Muhlenberg College/Morning Call Pennsylvania Tracking Poll Thread

[Keystone Phil]

  You are telling me he is worried about losing democratic base in the 2nd more democratic city in the country?  Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

Uh, no one is saying he'll lose Philly but he's going to lose a significant chunk of the base here (white, working class Catholics).

[they don't love you like i love you]

  You are telling me he is worried about losing democratic base in the 2nd more democratic city in the country?  Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

Uh, no one is saying he'll lose Philly but he's going to lose a significant chunk of the base here (white, working class Catholics).

So once again, you are claiming Catholics are more likely to be racist.

[Keystone Phil]

  You are telling me he is worried about losing democratic base in the 2nd more democratic city in the country?  Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

Uh, no one is saying he'll lose Philly but he's going to lose a significant chunk of the base here (white, working class Catholics).

So once again, you are claiming Catholics are more likely to be racist.

Once again, I am not. Please read why in the numerous other threads where I've responded to this accusation (and where others have backed me up).

[they don't love you like i love you]

  You are telling me he is worried about losing democratic base in the 2nd more democratic city in the country?  Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

Uh, no one is saying he'll lose Philly but he's going to lose a significant chunk of the base here (white, working class Catholics).

So once again, you are claiming Catholics are more likely to be racist.

Once again, I am not. Please read why in the numerous other threads where I've responded to this accusation (and where others have backed me up).

All I've seen is you claiming such people won't vote for Obama because of race.

[Keystone Phil]

  You are telling me he is worried about losing democratic base in the 2nd more democratic city in the country?  Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

Uh, no one is saying he'll lose Philly but he's going to lose a significant chunk of the base here (white, working class Catholics).

So once again, you are claiming Catholics are more likely to be racist.

Once again, I am not. Please read why in the numerous other threads where I've responded to this accusation (and where others have backed me up).

All I've seen is you claiming such people won't vote for Obama because of race.

Ok so why isn't it that you don't pick up on the idea that it's the white working class that won't vote for him because of race? Oh, I know why! You just want to be able to say that Catholics are racists.

You are a very, very, very ignorant, dumb, douchebag.

[they don't love you like i love you]

  You are telling me he is worried about losing democratic base in the 2nd more democratic city in the country?  Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

Uh, no one is saying he'll lose Philly but he's going to lose a significant chunk of the base here (white, working class Catholics).

So once again, you are claiming Catholics are more likely to be racist.

Once again, I am not. Please read why in the numerous other threads where I've responded to this accusation (and where others have backed me up).

All I've seen is you claiming such people won't vote for Obama because of race.

Ok so why isn't it that you don't pick up on the idea that it's the white working class that won't vote for him because of race? Oh, I know why! You just want to be able to say that Catholics are racists.

You are a very, very, very ignorant, dumb, douchebag.

Who is the white working class in my state supporting? Let's check the results of NE Minneapolis and St. Louis County after the election.

[Keystone Phil]

  You are telling me he is worried about losing democratic base in the 2nd more democratic city in the country?  Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

Uh, no one is saying he'll lose Philly but he's going to lose a significant chunk of the base here (white, working class Catholics).

So once again, you are claiming Catholics are more likely to be racist.

Once again, I am not. Please read why in the numerous other threads where I've responded to this accusation (and where others have backed me up).

All I've seen is you claiming such people won't vote for Obama because of race.

Ok so why isn't it that you don't pick up on the idea that it's the white working class that won't vote for him because of race? Oh, I know why! You just want to be able to say that Catholics are racists.

You are a very, very, very ignorant, dumb, douchebag.

Who is the white working class in my state supporting? Let's check the results of NE Minneapolis and St. Louis County after the election.

Do you understand logic? Like...at all?

Let's check who the Catholics in MA and RI are supporting! Looks like Catholics aren't racist!

[J. J.]

  You are telling me he is worried about losing democratic base in the 2nd more democratic city in the country?  Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

Uh, no one is saying he'll lose Philly but he's going to lose a significant chunk of the base here (white, working class Catholics).

So once again, you are claiming Catholics are more likely to be racist.

Once again, I am not. Please read why in the numerous other threads where I've responded to this accusation (and where others have backed me up).

All I've seen is you claiming such people won't vote for Obama because of race.

He's claiming voting Catholics tend to be more conservative in Phila.

[they don't love you like i love you]

  You are telling me he is worried about losing democratic base in the 2nd more democratic city in the country?  Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

Uh, no one is saying he'll lose Philly but he's going to lose a significant chunk of the base here (white, working class Catholics).

So once again, you are claiming Catholics are more likely to be racist.

Once again, I am not. Please read why in the numerous other threads where I've responded to this accusation (and where others have backed me up).

All I've seen is you claiming such people won't vote for Obama because of race.

He's claiming voting Catholics tend to be more conservative in Phila.

That's not what he's claiming at all with all his ancedotes about people who've never voted for Republicans supposedly.

[they don't love you like i love you]

  You are telling me he is worried about losing democratic base in the 2nd more democratic city in the country?  Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

Uh, no one is saying he'll lose Philly but he's going to lose a significant chunk of the base here (white, working class Catholics).

So once again, you are claiming Catholics are more likely to be racist.

Once again, I am not. Please read why in the numerous other threads where I've responded to this accusation (and where others have backed me up).

All I've seen is you claiming such people won't vote for Obama because of race.

Ok so why isn't it that you don't pick up on the idea that it's the white working class that won't vote for him because of race? Oh, I know why! You just want to be able to say that Catholics are racists.

You are a very, very, very ignorant, dumb, douchebag.

Who is the white working class in my state supporting? Let's check the results of NE Minneapolis and St. Louis County after the election.

Do you understand logic? Like...at all?

Let's check who the Catholics in MA and RI are supporting! Looks like Catholics aren't racist!

Massachusetts 2004 exit poll:

Catholics:
Kerry 51
Bush 49

Protestants:
Kerry 60
Bush 39

[Keystone Phil]

  You are telling me he is worried about losing democratic base in the 2nd more democratic city in the country?  Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

Uh, no one is saying he'll lose Philly but he's going to lose a significant chunk of the base here (white, working class Catholics).

So once again, you are claiming Catholics are more likely to be racist.

Once again, I am not. Please read why in the numerous other threads where I've responded to this accusation (and where others have backed me up).

All I've seen is you claiming such people won't vote for Obama because of race.

Ok so why isn't it that you don't pick up on the idea that it's the white working class that won't vote for him because of race? Oh, I know why! You just want to be able to say that Catholics are racists.

You are a very, very, very ignorant, dumb, douchebag.

Who is the white working class in my state supporting? Let's check the results of NE Minneapolis and St. Louis County after the election.

Do you understand logic? Like...at all?

Let's check who the Catholics in MA and RI are supporting! Looks like Catholics aren't racist!

Massachusetts 2004 exit poll:

Catholics:
Kerry 51
Bush 49

Protestants:
Kerry 60
Bush 39

...

And what does that have to do with the 2008 results and race? How are Catholics there going to vote this year, BRTD?

I love it when it becomes so obvious that you've lost an argument! 

[they don't love you like i love you]

  You are telling me he is worried about losing democratic base in the 2nd more democratic city in the country?  Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

Uh, no one is saying he'll lose Philly but he's going to lose a significant chunk of the base here (white, working class Catholics).

So once again, you are claiming Catholics are more likely to be racist.

Once again, I am not. Please read why in the numerous other threads where I've responded to this accusation (and where others have backed me up).

All I've seen is you claiming such people won't vote for Obama because of race.

Ok so why isn't it that you don't pick up on the idea that it's the white working class that won't vote for him because of race? Oh, I know why! You just want to be able to say that Catholics are racists.

You are a very, very, very ignorant, dumb, douchebag.

Who is the white working class in my state supporting? Let's check the results of NE Minneapolis and St. Louis County after the election.

Do you understand logic? Like...at all?

Let's check who the Catholics in MA and RI are supporting! Looks like Catholics aren't racist!

Massachusetts 2004 exit poll:

Catholics:
Kerry 51
Bush 49

Protestants:
Kerry 60
Bush 39

...

And what does that have to do with the 2008 results and race? How are Catholics there going to vote this year, BRTD?

I love it when it becomes so obvious that you've lost an argument! 

It'll vote for Obama, and the Protestants will vote more for him.

[Keystone Phil]

It'll vote for Obama, and the Protestants will vote more for him.

That's great that they'll vote for him by more. Now let's see - who will be more strongly for Obama (since this seems to be the ultimate gauge of racism these days) - southern Catholics or southern Protestants?

[they don't love you like i love you]

It'll vote for Obama, and the Protestants will vote more for him.

That's great that they'll vote for him by more. Now let's see - who will be more strongly for Obama (since this seems to be the ultimate gauge of racism these days) - southern Catholics or southern Protestants?

Southern Protestants of course, considering almost all blacks are as such and few are Catholic.

[Keystone Phil]

It'll vote for Obama, and the Protestants will vote more for him.

That's great that they'll vote for him by more. Now let's see - who will be more strongly for Obama (since this seems to be the ultimate gauge of racism these days) - southern Catholics or southern Protestants?

Southern Protestants of course, considering almost all blacks are as such and few are Catholic.

So white Protestants are racists. Thanks for the insight!

[they don't love you like i love you]

It'll vote for Obama, and the Protestants will vote more for him.

That's great that they'll vote for him by more. Now let's see - who will be more strongly for Obama (since this seems to be the ultimate gauge of racism these days) - southern Catholics or southern Protestants?

Southern Protestants of course, considering almost all blacks are as such and few are Catholic.

So white Protestants are racists. Thanks for the insight!

Yes, and they are most Southern Baptists, not members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

[Keystone Phil]

It'll vote for Obama, and the Protestants will vote more for him.

That's great that they'll vote for him by more. Now let's see - who will be more strongly for Obama (since this seems to be the ultimate gauge of racism these days) - southern Catholics or southern Protestants?

Southern Protestants of course, considering almost all blacks are as such and few are Catholic.

So white Protestants are racists. Thanks for the insight!

Yes, and they are most Southern Baptists, not members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

That doesn't matter. All Protestants are now more likely to be racist. You lose.

[Tender Branson]

Anyway:

Saturday, October 11:

Obama - 52 (+2)
McCain - 40 (+1)

[tokar]

Anyway:

Saturday, October 11:

Obama - 52 (+2)
McCain - 40 (+1)

lol...considering that this is a running average, it is quite impressive numbers for Obama.

[tokar]

You have not realized that if Obama were really up by ten points, he would not have to worry about turnout specifically in Philadelphia.

Bush's margin increased in 2004 and Obama's track record is not particularly good here. 

I'm also well aware that if PA were +10 points up, Obama wouldn't need to be in the state.

Ah, they don't.  They show about 8 points nationally.  That isn't exceptionally solid, unless it holds.  So why is Obama, if everything is fine in PA, coming into PA?  If he wants to go to a close state, why not FL, VA, or GA.  Why is campaigning so strongly in PA, if everything is fine?

Dude, the only reason Obama is actually campaigning hard in PA is because McCain is stubbornly continuing to campaign hard.  And, the majority of that campaigning is coming in the Philadelphia area, mostly deep within the city itself (Palin in NE Philly, Palin at the Flyers game, Palin for a jog in an Eagles jersey, etc. etc.).  Obama would be a fool to a) campaign well outside Philly given McCain's focus on campaigning in the city, and b) not campaign in PA all considering PA is the last Kerry state McCain is actually maintaining a campaign.

Just look at Michigan.  It is almost an exact mirror of PA prior to McCain pulling out.
Polls are +10 (or more), its a swing state which no one expects to go +10 on election day.  McCain certainly could have remained in the state and campaigned really hard in a state that is routinely hurt by economic downturn.  Had he continued Obama certainly would have continued in MI as well.  However, with him pulling out Obama too has pulled out knowing there is no point wasting money in a state that is a done deal (just check out the future events on MyBarackObama.com).


Given the way the national tracking polls are going, and given recent polling in battleground states, conventional battleground states will go solid Obama if otherwise ignored.
Michigan - McCain pulled out, stopped campaigning.  Polls now show Michigan is deep in the democratic tank.
Iowa - McCain has pretty much pulled out here.  Polls now show Iowa is deep in the democratic tank.
Oregon - when was the last time you saw McCain in Oregon?  There was a time when Oregon was a battleground.  Now?  It is deep in the democratic tank.
New Jersey - polls in New Jersey are actually worse than polls in Pennsylvania.  PA is averaging a +11-12 while NJ is averaging a +8-9.  But of course, Mccain is not even campaigning here.  Again, deep in the DEM tank.
New Hampshire - again, another state which people were saying has a good chance to go red (USEA blue).  So where is McCain?  No McCain, polls have turned back in Obama's favor.

The same can be said of many other states.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Obama is not campaigning because he is concerned PA will go red (USEA blue), he is campaigning to thwart the obvious increased McCain presence in PA.  Obama would be a fool to ignore PA while McCain has increased his presence.


Simply put, PA is deep in the democratic tank.  However, McCain still thinks PA can go red (USEA blue), is campaigning hard (and rather stubbornly), so Obama in response has to follow suit.




The democratic margin of victory decreased in 2004, sure.
Heres some numbers to chew on...

::::PA 2000 vs PA 2004 (+ = Bush gain, - = Bush loss.  Bold = Bush victory)::::
PA margin victory difference: +1.67 (4.17-2.50)

Bucks county difference: +1.37 (4.17-2.80)
Philadelphia county difference: +0.91 (62.05-61.14)
Montgomery county difference: -1.86 (9.73-11.59)
Delaware county difference: -3.13 (11.70-14.83)
Chester county difference: -5.14 (9.61-4.47)

Philadelphia Metro victory difference: -0.88% (25.27-26.16)

So even though PA decreased its total democratic margin of victory, the Philadelphia market overall gained in democratic strength, not to mention 316,000 total (DEM+GOP) new voters.
On another note, the Philly 5-county area grew by 0.66% as a total of the total PA electorate (33.08-32.42).  I remember Philly.com saying it was close to 40%, so I am guessing that is based purely on total population, including nonvoters.

The fact that the Philadelphia market as a whole increased in strength (both in voters and margin) should be another good indicator that Obama should cakewalk.

Allegheny, Lehigh and Erie also increased in strength (the only other counties to go for the dems in both 2000 and 2004 that showed increased DEM strength in 2004...all the rest showed declines).  Yes, the same can be said on the opposite side of the spectrum for the GOP with most, if not all remaining counties in PA
But just look at the data:
*those 8 counties I just mentioned account for 49% (!!!) of the PA electorate, and with the tracking polls indicating increased democratic strength from democrats, there is no reason to believe that these margins of victories will hold or increase.
*during the PA primary Obama won 7 counties (Phila, Delaware, Centre, Chester, Lancaster, Dauphin, Union).  Of those 7, 5 were ones that did NOT go for Kerry (Phila and Delware went for Kerry) .  And of those 5, only 1 of them showed more GOP primary votes than DEM primary votes (Union).  Granted, the GOP primary was pretty much over by the time the polls opened, it is interesting none the less.  The vote count during the primary was certainly no where near the totals for those counties for the 2004 election, so I am not going to say Obama will win those counties (he probably won't) but he should be able to decrease the margin of GOP victory given his purported strength there.
*PA democratic registration dwarfs PA republican registration.  I wonder how they account for the deceased, but if there were massive numbers of dead people registered the registration numbers would be astronomical, so my guess is as good as any that they must clean up the deceased.  So I don't think the deceased have any effect here, so these are some genuine numbers.  OK OK, a lot of lazy people probably didnt change their party affiliation back to IND or GOP after the Apr 22 primary, but I still don't think that would change the outcome (that being a DEM registration advantage)


I can go on and on, but just looking at the decreased margin of victory in PA during the partisanized election of 2004 is not the only thing you should be looking at to indicate how PA will go.


No one actually believes PA will go +10.  Even I am amazed by the numbers.  But +10 isn't the point.  The point is that +10 isn't an outlier rather it is part of the trend, a trend that should indicate to McCain that PA is so deep in the DEM tank that he is wasting time and money.



+8 isn't exceptionally solid?  What?  +8 is the highest Obama has been in the national tracking poll, even higher than after he won the primaries (+3ish according to 538.com).  Hell, even McCain was never a +8.  I can't see data prior to January (as if that has any effect today) but he was, at best, a little over a +4.  +8 is definitely solid.
The question is not whether +8 is solid, because it is definitely solid...solid enough to be affecting predictions from various websites including Pollster.com, Intrade.com, 538.com, etc.  The question is whether it will hold.  +8 is definitely solid.  Bush was at a +9 prior to the election...definitely solid...but it tightened as election day neared.

[J. J.]

You have not realized that if Obama were really up by ten points, he would not have to worry about turnout specifically in Philadelphia.

Bush's margin increased in 2004 and Obama's track record is not particularly good here. 

I'm also well aware that if PA were +10 points up, Obama wouldn't need to be in the state.

Ah, they don't.  They show about 8 points nationally.  That isn't exceptionally solid, unless it holds.  So why is Obama, if everything is fine in PA, coming into PA?  If he wants to go to a close state, why not FL, VA, or GA.  Why is campaigning so strongly in PA, if everything is fine?

Dude, the only reason Obama is actually campaigning hard in PA is because McCain is stubbornly continuing to campaign hard.  And, the majority of that campaigning is coming in the Philadelphia area, mostly deep within the city itself (Palin in NE Philly, Palin at the Flyers game, Palin for a jog in an Eagles jersey, etc. etc.).  Obama would be a fool to a) campaign well outside Philly given McCain's focus on campaigning in the city, and b) not campaign in PA all considering PA is the last Kerry state McCain is actually maintaining a campaign.

Tokar, under your logic, Obama should start campaigning in MA it McCain goes there, and should go to DC if McCain is there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except, while the campaign pulled, the RNC hasn't.

This is a university poll, far from the best university poll in PA, so that alone should raise questions.  That Obama is trying to boost himself in Phila, and Biden in Scranton is an indication that his own polling is telling something different.

[tokar]

You have not realized that if Obama were really up by ten points, he would not have to worry about turnout specifically in Philadelphia.

Bush's margin increased in 2004 and Obama's track record is not particularly good here. 

I'm also well aware that if PA were +10 points up, Obama wouldn't need to be in the state.

Ah, they don't.  They show about 8 points nationally.  That isn't exceptionally solid, unless it holds.  So why is Obama, if everything is fine in PA, coming into PA?  If he wants to go to a close state, why not FL, VA, or GA.  Why is campaigning so strongly in PA, if everything is fine?

Dude, the only reason Obama is actually campaigning hard in PA is because McCain is stubbornly continuing to campaign hard.  And, the majority of that campaigning is coming in the Philadelphia area, mostly deep within the city itself (Palin in NE Philly, Palin at the Flyers game, Palin for a jog in an Eagles jersey, etc. etc.).  Obama would be a fool to a) campaign well outside Philly given McCain's focus on campaigning in the city, and b) not campaign in PA all considering PA is the last Kerry state McCain is actually maintaining a campaign.

Tokar, under your logic, Obama should start campaigning in MA it McCain goes there, and should go to DC if McCain is there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except, while the campaign pulled, the RNC hasn't.

This is a university poll, far from the best university poll in PA, so that alone should raise questions.  That Obama is trying to boost himself in Phila, and Biden in Scranton is an indication that his own polling is telling something different.

So what?  So what if its a university poll.  Who determines that University poll is bad?
Question:
Polls in OH have recently all been favoring Obama.  Just look at all the polls in October here on USEA.  It was at the point that USEA colored it pink.  It was also at a point where it was red, albeit briefly.
However, a poll from a University, from UofCincy came out showing McCain +2.

So under your same argument, you must be discounting it because it is "a university poll", right?

So I guess you discount polls from Suffolk University and Quinnipiac University under this same argument.


Dude you can't just throw out a poll because you don't like its results.  Its one thing if this tracking poll is showing results which differed from the current non-tracking polls in PA.  But it isnt.  The non-tracking poll average is +10 (or more) for Obama while the tracking poll shows +10 (or more).

Now mind you, because the tracking poll is a running average a slip in the non-tracking polls will be delayed by a couple days, but any slip will eventually be shown in this tracking poll.  And I'm sure when the poll starts slipping you won't be trashing this tracking poll.




So the RNC is there, big deal.  The news made the rounds on CNN, FNC, MSNBC, etc. and I'm sure all the local stations in Michigan.  You think these people actually believe that McCain is not completely out?  If people are as easily swayed into believing that Obama is a terrorist or a muslim than they can be easily misled into believing McCain has bailed.  I don't know why he made that announcement, it was dumb and now Michigan is pretty much a safe DEM win.



If McCain had unlimited time and unlimited funds he definitely could campaign in certain states that are considered safe DEM and make things interesting.  New York?  California?  Washington?  Oregon?  Whats to say he couldn't make it interesting in these states?

Just look at 2000 vs 2004 (excluding MA since Kerry makes it a home state advantage):
NY 2000: +25
NY 2004: +18
CA 2000: +12
CA 2004: +10
IL 2000: +12
IL 2004: +10
NJ 2000: +16
NJ 2004: +6
DE 2000: +13
DE 2004: +8
MD 2000: +16
MD 2004: +13
CT 2000: +17
CT 2004: +11
RI 2000: +29
RI 2004: +21
HI 2000: +18
HI 2004: +9

Theres nothing to say that McCain cant campaign in these otherwise "safe" states and make them interesting based on these numbers.
Similarly, theres nothing to say that Obama can't campaign in traditionally "safe" GOP states and make them interesting.  See: GA, MT, ND, NC, WV, IN, VA.  And don't give me "IN and VA were never safe GOP states"...yes they were safe.  What Democrat in their right mind figured Gore or Kerry ever had a chance in VA or IN?

McCain doesn't campaign in these states because he has neither the time or resources to spend the time necessary to make these states interesting.

You make it seem like these states never went blue (USEA red) before, which is certainly not the case.

[Tender Branson]

Sunday, October 12:

Obama 51 (-1)
McCain 39 (-1)

[J. J.]

So what?  So what if its a university poll.  Who determines that University poll is bad?

The bulk of the posters here, including our one professional pollster.

Most of us look at track record and if the pollster has a good record.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you would have read my posts, you would have noticed that I questioned that poll beccause] it was a university poll.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just answered that question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely with Suffolk.  Q is good in some states, but not PA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It really seems that you cannot comprehend what I'm saying.  Re-read it slowly, or have someone read it to you.

[Tender Branson]

Monday, October 13:

Obama 51 (nc)
McCain 38 (-1)