PA: Muhlenberg/MC: Sestak 40/Toomey 48 (10/24-10/27) DO NOT ENTER UNTIL 27 DROPS

[tokar]

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)

[tokar]

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

[tokar]

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.

[tokar]

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.

[tokar]

This thread is pinned why?

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...

[tokar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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 ).

[tokar]

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*.

[tokar]

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).

[tokar]

Darn. Come on, Joe!

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.

[tokar]

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.

[tokar]

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.

[tokar]

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:

[tokar]

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.

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.

[tokar]

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).

[tokar]

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

[tokar]

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.