PA: Rasmussen: Obama up 13 in PA

[Boris]

What part of "I've predicted a PA victory for Obama," are you having a problem understanding?

Not by 13 and not by double digits.

This ain't a 50-50 election anymore. Double digits really isn't a stretch at all (in fact, it should theoretically be expected) when Obama is leading by eight points nationally in Rassy's tracking poll.

[J. J.]

What part of "I've predicted a PA victory for Obama," are you having a problem understanding?

Not by 13 and not by double digits.

This ain't a 50-50 election anymore. Double digits really isn't a stretch at all (in fact, it should theoretically be expected) when Obama is leading by eight points nationally in Rassy's tracking poll.

There is a fairly solid base which I think will be above 45% for either candidate, hence, not double digits.

[Lunar]

What part of "I've predicted a PA victory for Obama," are you having a problem understanding?

Not by 13 and not by double digits.

This ain't a 50-50 election anymore. Double digits really isn't a stretch at all (in fact, it should theoretically be expected) when Obama is leading by eight points nationally in Rassy's tracking poll.

That depends if the growth in his national margin is disproportional among certain demographics or not.

[J. J.]

What part of "I've predicted a PA victory for Obama," are you having a problem understanding?

Not by 13 and not by double digits.

This ain't a 50-50 election anymore. Double digits really isn't a stretch at all (in fact, it should theoretically be expected) when Obama is leading by eight points nationally in Rassy's tracking poll.

That depends if the growth in his national margin is disproportional among certain demographics or not.

That's part of it, but even in past elections, there is not a one to one relationship between the national and PA results.  (Believe me, I tried to find some relitionship.)

[Smash255]

What part of "I've predicted a PA victory for Obama," are you having a problem understanding?

Not by 13 and not by double digits.

This ain't a 50-50 election anymore. Double digits really isn't a stretch at all (in fact, it should theoretically be expected) when Obama is leading by eight points nationally in Rassy's tracking poll.

That depends if the growth in his national margin is disproportional among certain demographics or not.

That's part of it, but even in past elections, there is not a one to one relationship between the national and PA results.  (Believe me, I tried to find some relitionship.)

96 Dem +0.71%
00 Dem +3.66%
04 Dem + 4.96%

Umm....

[Nym90]

This election is just turning into a total piece of sh**t, as I lose money in stock market to boot. Boo! 

And you do realize there is a clear correlation between these two things?

That's the bad thing about being a Republican. Being happy about election results is always followed by your 401K going down the tubes. You can't win.

But look on the bright side; at least the opposite will be true as well.

[HardRCafé]

Prioritizing Pennsylvania over Michigan was even dumber than I thought.

[Verily]

Prioritizing Pennsylvania over Michigan was even dumber than I thought.

Next week we'll get the announcement that McCain is pulling out of Pennsylvania to focus all of his resources on Iowa.

[J. J.]

What part of "I've predicted a PA victory for Obama," are you having a problem understanding?

Not by 13 and not by double digits.

This ain't a 50-50 election anymore. Double digits really isn't a stretch at all (in fact, it should theoretically be expected) when Obama is leading by eight points nationally in Rassy's tracking poll.

That depends if the growth in his national margin is disproportional among certain demographics or not.

That's part of it, but even in past elections, there is not a one to one relationship between the national and PA results.  (Believe me, I tried to find some relitionship.)

96 Dem +0.71%
00 Dem +3.66%
04 Dem + 4.96%

Umm....

And your point is?

[Ronnie]

This election is just turning into a total piece of sh**t, as I lose money in stock market to boot. Boo! 

I lost around 75 grand in the stock market this past week.  I can't imagine what tough times I'm going to have when Obama is president.

[Keystone Phil]

Prioritizing Pennsylvania over Michigan was even dumber than I thought.

Why? Because we're "down thirteen" in PA as opposed to be "down ten" in MI?

[HardRCafé]

That's a pretty damn good reason for starters.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm gonna get trashed Thursday night whether Wake beats Clemson or not. What a depressing time. I wish I could sell my stocks before the cap gains goes up when Obama gets elected, but I have nothing left to sell!

[Keystone Phil]

That's a pretty damn good reason for starters.

...

Because of a three point difference in...what...one poll?

[Tender Branson]

Yay !

3.5 Mio. votes for Obama out of PA ...

[Nutmeg]

First, two of them are same poll.  Of those 4, two are University polls.  So we have two real polls.  SurveryUSA isn't that great.  Yes, I suspect it's less than 13.

In throwing away all the polls, you're breaking your own "rule."

What part of "I've predicted a PA victory for Obama," are you having a problem understanding?

Not by 13 and not by double digits.

No part, really, but you're incredibly incoherent in general, so as usual you just make things up to fit your vision of reality.

[HardRCafé]

That's a pretty damn good reason for starters.

...

Because of a three point difference in...what...one poll?

I've never understood why we don't get along, since we want the same candidates to win.  But all snark aside, serious question:  have you ever been right about Pennsylvania?  Your emotional bias seems to make you misgauge it by about twenty percent, and you go bananas at anyone who tries to tell you you're wrong.

Pennsylvania has been a waste of money at least the last twenty years.

[Kalimantan]

Why has McCain spent more on PA than any other state?

Is a good point that should be made again

[J. J.]

First, two of them are same poll.  Of those 4, two are University polls.  So we have two real polls.  SurveryUSA isn't that great.  Yes, I suspect it's less than 13.

In throwing away all the polls, you're breaking your own "rule."

What part of "I've predicted a PA victory for Obama," are you having a problem understanding?

Not by 13 and not by double digits.

No part, really, but you're incredibly incoherent in general, so as usual you just make things up to fit your vision of reality.

I think a poll 28 days out cannot be called "reality."  Now, I am predicting Obama, but not by double digits.  Some of that is based on looking at PA since 1984.

[riceowl]

What part of "I've predicted a PA victory for Obama," are you having a problem understanding?

Not by 13 and not by double digits.

This ain't a 50-50 election anymore. Double digits really isn't a stretch at all (in fact, it should theoretically be expected) when Obama is leading by eight points nationally in Rassy's tracking poll.

That depends if the growth in his national margin is disproportional among certain demographics or not.

That's part of it, but even in past elections, there is not a one to one relationship between the national and PA results.  (Believe me, I tried to find some relitionship.)

96 Dem +0.71%
00 Dem +3.66%
04 Dem + 4.96%

Umm....

And your point is?

probably that this may be indicative of a trend.  maybe.

[J. J.]

What part of "I've predicted a PA victory for Obama," are you having a problem understanding?

Not by 13 and not by double digits.

This ain't a 50-50 election anymore. Double digits really isn't a stretch at all (in fact, it should theoretically be expected) when Obama is leading by eight points nationally in Rassy's tracking poll.

That depends if the growth in his national margin is disproportional among certain demographics or not.

That's part of it, but even in past elections, there is not a one to one relationship between the national and PA results.  (Believe me, I tried to find some relitionship.)

96 Dem +0.71%
00 Dem +3.66%
04 Dem + 4.96%

Umm....

And your point is?

probably that this may be indicative of a trend.  maybe.

I've actually looked at the landslides of 1980 and 1984, and the closer race of 1988.  I believe in all three the winner under preformed in PA.  There is a "base" for both parties.

[opebo]

This election is just turning into a total piece of sh**t, as I lose money in stock market to boot. Boo! 

I lost around 75 grand in the stock market this past week.  I can't imagine what tough times I'm going to have when Obama is president.

Better, obviously, as the economy is always much better under a Democratic administration.

[Keystone Phil]

That's a pretty damn good reason for starters.

...

Because of a three point difference in...what...one poll?

I've never understood why we don't get along, since we want the same candidates to win.  But all snark aside, serious question:  have you ever been right about Pennsylvania?  Your emotional bias seems to make you misgauge it by about twenty percent, and you go bananas at anyone who tries to tell you you're wrong.

Pennsylvania has been a waste of money at least the last twenty years.

So your answer is to concede the state and basically concede the election? We would then have to play 100% defense and we'd definitely lose.

I don't go crazy if someone tries to tell me I'm wrong. It looks like I will be wrong about the state. However, that doesn't make you right for wanting to just write it off. I get pissed when someone like yourself doesn't have a nice thing to say about anyone here and every post of yours is filled with sarcasm.

[Tender Branson]

The music at the current McCain-Palin event in PA is amazing:

"Gonna take you
Right into the Danger Zone
Highway to the Danger Zone"

[TheresNoMoney]

Better, obviously, as the economy is always much better under a Democratic administration.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Higher economic growth, lower unemployment, higher wage growth, and better stock market performance. History over the past 100 years bears this out to be true.