and I'm willing to bet at least half the "other" is small protestant churches)

39%>38%.  Epic problem-solving fail on your part


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Smash255 on October 24, 2010, 01:25:55 PM
And then there were nine...

I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.


Yeah, I think the numbers are supposed to be reversed.

When did you hear this?  I'm pretty sure Protestants outnumber Catholics in every state in the US (Expect maybe Hawaii, but that doesn't count).  I think they even do in New Mexico given that the state has a large population of Protestant Hispanics.

NY, NJ, CT, RI, MA,VT, NH, CA & NM Catholic is the largest group.

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm

You're not adding up the individual Protestant groups.  They add up to more than the Catholics do in New York, New Jersey, etc. (unless all the "others" are non-Protestant Christians,  which they most likely are)


I'm guessing you flunked Math.....

Lets do the Math then:

100% -38% (Catholic) - 13% (Non-religious) - 5% (Jewish) - 1% (Buddist) - 2% (Islam) -2% (other--see below) = 39% (all other minor religions listed were Protestant or Christian in nature, and I'm willing to bet at least half the "other" is small protestant churches)

39%>38%.  Epic problem-solving fail on your part

Others does not exactly mean Protestant, nor does simply saying Christian, nor does Non-Denominational  ,

Baptist 7%
Methodist 6%
Lutheran 2%
Presbyterian 2%
Protestant (no Denomination given) 2%
Pentecostal 2%
Anglican 2%
Assemblies of God 1%
Evangelical 1%


Thats 25%, now if you add all of Christian (4%) thats 29% and all of others,4%, that is 33%.  Rounding might bring it up slightly higher, but not higher than 38%, and not all of Christians or Others are Protestant.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Dgov on October 24, 2010, 01:58:46 PM
And then there were nine...

I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.


Yeah, I think the numbers are supposed to be reversed.

When did you hear this?  I'm pretty sure Protestants outnumber Catholics in every state in the US (Expect maybe Hawaii, but that doesn't count).  I think they even do in New Mexico given that the state has a large population of Protestant Hispanics.

NY, NJ, CT, RI, MA,VT, NH, CA & NM Catholic is the largest group.

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm

You're not adding up the individual Protestant groups.  They add up to more than the Catholics do in New York, New Jersey, etc. (unless all the "others" are non-Protestant Christians,  which they most likely are)


I'm guessing you flunked Math.....

Lets do the Math then:

100% -38% (Catholic) - 13% (Non-religious) - 5% (Jewish) - 1% (Buddist) - 2% (Islam) -2% (other--see below) = 39% (all other minor religions listed were Protestant or Christian in nature, and I'm willing to bet at least half the "other" is small protestant churches)

39%>38%.  Epic problem-solving fail on your part

Others does not exactly mean Protestant, nor does simply saying Christian, nor does Non-Denominational  ,

Baptist 7%
Methodist 6%
Lutheran 2%
Presbyterian 2%
Protestant (no Denomination given) 2%
Pentecostal 2%
Anglican 2%
Assemblies of God 1%
Evangelical 1%


Thats 25%, now if you add all of Christian (4%) thats 29% and all of others,4%, that is 33%.  Rounding might bring it up slightly higher, but not higher than 38%, and not all of Christians or Others are Protestant.

So the Problem is where the extra 4-5% Comes from in the poll (which we thought was probably rounding error).  Odds are it goes heavily to the Protestants (as they have more denominations to be rounded off)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Smash255 on October 24, 2010, 02:03:23 PM
And then there were nine...

I thought Catholics were a majority in PA? The Muhlenberg poll has 49% of the electorate as Protestant and 33% as Catholics, as of the day three pdf.


Yeah, I think the numbers are supposed to be reversed.

When did you hear this?  I'm pretty sure Protestants outnumber Catholics in every state in the US (Expect maybe Hawaii, but that doesn't count).  I think they even do in New Mexico given that the state has a large population of Protestant Hispanics.

NY, NJ, CT, RI, MA,VT, NH, CA & NM Catholic is the largest group.

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm

You're not adding up the individual Protestant groups.  They add up to more than the Catholics do in New York, New Jersey, etc. (unless all the "others" are non-Protestant Christians,  which they most likely are)


I'm guessing you flunked Math.....

Lets do the Math then:

100% -38% (Catholic) - 13% (Non-religious) - 5% (Jewish) - 1% (Buddist) - 2% (Islam) -2% (other--see below) = 39% (all other minor religions listed were Protestant or Christian in nature, and I'm willing to bet at least half the "other" is small protestant churches)

39%>38%.  Epic problem-solving fail on your part

Others does not exactly mean Protestant, nor does simply saying Christian, nor does Non-Denominational  ,

Baptist 7%
Methodist 6%
Lutheran 2%
Presbyterian 2%
Protestant (no Denomination given) 2%
Pentecostal 2%
Anglican 2%
Assemblies of God 1%
Evangelical 1%


Thats 25%, now if you add all of Christian (4%) thats 29% and all of others,4%, that is 33%.  Rounding might bring it up slightly higher, but not higher than 38%, and not all of Christians or Others are Protestant.

So the Problem is where the extra 4-5% Comes from in the poll (which we thought was probably rounding error).  Odds are it goes heavily to the Protestants (as they have more denominations to be rounded off)

Even taking that into consideration, some the rounding could also be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim, or No religion, etc


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 24, 2010, 02:03:50 PM
Guys, who cares?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Smash255 on October 24, 2010, 02:07:52 PM

I could really careless, I just find it rather interesting he can't do basic math.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Dgov on October 24, 2010, 02:24:25 PM

I could really careless, I just find it rather interesting he can't do basic math.

*Sigh.  It's like banging my head against a wall here.  Do you have any idea how much more likely .5% rounding error would make difference across 16 separate values (some of which round to Zero) rather than 5?

As for whether or not this matters, I agree it doesn't--I just find it odd that his understanding of math doesn't stretch beyond "38 is bigger than 37" and fails to understand basic logical analysis, and that he sees this as a failure on my part.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Smash255 on October 24, 2010, 03:40:21 PM

I could really careless, I just find it rather interesting he can't do basic math.

*Sigh.  It's like banging my head against a wall here.  Do you have any idea how much more likely .5% rounding error would make difference across 16 separate values (some of which round to Zero) rather than 5?

As for whether or not this matters, I agree it doesn't--I just find it odd that his understanding of math doesn't stretch beyond "38 is bigger than 37" and fails to understand basic logical analysis, and that he sees this as a failure on my part.


Assuming that every single one that said Christian, every single one that said others are Protestant as well as assuming every single rounding error works in favor of Protestant is just plain silly and irrational. 

Anyway back to the topic at hand.  Tonight and the results Tuesday Night will be interesting.  They are the days in which the days that swung to Toomey will drop off. 


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: East Coast Republican on October 24, 2010, 05:07:30 PM

I could really careless, I just find it rather interesting he can't do basic math.

Yeah and if we really want to be immature, I 'just find it rather interesting' that you don't know basic grammar.

You people need to learn to leave each other alone.



Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Phony Moderate on October 24, 2010, 05:45:47 PM

I could really careless, I just find it rather interesting he can't do basic math.

Yeah and if we really want to be immature, I 'just find it rather interesting' that you don't know basic grammar.

You people need to learn to leave each other alone.



Out of interest, will you be trolling on election night?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: J. J. on October 24, 2010, 06:28:47 PM
I'd be overjoyed if this wasn't a university poll.

Whomever said Toomey 2-4 point is probably right, however.


Title: Toom-entum: Sestak down 47% to 42%
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 24, 2010, 09:35:44 PM
Toomey up 47% to 42%.

And then, my friends, there were eight...


Title: Re: Toom-entum: Sestak down 47% to 42%
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 24, 2010, 10:23:20 PM
Toomey up 47% to 42%.

And then, my friends, there were eight...

In the process of giving Sestak his due for his skilled comebacks and last minute surges, was it some how forgotten, that Toomey isn't exactly short on political skills and has himself a history of making a last minute surges also (albeit falling a tad short in the end, accounting for environment differences he did about as well as Sestak in 2010 and Obama wasn't pushing that hard for Specter like Bush was either). We shall see. :)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 25, 2010, 12:08:56 AM
Cross tabs

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/track4.pdf

Interesting things to note.  PA registration is 51-37 in favor of the Dems, its obviously going to be more Republican that that this year, but 14% Dem advantage to 2 point Dem advantage?  Seems a bit of a high swing especially considering the registration question over party id.

Another odd thing to note, poll that showed Sestak up 3, had a McCain 49-43 sample, this poll showing Toomey up 5 has a 48-46 sample favoring Obama  The 48-46 sample favoring Obama makes sense, but weird considering its a more GOP sample and more Toomey sample than the 3 point Sestak lead.

Also the electorate is only 11% 18-39.   Obviously voters under 40 are going to see a bigger drop off than those over 40 and make up a lower % of the electorate than in 2008, but 35% to 11%??


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 25, 2010, 12:12:28 AM
Hmm, I hope he doesn't fall back even more in the next one.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on October 25, 2010, 01:04:01 AM
+2 Republican registration advantage? Yeah, not happening...


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 25, 2010, 03:28:04 AM
Cross tabs

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/track4.pdf

Interesting things to note.  PA registration is 51-37 in favor of the Dems, its obviously going to be more Republican that that this year, but 14% Dem advantage to 2 point Dem advantage?  Seems a bit of a high swing especially considering the registration question over party id.

Another odd thing to note, poll that showed Sestak up 3, had a McCain 49-43 sample, this poll showing Toomey up 5 has a 48-46 sample favoring Obama  The 48-46 sample favoring Obama makes sense, but weird considering its a more GOP sample and more Toomey sample than the 3 point Sestak lead.

Also the electorate is only 11% 18-39.   Obviously voters under 40 are going to see a bigger drop off than those over 40 and make up a lower % of the electorate than in 2008, but 35% to 11%??

As much as I like the MCall/Muhlenberg tracker, the crosstabs are a bit concerning...

2004 exit poll - 41% D, 39% R, 20% I (D+2)
2006 exit poll - 43% D, 38% R, 19% I (D+5)
2008 exit poll - 44% D, 37% R, 18% I (D+7)

Even if turnout isn't as high as 2008, or 2006, Pennsylvania should still see at least see a positive spread for Democrats statewide just based on the registration totals alone (thanks to PA being a state which lets people register by party and keeps track of the totals).

Day 1, R+5
Day 2, R+7
Day 3, R+3
Day 4, R+1
Day 5, R+3
Day 6, R+3

I'd love to see the margin if there was a democratic spread in the poll...

Day 1, leaners went to Toomey at +2 (Not sure at 84%)
Day 2, leaners went to Sestak at +8 (Not sure at 81%)
Day 3, leaners went to Sestak at +9 (Not sure at 79%)
Day 4, leaners went to Sestak at +2 (Not sure at 74%)
Day 5, leaners went to Sestak at +6 (Not sure at 73%)
Day 6, leaners went to Toomey at +11 (Not sure at 77%)

So in day 6, not only was there a 17 point flip in the leaners, but the "not sure" went back up?

Days 1 through 6, those polled aged 65+ were as low as 39% and as high as 42%
In the 2008 election, voters aged 65+ made up only 15% of voters.
In the 2006 election, voters aged 60+ made up only 29% of voters.
In the 2004 election, voters aged 60+ made up only 22% of voters.

Days 1 through 6, african americans made up 5-6%
In the 2008 election, the AA vote was 13%
In the 2006 election, the AA vote was 8%
In the 2004 election, the AA vote was 13%


I mean it is easy to be critical of polling, they aren't going to get the exact same numbers as the exit polling from previous elections dictate (obviously), just you have to be aware of the crosstabs (in any poll) before taking any of them as a gold standard.

In this particular poll, they are underestimating the African American vote (traditionally more democratic), grossly overestimating the senior vote (traditionally more republican), and they are grossly overestimating the make up of the electorate in favor of republicans.  There is a lot more you can pick out in the cross tabs, but these are the most glaring.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 25, 2010, 06:15:34 PM
So its more of a trash uni poll then it was a week ago? This poll has had issues all along.


Lets also keep in mind this is in line with Rasmussen now and with regards to Toomey's numbers, the same place as Q. PPP is the odd man out now. There last poll here will be telling as to whether Sestak's surge has ground to a halt.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 25, 2010, 06:49:09 PM
So its more of a trash uni poll then it was a week ago? This poll has had issues all along.


Lets also keep in mind this is in line with Rasmussen now and with regards to Toomey's numbers, the same place as Q. PPP is the odd man out now. There last poll here will be telling as to whether Sestak's surge has ground to a halt.

I never said they were a good poll, I just said they had a good track record.

See my post:


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 25, 2010, 06:53:24 PM
So its more of a trash uni poll then it was a week ago? This poll has had issues all along.


Lets also keep in mind this is in line with Rasmussen now and with regards to Toomey's numbers, the same place as Q. PPP is the odd man out now. There last poll here will be telling as to whether Sestak's surge has ground to a halt.

I never said they were a good poll, I just said they had a good track record.

See my post:

Some post, must be very illuminating. So much so that you used invisible ink for it. :P



Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 25, 2010, 06:58:19 PM
So its more of a trash uni poll then it was a week ago? This poll has had issues all along.


Lets also keep in mind this is in line with Rasmussen now and with regards to Toomey's numbers, the same place as Q. PPP is the odd man out now. There last poll here will be telling as to whether Sestak's surge has ground to a halt.

I never said they were a good poll, I just said they had a good track record.

See my post:

Some post, must be very illuminating. So much so that you used invisible ink for it. :P



There is nothing to hide, just its a long post.  I just wanted to link it as opposed to quoting it.  Click the link to the post to read it...not everything in life will be made easy...then again clicking a link is not a hard deed.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 25, 2010, 07:04:03 PM
So its more of a trash uni poll then it was a week ago? This poll has had issues all along.


Lets also keep in mind this is in line with Rasmussen now and with regards to Toomey's numbers, the same place as Q. PPP is the odd man out now. There last poll here will be telling as to whether Sestak's surge has ground to a halt.

I never said they were a good poll, I just said they had a good track record.

See my post:

Some post, must be very illuminating. So much so that you used invisible ink for it. :P



There is nothing to hide, just its a long post.  I just wanted to link it as opposed to quoting it.  Click the link to the post to read it...not everything in life will be made easy...then again clicking a link is not a hard deed.

Why do people make assumptions like this? ::) For future reference, I often take this type of response as an insult.

As you aren't that familiar with me or my machinery I will tell you that 1) I am using dial-up), and 2) I have a software issue with my internet software. The combination of the two has been creating a bunch of issues of jamming and really slow loading. Knowing this, my desire to keep the number of pages I click on to a minimum is quite reasonable indeed.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: The Vorlon on October 25, 2010, 09:48:29 PM
Rather a lot of attention being paid to a University poll with a daily sample of about 100 people.
Tthey have a decent record, but still, a sample of 400 is pretty noisy - not quite investment grade information here.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 25, 2010, 09:50:09 PM
Is today's out yet?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 25, 2010, 10:10:45 PM
Usually updated on twitter about now, but the account seems delayed.  Last night's posting appears as 8 hours ago. 


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 25, 2010, 10:16:53 PM
Yeah, I don't know what's up tonight.  :(


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 25, 2010, 10:25:14 PM
http://twitter.com/search?q=%23pasen

Someone says its 48-40 Toomey in the Morning Call poll (different person that who normally has the update) someone else says 46-45 Toomey, but no mention of the poll so not sure what to think of that


Title: Sestak getting swamped: 48% to 40%
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 25, 2010, 10:25:35 PM
Toomey - 48%
Sestak - 40%

And then there were seven...


Title: Sestak getting swamped: 48% to 40%
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 25, 2010, 10:30:35 PM
It's been confirmed: 48% to 40%


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 25, 2010, 10:32:29 PM
Well, the surge was fun while it lasted (assuming this poll is close to accurate).


Title: Re: Sestak getting swamped: 48% to 40%
Post by: Smash255 on October 25, 2010, 10:33:47 PM

Any idea what the 46-45 Toomey mention vote Dems out is referring to?


Title: Re: Sestak getting swamped: 48% to 40%
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 25, 2010, 10:38:31 PM

Any idea what the 46-45 Toomey mention vote Dems out is referring to?

No idea. Maybe one of my fellow Republicans just trying to give us a heart attack.  :P  Multiple sources confirmed the 48% to 40% result though.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: cinyc on October 25, 2010, 10:44:58 PM
Well, the surge was fun while it lasted (assuming this poll is close to accurate).

My guess is a lot of these Senate Democrats surged because in a desperate attempt to stay close, they released their last-minute attack ads a week or two earlier than usual.  Now, Republicans are responding and counterattacking.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Torie on October 25, 2010, 10:49:12 PM
There has never been much real movement in this race. Why should there be? Toomey is a very competent, smooth and knowledgeable candidate, so it is not as if some misstep of his will distract voters when the issues are going his way, in a state where more voters dislike Obama at the moment than like him. The bounces are largely ersatz, IMO. The pollsters just change their turnout models from time to time, except Ras, yes I know. What states am I interested in?  CO (there, there might be real movement, because Buck allows himself to get off message - the message being $$$$$$), WV, CT, IL, WA (I wish, I wish, upon a star), and CA (the latter not because I really think Carly has much of a chance, but because my zip code lies within it).


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 25, 2010, 10:56:24 PM
Even if this is accurate, this much more of a race than CT is.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Torie on October 25, 2010, 11:05:40 PM
Even if this is accurate, this much more of a race than CT is.

That is what the polls suggest, with the ersatz/ephemeral bounce creating more buzz in PA on top. But I suspect CT will be tight on election night. You just wait. Sure if I had to bet, with even odds,  it would be against my girl.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Sam Spade on October 25, 2010, 11:08:39 PM
I never really posted this on the forum, except privately to Keystone Phil when he asked a couple of weeks ago.

PA is, at least historically, a pretty easy state to figure out.  My guess has long since been on this race that it'll end up having some slight (1%-5%) generic Democratic lean to the generic ballot writ large, as PA has had for many moons, b/c the candidates strike me as so generic.  Yes, they do, sorry Dems.

In other words, if the generic ballot is 10% GOP, Toomey will win by 4% to 9%, and probably closer to 4% just because there's less soft Dem swingability in PA than in other places (like OH say).

We'll see whether I'm right in a week.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Meeker on October 25, 2010, 11:17:51 PM
Well that was fun while it lasted.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 25, 2010, 11:27:08 PM
Even if this is accurate, this much more of a race than CT is.

That is what the polls suggest, with the ersatz/ephemeral bounce creating more buzz in PA on top. But I suspect CT will be tight on election night. You just wait. Sure if I had to bet, with even odds,  it would be against my girl.

What do you consider tight? I expect Blumenthal will win by 8% or more.


Title: Sestak getting swamped: 48% to 40%
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 25, 2010, 11:27:17 PM
Also worth noting: this is a net gain of eleven points for Toomey in just one week in this poll.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: DrScholl on October 25, 2010, 11:32:21 PM
I still expect this one to be down to the wire, something just tells me it will be a little while before it's called on election night.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Sbane on October 25, 2010, 11:54:11 PM
Even if this is accurate, this much more of a race than CT is.

That is what the polls suggest, with the ersatz/ephemeral bounce creating more buzz in PA on top. But I suspect CT will be tight on election night. You just wait. Sure if I had to bet, with even odds,  it would be against my girl.

So you think CT will be closer than PA? Of course both Sestak and Linda will lose, it's just the margins that are of interest at this moment.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Torie on October 25, 2010, 11:58:48 PM
Even if this is accurate, this much more of a race than CT is.

That is what the polls suggest, with the ersatz/ephemeral bounce creating more buzz in PA on top. But I suspect CT will be tight on election night. You just wait. Sure if I had to bet, with even odds,  it would be against my girl.

So you think CT will be closer than PA? Of course both Sestak and Linda will lose, it's just the margins that are of interest at this moment.

Yes.  Of course, the polls contradict me. But putting aside Whitman, when it comes to my predictions, particularly in this cycle (and yes, I refuse to remember anything about the Del Senate GOP primary :P) ... ?  Pride commeth before the fall, and I no doubt need to be taken down a notch. ):


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 26, 2010, 01:33:37 AM
Party Registration,  48% Republican, 43% Democratic


http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/track5.pdf


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 26, 2010, 01:34:54 AM
Party Registration,  48% Republican, 43% Democratic


http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/track5.pdf

Okkkkkkkkkaaaaayyyyy. Uhh...


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Smash255 on October 26, 2010, 01:39:50 AM
Party Registration,  48% Republican, 43% Democratic


http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/track5.pdf

Okkkkkkkkkaaaaayyyyy. Uhh...

The gap in party id in PA is generally less than the registration gap, but even if you take that consideration and look at this as party id as opposed to party registration, GOP + 5??  Thats absurd.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 26, 2010, 01:41:44 AM
Party Registration,  48% Republican, 43% Democratic


http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/track5.pdf

Okkkkkkkkkaaaaayyyyy. Uhh...

The gap in party id in PA is generally less than the registration gap, but even if you take that consideration and look at this as party id as opposed to party registration, GOP + 5??  Thats absurd.

Yeah, if it looked like that on election day, I'd be pretty surprised to say the least.

Damn, I really wish SUSA would poll PA.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: East Coast Republican on October 26, 2010, 02:06:29 AM
You were all praising this pollster as being the most accurate in Pennsylvania and now many of you are tearing it apart because Toomey is up. 

Not pointing fingers.  Just keeping it fair and balanced.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 26, 2010, 02:13:21 AM
You were all praising this pollster as being the most accurate in Pennsylvania and now many of you are tearing it apart because Toomey is up. 

Not pointing fingers.  Just keeping it fair and balanced.

I'm not exactly tearing it apart, and it has nothing to do with who is ahead.  It has to do with a party breakout which makes absolutely no sense.    The question wasn't party id, but party registration.  Dem + 14 is the statewide registration numbers, its obviously going to be more Republican than that, but GOP + 5??  Not a chance.  Even if you go by party id (though the question did not ask that), it was +7 in 2008.  Obviously going to be more Republican than that, but its not going to be GOP +5, even under the best circumstances for the GOP.  That just isn't happening, period.   

A true registration question should probably be somewhere between Dem +5 to Dem +8 taking into consideration the friendly GOP a year.  A party id based question perhaps even to Dem + 2 or 3, considering it was Dem +7 in 08 and this is obviously a more GOP year, but GOP + 5?  No way.  The 12% under age 40 is also very strange.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 26, 2010, 03:05:06 AM
You were all praising this pollster as being the most accurate in Pennsylvania and now many of you are tearing it apart because Toomey is up. 

I did no such thing. Besides, I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong. I'm just saying that I would personally be surprised if that kind of breakdown ends up happening. :P


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 26, 2010, 06:03:52 AM
You were all praising this pollster as being the most accurate in Pennsylvania and now many of you are tearing it apart because Toomey is up. 

Not pointing fingers.  Just keeping it fair and balanced.

I'm not exactly tearing it apart, and it has nothing to do with who is ahead.  It has to do with a party breakout which makes absolutely no sense.    The question wasn't party id, but party registration.  Dem + 14 is the statewide registration numbers, its obviously going to be more Republican than that, but GOP + 5??  Not a chance.  Even if you go by party id (though the question did not ask that), it was +7 in 2008.  Obviously going to be more Republican than that, but its not going to be GOP +5, even under the best circumstances for the GOP.  That just isn't happening, period.   

A true registration question should probably be somewhere between Dem +5 to Dem +8 taking into consideration the friendly GOP a year.  A party id based question perhaps even to Dem + 2 or 3, considering it was Dem +7 in 08 and this is obviously a more GOP year, but GOP + 5?  No way.  The 12% under age 40 is also very strange.

I was just thinking...it is quite possible that they are purposefully keeping the partisan makeup as R+## as they assume the turnout at the polls will be low (I mean, its not like they can't find a few extra democrats to take a phone poll in PA).  And if that is actually the case then it further substantiates the need to get out the vote (on the democratic side).


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Tender Branson on October 26, 2010, 06:51:33 AM
I wouldn´t read too much into these numbers.

Sestak is still pretty competetive with Independents: his share actually increased from 35 to 44% in this releases, with Toomey fell from 55 to 48%.

(last page)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2010/PA_Muhlenberg_1026.pdf

The only really important movement has been among Democrats, where Sestak went from 76% to 72% and Toomey from 12 to 17%. If Toomey can really win 17% of Democrats on election day remains to be seen.

Also, the 5-point Republican advantage in self-identification plays a big role for this result.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: The Vorlon on October 26, 2010, 07:43:19 AM

Sestak is still pretty competetive with Independents: his share actually increased from 35 to 44% in this releases, with Toomey fell from 55 to 48%.


Given that only 7% self identify as "independent" in the way Muhlenburg is doing this, in a sample size of a bit over 400 people, 7% translates into 30 or so interviews.

Drawing any conclusions from a subsample of 30 people is tenuous to say the very least.

Not sure I want to go into the cross tabs of this poll for any nuggets of Gold.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 26, 2010, 03:44:34 PM
Well, the AP poll has them tied, so who the hell knows what's going on...


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 26, 2010, 09:48:45 PM
Anything for today yet? I refuse to have anything to do with Twitter.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 26, 2010, 09:51:02 PM
Anything for today yet? I refuse to have anything to do with Twitter.

Nothing yet. I keep checking Twitter and trying to find out if anyone else knows but I'm not seeing/hearing anything new.


Title: Patrizio in vantaggio di cinque
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 26, 2010, 09:55:40 PM
Toomey - 46%
Sestak - 41%

Then there were six...


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 26, 2010, 09:59:27 PM
Nice. Sestak +1, Toomey -2.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 26, 2010, 11:53:44 PM
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/track6.pdf


48% Republican,  45% Democratic,  11% under 40


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 27, 2010, 03:55:18 AM
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/track6.pdf


48% Republican,  45% Democratic,  11% under 40

Still disconcerting...
But at least the leaners look a bit better, although the swings are just ridiculous:
R+2
D+8
D+9
D+2
D+6
R+11
R+13
Tie


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 27, 2010, 06:45:26 AM
F+M has Toomey up by 7% but the amount of undecideds seems particularly ridiculous.

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/305240


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 27, 2010, 08:40:39 AM
F+M has Toomey up by 7% but the amount of undecideds seems particularly ridiculous.

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/305240

That's typical for F&M. I think the margin is about right though. It's probably a four to six point Toomey lead.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Umengus on October 27, 2010, 03:42:09 PM
and +4 for toomey in the last cnn-Time poll (with a 13 % lead amongst independents)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 27, 2010, 10:26:16 PM
Anything yet?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 27, 2010, 10:27:11 PM

Nope. I post once I get word.


Title: Toomey back up by eight.
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 27, 2010, 10:38:43 PM
Toomey - 48%

Sestak - 40%


Then there were five...


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 27, 2010, 10:40:39 PM
Damn.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 28, 2010, 11:39:51 AM
PDf file to last night's release

48% Republican, 43% Democratic.......

http://www.muhlenberg.edu/pdf/main/academics/polisci/2010TrackingRelease9_October28.doc.pdf


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Rowan on October 28, 2010, 10:06:49 PM
Toomey: 47%
Sestak: 42%



Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 28, 2010, 10:18:46 PM
Not bad. Not bad at all.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 28, 2010, 10:49:22 PM
Indeed. I enjoy when the poll moves toward my chosen candidate. :P


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 29, 2010, 01:37:59 PM
PDF file from last night

47% Republican, 43% Democratic......


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Sbane on October 29, 2010, 03:03:40 PM
PDF file from last night

47% Republican, 43% Democratic......

What was the partisan breakdown when Sestak was leading?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 43/Toomey 46 (10/20-10/23) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 23 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 29, 2010, 04:01:10 PM
PDF file from last night

47% Republican, 43% Democratic......

What was the partisan breakdown when Sestak was leading?

46, 46.  Registration is 51-37


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 DROPS
Post by: Sbane on October 29, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
PDF file from last night

47% Republican, 43% Democratic......

What was the partisan breakdown when Sestak was leading?

46, 46.  Registration is 51-37

Now that is interesting. I doubt the partisan affiliation advantage for democrats will be less than d+2. Doesnt necessarily mean this poll is wrong though. 


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 29, 2010, 10:42:06 PM
Toomey - 45%

Sestak - 43%


Weird. I'll take Marist over Muhlenberg tonight.  ;)

Then there were three...


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 29, 2010, 11:25:31 PM
Sesurge! I know this race will probably be a heartbreaker but it's fun to hope otherwise.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 30, 2010, 02:51:00 AM
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/track29.pdf



Sample is Dem + 2  (47/45) which certainly makes a bit more sense than some of the other crap thrown around (my guess is it will be Dem with an advantage of 2-4 on Election Day)


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 DROPS
Post by: Umengus on October 30, 2010, 06:44:17 AM
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/track29.pdf



Sample is Dem + 2  (47/45) which certainly makes a bit more sense than some of the other crap thrown around (my guess is it will be Dem with an advantage of 2-4 on Election Day)

it's just technical. And if Toomey leads again with dem +2, it's good for him.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 DROPS
Post by: tokar on October 30, 2010, 08:21:46 AM
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/track29.pdf



Sample is Dem + 2  (47/45) which certainly makes a bit more sense than some of the other crap thrown around (my guess is it will be Dem with an advantage of 2-4 on Election Day)

Took a while for the number to get where it needs to be.  I don't think it'll be a GOP advantage in the exit polls come post-Nov2.


Title: Muhlenberg says Toomey by two (45% to 43%) again.
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 30, 2010, 07:36:25 PM
The numbers are apparently the same tonight. No idea why they're releasing the numbers so early tonight.

Toomey - 45%

Sestak - 43%



Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 DROPS
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 30, 2010, 07:39:02 PM
What?

These are new numbers?


Title: Re: Muhlenberg says Toomey by two (45% to 43%) again.
Post by: Smash255 on October 30, 2010, 09:07:27 PM
The numbers are apparently the same tonight. No idea why they're releasing the numbers so early tonight.

Toomey - 45%

Sestak - 43%



Perhaps they conduct more interviews in the afternoon on the weekend than during the week?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 30, 2010, 10:35:23 PM
Nice. I'll take them.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 30, 2010, 10:45:54 PM

Like I said in my post...


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on October 31, 2010, 12:09:55 AM
Sample Dems + 4   (48-44)

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/muhlenberg.pdf


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 31, 2010, 12:12:22 AM
Okay, maybe I won't take them. :P

If Sestak is still behind with that sample... well... you know... it doesn't look too good.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Umengus on October 31, 2010, 06:47:30 AM
Okay, maybe I won't take them. :P

If Sestak is still behind with that sample... well... you know... it doesn't look too good.

;)

It's a reason why I prefer "Party id reweighting" and so Rasmussen. The move showed by Muhlenberg doesn't exist inr reality. It's just due to the party id sample.

10/28: R+5
10/31: D +4



Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: The Vorlon on October 31, 2010, 07:10:55 AM
Okay, maybe I won't take them. :P

If Sestak is still behind with that sample... well... you know... it doesn't look too good.

;)

It's a reason why I prefer "Party id reweighting" and so Rasmussen. The move showed by Muhlenberg doesn't exist inr reality. It's just due to the party id sample.

10/28: R+5
10/31: D +4



Wow - this poll bounces around so much you'd almost think it was some tiny sample poll run by a bunch of University students or something...

Oh wait... that's exactly what it is....

But seriously...

In 2008 actual turnout in Pennsylvania was about 44/37 to the Dem side in terms of party ID. (ie Dems +7)

This poll has it Dems +4, so in terms of turnout, things have declined by only 3% for the Dems versus 2008.

Does this seem reasonable to you?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Umengus on October 31, 2010, 10:59:33 AM
Okay, maybe I won't take them. :P

If Sestak is still behind with that sample... well... you know... it doesn't look too good.

;)

It's a reason why I prefer "Party id reweighting" and so Rasmussen. The move showed by Muhlenberg doesn't exist inr reality. It's just due to the party id sample.

10/28: R+5
10/31: D +4



Wow - this poll bounces around so much you'd almost think it was some tiny sample poll run by a bunch of University students or something...

Oh wait... that's exactly what it is....

But seriously...

In 2008 actual turnout in Pennsylvania was about 44/37 to the Dem side in terms of party ID. (ie Dems +7)

This poll has it Dems +4, so in terms of turnout, things have declined by only 3% for the Dems versus 2008.

Does this seem reasonable to you?

no but every dems say that the PA dem party has a very strong GOTV effort. We will see...

2006: exit poll: D:43 % R: 38 % I: 19 % (D +5)

if 2010 = 2006 , where is the wave ?



Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Smash255 on October 31, 2010, 12:50:20 PM
Okay, maybe I won't take them. :P

If Sestak is still behind with that sample... well... you know... it doesn't look too good.

;)

It's a reason why I prefer "Party id reweighting" and so Rasmussen. The move showed by Muhlenberg doesn't exist inr reality. It's just due to the party id sample.

10/28: R+5
10/31: D +4



Wow - this poll bounces around so much you'd almost think it was some tiny sample poll run by a bunch of University students or something...

Oh wait... that's exactly what it is....

But seriously...

In 2008 actual turnout in Pennsylvania was about 44/37 to the Dem side in terms of party ID. (ie Dems +7)

This poll has it Dems +4, so in terms of turnout, things have declined by only 3% for the Dems versus 2008.

Does this seem reasonable to you?


Considering its PA?  Yes.  Also the question is Party registration not party ID.  Party registration is actually Dems +14.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 DROPS
Post by: mypalfish on October 31, 2010, 07:45:26 PM
Toomey up 4 in the last tracking poll....


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 31, 2010, 07:46:06 PM
Toomey - 48%

Sestak - 44%


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 DROPS
Post by: Umengus on October 31, 2010, 08:31:22 PM
Game over ?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Eraserhead on October 31, 2010, 09:00:55 PM

Is +4 really that different from +2?

Toomey is a strong favorite but we already knew that.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 DROPS
Post by: Smash255 on November 01, 2010, 02:05:16 AM
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2010TrackingRelease13November1.doc.pdf

Dem +2


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 DROPS
Post by: Tender Branson on November 01, 2010, 10:33:23 AM
Was this their final poll ?


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Eraserhead on November 01, 2010, 10:34:22 AM

I read that it was on Politicalwire earlier.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Tender Branson on November 01, 2010, 10:51:47 AM

Guess I have to enter this too then ... :P

Meh, so much work.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Umengus on November 01, 2010, 01:40:20 PM

Guess I have to enter this too then ... :P

Meh, so much work.


thanks for your work. especially today.


Title: Re: PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 D
Post by: Tender Branson on November 02, 2010, 01:18:57 AM

Guess I have to enter this too then ... :P

Meh, so much work.


thanks for your work. especially today.

No problem ... ;)