PA PrimD: Survey USA: Clinton far ahead of Obama

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Because I didn't realize you were kidding until about the point where I typed "punkass r-pa"

[Smash255]

No, but a closed primary would also result in a higher % of African Americans than an open one would. 

But having an open primary doesn't reduce the number of black voters, and unless Clinton does better (in net) among the crossover voters, that would only be good for Obama.

I know it doesn't reduce the amount of black voters, but black voters would make a larger % of the overall vote in a closed primary than in a open one.  Thats not to say a closed primary doesn't benefit Clinton  it would. With the exception of Mississippi and a couple others the overall results in the open Primaries were more friendly to Obama than the Democrats in those states.   What Obama loses by not having the crossover voters while not fully made up for, is partially made up for by a higher % of black voters.

[Keystone Phil]

No, but a closed primary would also result in a higher % of African Americans than an open one would. 

But having an open primary doesn't reduce the number of black voters, and unless Clinton does better (in net) among the crossover voters, that would only be good for Obama.

I know it doesn't reduce the amount of black voters, but black voters would make a larger % of the overall vote in a closed primary than in a open one. 

Uh, ok, and the percentage of independents and Republicans who have favored Obama has gone down to 0.

[Jake]

An off year election has a bit of a different dynamic.

No shit. We're talking about a 61%-39% registration difference; ie, 21,000 Democrats and 0 Republicans would've had to have stayed home last April to even bring the numbers even. There wasn't any reason for more Republicans to turn out; neither party had contested Commissioner races, neither had any opposed row office races, and they obviously weren't pouring out in droves to vote on judges as only 71% and 61% of folks cast votes in the GOP primary for state judges. And you said it yourself, Montco is filled with professionals, higher income folks, 87% white, etc. There's no reason for the normal Democratic off year election downturn to occur here; both party's voters should be about equally as likely to vote.

Seems there's one conclusion to draw here Smash. Voters in Southeast PA are still registered majority Republican of those stating a party, and thus are ineligible to vote in this race on April 22.

[So the Heroes Fall]

No, but a closed primary would also result in a higher % of African Americans than an open one would. 

But having an open primary doesn't reduce the number of black voters, and unless Clinton does better (in net) among the crossover voters, that would only be good for Obama.

I know it doesn't reduce the amount of black voters, but black voters would make a larger % of the overall vote in a closed primary than in a open one. 

Uh, ok, and the percentage of independents and Republicans who have favored Obama has gone down to 0.

Not really. Many will switch registrations.

[Keystone Phil]

No, but a closed primary would also result in a higher % of African Americans than an open one would. 

But having an open primary doesn't reduce the number of black voters, and unless Clinton does better (in net) among the crossover voters, that would only be good for Obama.

I know it doesn't reduce the amount of black voters, but black voters would make a larger % of the overall vote in a closed primary than in a open one. 

Uh, ok, and the percentage of independents and Republicans who have favored Obama has gone down to 0.

Not really. Many will switch registrations.

Not enough compared to those that have turned out in open primaries for the other side.

[Jake]

Not really. Many will switch registrations.

Define "many". Because we've seen plenty of open or modified primaries where you could walk into the polling place and either just take a ballot or re-register on site, but we've not seen many of the truly closed, must be registered a month before, can't change your registration at the door, etc. primaries this cycle.

[Verily]

Not really. Many will switch registrations.

Define "many". Because we've seen plenty of open or modified primaries where you could walk into the polling place and either just take a ballot or re-register on site, but we've not seen many of the truly closed, must be registered a month before, can't change your registration at the door, etc. primaries this cycle.

Maryland's exit polls might be useful here.

Edit: 13% Independent, 3% Republican. Maryland was closed. (Some of the self-identified independents may be perennially registered as Democrats, others may have registered just for the primary. Obviously, the self-identified Republicans all re-registered.)

[Smash255]

An off year election has a bit of a different dynamic.

No shit. We're talking about a 61%-39% registration difference; ie, 21,000 Democrats and 0 Republicans would've had to have stayed home last April to even bring the numbers even. There wasn't any reason for more Republicans to turn out; neither party had contested Commissioner races, neither had any opposed row office races, and they obviously weren't pouring out in droves to vote on judges as only 71% and 61% of folks cast votes in the GOP primary for state judges. And you said it yourself, Montco is filled with professionals, higher income folks, 87% white, etc. There's no reason for the normal Democratic off year election downturn to occur here; both party's voters should be about equally as likely to vote.

Seems there's one conclusion to draw here Smash. Voters in Southeast PA are still registered majority Republican of those stating a party, and thus are ineligible to vote in this race on April 22.

Granted, but that advantage is diminishing. The areas of the state where the Democrats are making their greatest enrollment gains is in suburban Philly.  they will make up a higher % of the Democratic Primary vote than they have in the past.

[Jake]

I'll add, in Ohio 31% of voters were Republicans or Independents. They were basically equal (49-49, 50-48 Obama). Clinton beat him 56-42 among Democrats. He lost white Democrats 70-27.

Let's review. Approximately 679,000 of 2,187,000 voters were not Democrats.

Article posted recently said 65,000 new Democrats registered while Republican numbers grew by 3,000 and Indies by 8,000. Now, total registration grew by 76,000. How many of those registrations are GOP/IND -> DEM and how many are new Democrats? Impossible to know, but that's another very important question.

And that's ignoring that 65,000 is less than a tenth of the total that voted in Ohio, and PA should have more total voters.

[Smash255]

I'll add, in Ohio 31% of voters were Republicans or Independents. They were basically equal (49-49, 50-48 Obama). Clinton beat him 56-42 among Democrats. He lost white Democrats 70-27.

Let's review. Approximately 679,000 of 2,187,000 voters were not Democrats.

Article posted recently said 65,000 new Democrats registered while Republican numbers grew by 3,000 and Indies by 8,000. Now, total registration grew by 76,000. How many of those registrations are GOP/IND -> DEM and how many are new Democrats? Impossible to know, but that's another very important question.

And that's ignoring that 65,000 is less than a tenth of the total that voted in Ohio, and PA should have more total voters.

The newly registered Dem voters make up approx 2% of the current Democratic enrollment.  That is something which will obviously increase by the time the deadline rolls around.  Also its very likely that the newly registerered are probably more likely to turn out.  So your probably looking at the newly registered Dems making up 5-6% or so of the Democratic Primary vote.  The biggest increase in enrollment is coming from SEPA, and that is very likely to favor Obama, regardless what the split is between Republican and Indies switching parties and just new voters entirely

[Jake]

For 2% of the electorate to make up 6% of voters turnout will need to drop to 33% of the electorate with every new voter voting.

[Smash255]

For 2% of the electorate to make up 6% of voters turnout will need to drop to 33% of the electorate with every new voter voting.

Its probably going to be closer to 3-4% when its all set and done.  Turnout is going to obviously be really high across the board, but newly registered will likely see even higher turnout.

[Gustaf]

Smash, your argument makes no sense. It's true that it would be worse for Obama if the closed primary made him lose black voters in addition to losing independents and Republicans but the fact that it isn't doesn't really constitute a good thing. It's not like the black percentage rising actually means any gains for him, since the percentage of white Democrats increase as well. If I have 40 voters and 20 of them are mine and you kill 10 of them it's true that the remaining 10 became 33% instead of 25% of the electorate but it doesn't really help the fact that I lost half my voters.

[Smash255]

Smash, your argument makes no sense. It's true that it would be worse for Obama if the closed primary made him lose black voters in addition to losing independents and Republicans but the fact that it isn't doesn't really constitute a good thing. It's not like the black percentage rising actually means any gains for him, since the percentage of white Democrats increase as well. If I have 40 voters and 20 of them are mine and you kill 10 of them it's true that the remaining 10 became 33% instead of 25% of the electorate but it doesn't really help the fact that I lost half my voters.

I wasn't suggesting it would help Obama.  I was saying one thing that tends to get overlooked is that  it would also result in a higher % of African Americans, which diminshes though doesn't completley negate the impact of not having the crossovers.

[12th Doctor]

I love this state, because even in our utter stupidity we exhibit our greatness.

[Gustaf]

Smash, your argument makes no sense. It's true that it would be worse for Obama if the closed primary made him lose black voters in addition to losing independents and Republicans but the fact that it isn't doesn't really constitute a good thing. It's not like the black percentage rising actually means any gains for him, since the percentage of white Democrats increase as well. If I have 40 voters and 20 of them are mine and you kill 10 of them it's true that the remaining 10 became 33% instead of 25% of the electorate but it doesn't really help the fact that I lost half my voters.

I wasn't suggesting it would help Obama.  I was saying one thing that tends to get overlooked is that  it would also result in a higher % of African Americans, which diminshes though doesn't completley negate the impact of not having the crossovers.

Eh, no. It does not diminish anything. You're saying "does not compeletely negate" as if it negates at all. But it doesn't. Read my post again. Of course, if you remove some Obama voters the remaining Obama voters will be a higher percentage than they were before. If all Democrats except you were disenfranchised your share of the total electorate would rise stupendously. But it would neither "diminish" nor "negate" the fact that you would be in the minority. It's just a logically unescapable corrollary of the first point.

[Keystone Phil]

I love this state, because even in our utter stupidity we exhibit our greatness.