Talk Elections

Obama - 53
McCain - 41

800 adults were interviewed 10/21/08 and 10/22/08. Of them, 716 were registered to vote. Of them, 620 were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely to vote in the 11/04/08 general election. The McCain campaign may believe that it can only win the White House if it wins PA, and cannot win the White House if it loses PA. The state's 21 electoral votes have a prominence that is possibly greater than in any previous election.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=e72fd556-4693-4af0-ac74-e2b4d2c8ea27

kind of hard for McCain's plan to work the way things are going here...

At the rate McCain is gaining, he'll probably overtake Obama in February 2009 ...

Forget this poll. The important thing is the two Democrats I talked to who said they're voting McCain. Anecdotal evidence trumps all!

Karl Rove says Obama is only up by 2%! I believe him!

don't forget the bradley effect, BRTD.

McCainomentum! It's blatanly obvious. :P

I don't believe Rove and I don't he said +2.

He said he saw an internal poll that showed Obama ahead by only 2%.

Honestly guys, this is what McCain has to work with.  I don't think he's under the hidden delusion that he has a very strong shot at the state.

I though that was a supposedly leaked Obama poll?  Do you have a link?

Lunar, what part of "I don't believe Rove," and "I think Obama carries PA," are you having a problem with?  :)

I do believe Rove though.  I think PA is about 8% and Obama is 5-7% ahead nationally, like Rove said.  I think McCain is relying on PA as his central strategy though (so we disagree there).  I mean, Christ, today the RNC announced they are cuttnig their McCain ads from Colorado, and they're the rich guys!

Early voting is killing McCain there

I thought he just said "achievable single digits" of course he did say he had "the math" that Republicans were going to hold the house and senate in 2006.

How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie rolls center of a toostie pop?...

Err...how many polls does it take until McCain gets the picture?

LOL

And he keeps going with this. I've only spoken to two Dems for McCain? You are too clueless, pal.

It doesn't matter how many it is, it's anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal evidence is never ever valid.

Except I've observed the Democratic ground game, know people in their local organization, know the general feelings of people around and have been backed up by these people/local Democratic leaders/local media but that still means nothing.

Meanwhile, everyone else here can point out some "brilliant" article saying that Indiana is in play and that's the gold standard.

The polling indicates that Indiana is in play.

Republican 41% (35%): McCain 73% (76%); Obama 22% (19%)

Democrat 52% (54%): McCain 18% (18%); Obama 78% (79%)

Independent 6% (10%): McCain 33% (35%); Obama 54% (53%)

Conservative 31% (25%): McCain 75% (81%); Obama 19% (15%)

Moderate 44% (39%): McCain 31% (32%); Obama 63% (63%)

Liberal 18% (16%): McCain 11% (11%); Obama 88% (84%)

(denotes SUSA, Oct. 11-13, 2008)

Internal push poll maybe.

Did you know.... Barack Obama may have been a muslim, supports the killing of born babies, may not be an American citizen, opposes protecting our children from sex offenders, and pals around with terrorists?

For President - John McCain or Barack Obama.

and still a 2% race?  eek.

Supposedly one of Obama's internal polls said it was +2.  Several of the more recent same to same polls have shown a decline in Obama's numbers, from 2 to 7 points.

Are you going to release something like this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=48619.0) on Election Day ?

Just curious ...

Dude, there was one poll that showed Obama up 7. The rest have been double digits.

There has not been a single public poll that has showed Obama only winning the state by 2 points. That is your own wishful thinking, based on conservative talk radio hearsay.

You saw one poll that showed Obama's numbers decreasing, from a Republican pollster, and now you think you see a trend.

Your act couldn't be any more transparent. Your analysis of trends are based on nothing more than your own wishful thinking.

That was a classic.

Note the underlined word supposedly.  Also, it's now a same poll to same poll drop in three polls, Strategic Vision, Survey USA, and Quinnipiac University.  I'd like to see some really good polls of PA, but there has been some erosion on three polls.

I'm not changing my prediction of Obama winning PA, but it is closing.

where is your prediction?

Just got back from Scranton, had dinner with a few local Republican activist and party hacks.
All are voting Obama and said everyone they know is doing the same.

Safe Dem.

I think this was the earliest.  Now, I think it will be a lot closer than the polling (before this last set says).

Michigan is not close. And that's just the most glaring part of that prediction (which might've been semi-grounded in reality at the time but is not now.)

It was.  I made that prediction about a month ago.

Id like to see a full USEA Prediction map if you dont mind.

USEA?

You can actually see me still unwilling to call PA on the above cited theread.

Here is an earlier one, with states still out:


The full prediction is there.  I don't change it once posted.

So yes, you still think Michigan is in play. Ha ha ha ha ha.

On 9/11 yes.  On 9/23 no.

USEA = USElectionAtlas.

Heres the link: https://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDENT/2008/pred.php?action=step2

Put your money where your mouth is...not hard to fill it out.

It seems a bit weird that Obama's only leading by 3 in the southwestern part of the state and yet he's leading by 12 overall.  I guess his huge margins in the southeast should make up for it, but it still seems a bit weird.

Its called the Pennsylvania formula.

Win 80%+ of the vote in Philadelphia.
Win 60%+ of the vote in Pittsburgh (Allegheny Co.)
Win 50%+ of the vote in the Philadelphia suburbs (Montgomery, Bucks, Chester, Delaware)
Win 50%+ of the vote in Erie
Perform well in the counties of East Pennsylvania, north of the Philadelphia market (Lehigh, Northampton, Berks)
Perform OK in the counties surrounding Pittsburgh (Westmoreland, Washington, Beaver, Fayette, Greene)

Game over.


And in Obama's case, he seems poised to perform well in the central parts of PA, around Harrisburg (as evidenced by the PA primary).

The 80% margin is low for Phila.  Doing "okay" is meaningless without an actual percentage.  Even a 50% win, just barely over 50% in the Phila 'burbs would probably lead to a loss in the state.

Obama is not winning Philly with more than 80% of the vote.

Sure about that statement?

You are just making this too easy for me.

Assuming "Philly burbs" to mean Montgomery, Chester, Bucks and Delaware:
2000:
Gore won the Philly burbs with just 51% of the vote (Bush was at 49%).  Gore won Pennsylvania
2004:
Kerry won the Philly burbs with just 53% of the vote (Bush was at 46%).  Kerry won Pennsylvania


So, you want to rethink that statement again?



Earth to Phil.
Gore won Philadelphia with 80.04% of the vote.
Kerry won Philadelphia with 80.44% of the vote.

Gore winning 80% is not surprising, but KERRY winning 80% in 2004 is a surprise.  If Kerry can win 80%, then Obama should have no problem winning 80%.

Still waiting on those USelectionatlas prediction maps J.J and KeystonePhil.

It takes 5 minutes (not even) to fill out: https://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDENT/2008/pred.php?action=step2

Oh, man. I wish I could be as simplistic as you. "If Kerry and Gore can do it than Obama obviously has no problem!"

Considering that Obama is polling much better than Gore or Kerry...

Put your money where your mouth is:
https://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDENT/2008/pred.php?action=step2

No, 53% came close to losing the state for Kerry.  Bush also gained a bit over a percentage in Phila.

  Something between 20%-25% in Phila has been the tipping point in PA for the Republicans. 

You've seen the post, that is all you will be getting.

He still won it.  Period.  If 53% in the burbs equates to  win, then Obama should have no problem winning PA because he will be besting that 53%.

Ugh...chicken...I get it.  Dont like to have your predictions on a record which can be ridiculed.  I get it...

No, my predictions are posted and were in September.  The link has been posted and I've referred to it repeatedly.  If you can't understand that, then you are just not that bright.

Now, 53% in Montco barely gave Kerry the state, with sizable wins in Delco and Phila.  Obama to carry PA, really needs to do better than 75% in Phila.  I think he will.

It'd actually be a fairly impressive achievement for Obama to win PA by 9-13 percentage points while simutaneously failing to breach 80% in Philly county.

He has to win PA by 9-13 points first.  :)

I know what you wrote, I've seen what you wrote.  You are predicting a 269-269 tie (Kerry states + IA + NM + CO - NH for Obama, all the rest for McCain).
Its one thing to say it on these forums for the posts to just disappear into the depths of the forum.  Its another to put it in color and make a USElectionAtlas prediction map so people can comment.

Why can't you just admit you comment was inaccurate?  "...just barely over 50% in the Phila 'burbs would probably lead to a loss in the state".  Kerry was just barely over 50% and he won PA, ditto for Gore.

You didn't read it that well, because my prediction was for McCain to win CO, ultimately.

Because "barely 50%" isn't a number.  In some of the suburban counties Kerry had 57% Delco and won by 42,000 (rounding down), Montco by 46,000, Buck by 9,000, and those are just the inner suburbs.  If Bush lost them, barely, by a few hundred votes, Kerry's margin drops by 97,000 votes.

Kerry only gets 75% of the vote in Phila, he's lost another 38,000.  That is 135,000 of his total.  Kerry had a 145,000 margin in the state, so you are reaching the tipping point.

Than you have to do things like hope Kerry doesn't drop by 2 points in Westmoreland, Erie, Lancaster, Lackawanna, York and Dauphin.  None of those flip a single county.

Just over 50% of the Phila suburbs, coupled with about 75% in Phila would probably lead to a loss of PA for any Democrat.  Now, I think Obama carries PA and passes this benchmark.

Still predicting McCain to win Colorado and ignoring everything in the past month is not principled, it is idiotic. Then again, consider the source...

BRTD, I don't change my predictions.  I regard it as cheating.  Anybody can look at at polls one week and change them later.  I don't ignore current treamds, but I'm not like Zogby, or apparently you, either.

I don't understand why one prediction, made from looking at polls (in part, I assume) is superior just because it was made at an arbitrary time.

That just means it's more risky and subject to event changes (more fun!), and more likely to be wrong for self-limiting of data (more useless!)

I didn't say superiour, just that once predicted, I don't change it.  I predicted NJ for Bush last time, which was wrong.  I could tell it was wrong two weeks after I made it, but the prediction was still made.

For me, it's more fun to make the prediction in September.

ahh.

So, sometimes, your predictions are different from what you currently believe will happen?

That's confusing, but also explains a lot.

How is it cheating? Obviously, the situation changes in the month before the election. Taking anything that happens then into account is perfectly logical. I don't see how changing one's prediction based on polls is anything like Zogby, who rather changes his POLLS based on what he thinks will happen, which is dishonest. But changing one's prediction based on what legitimate pollsters say is simply common sense.

I could probably predict the weather with 95% accuracy for 6:00 PM today.  That isn't fun.  I like having to predict things six weeks away where I really have to jump to some unwarranted conclusions.  I'd rather be 80% right 6 weeks out than 95% right a week before.

There is a difference between truly predicting and reporting.

Well your decision is rather dumb.

Just look at the Alaska Senate race for example.  6 months ago or whenever one decides to make a prediction, you would say its a strong Stevens hold, or even one month ago you might say a slight Stevens hold.  But now, Stevens was found guilty and it completely changes the dynamic of the race.  Maintaining a prediction of strong or lean Stevens wouldn't be wrong, it would be downright idiotic.

Of course this isn't a discussion about Senatorial races...but you get the point.
Maintaining that McCain would win New Hampshire after predicting such 1 month ago, in your case for example, is rather dumb.  McCain has since pulled back in ad spending and the polls have heavily tipped in Obama's direction.


Furthermore, if you consider changing predictions cheating, then you sir are a cheater:

On September 11 you said:
"McCain wins everything west of a state bordering the Pacific, except NM an CO."

On September 23 you said:
"I've since given CO to McCain."

No it was originally an academic assignment, way back in 1980.  It had to be in well before the election.


You'll note that on 9/11, I hadn't made any assignment of CO.  I did not say Obama will win CO.  It was still out, and that was actually one of my last states.

So if McCain doesn't win Colorado, and Obama doesnt win Colorado, are you predicting Bob Barr or something?


On another note, on September 11 you said Obama won't win PA, and now you are saying he will.