PA-PPP: Clinton 41 Trump 40 Johnson 6

[Seriously?]

Glorious result. And not a junk poll!

PA is in play and Hillary! is in potential trouble because of that. But then again, PA always teases.

But we're sticking with Crooked Hillary! is a terrible candidate and Trump has Reagan Democrat appeal in the Northeast.

Tie Tie Tie!

[Seriously?]

Glorious result. And not a junk poll!

PA is in play and Hillary! is in potential trouble because of that. But then again, PA always teases.

But we're sticking with Crooked Hillary! is a terrible candidate and Trump has Reagan Democrat appeal in the Northeast.

Tie Tie Tie!

Keep telling yourself that. Good luck with your fool's gold rush.

Honestly, I am not shocked at that result with where the race is at right now. Trump does have appeal to the so-called Reagan Democrats and there are a good number of them in PA. The state skews older.

With that said, I have no doubt that PA will be a battleground this cycle. Whether Trump can take it is open for debate. PA has proven elusive for many a Republican candidate.

[Seriously?]

Glorious result. And not a junk poll!

PA is in play and Hillary! is in potential trouble because of that. But then again, PA always teases.

But we're sticking with Crooked Hillary! is a terrible candidate and Trump has Reagan Democrat appeal in the Northeast.

Tie Tie Tie!

Keep telling yourself that. Good luck with your fool's gold rush.

Honestly, I am not shocked at that result with where the race is at right now. Trump does have appeal to the so-called Reagan Democrats and there are a good number of them in PA. The state skews older.

With that said, I have no doubt that PA will be a battleground this cycle. Whether Trump can take it is open for debate. PA has proven elusive for many a Republican candidate.

If you actually read the poll, the entire reason this is tied is Sanders supporters, not Regan democrats.

I read the poll. If you could likewise re-read my comment, I clearly stated that I am NOT shocked with where this poll is based on the state of the race right now. I do think PA will legitimately be a tossup state in this cycle given the overall dynamics of the state, which trends older. There is an opportunity here, especially with Hillary!'s comments about coal miners in Western PA, that Trump could cash in on.

Time will tell what happens with the Bernie Bros, who could go to Hillary!, Trump, Stein or stay home on election night.

Nowhere did I say or intimate that Trump has this state on lockdown, just that this poll was a reasonable result of the state of the race right now and not junk by any means.

[Seriously?]

Glorious result. And not a junk poll!

PA is in play and Hillary! is in potential trouble because of that. But then again, PA always teases.

But we're sticking with Crooked Hillary! is a terrible candidate and Trump has Reagan Democrat appeal in the Northeast.

Tie Tie Tie!

Disqualified from talking about politics. good day sir.

Sorry if my analysis has your feelings hurt, but it's true. Trump performed very well with that group in in the PA primary. The profile is older, Dems or Indies that are blue collar and voted for Reagan in the 1980s.

Hillary!'s missteps about coal miners will come back to bite her in the general in states like PA, KY, OH and WV. I don't have to accept that the 15% here that wouldn't vote for Hillary! is JUST disaffected Bernie Bros.

[Seriously?]

I don't really understand people getting so bent out of shape over a single poll. 

Because Trump is supposed to be the worst thing since moldy sliced bread to the red avatars on here.

The reality of where the LV polling is would have PA close. I expected a result like this.

As I have stated (and gotten ridiculed on here), PA is a state where NE "Reagan Democrats" a/k/a white, older blue collar workers could very well come back home to the Republican party and keep this state in the tossup camp.

[Seriously?]

You are being mocked because white older blue collar workers were not the "Reagan Democrats" in the 80s. And the actual Reagan Democrats are mostly consistent Republicans now or dead.

I am being mocked because I do not agree with your left wing spin on the "Reagan Democrat" definition. Turn on any mainstream news analysis of PA/the NE/Trump campaign. They are saying the exact same thing as I am. The profile of a "Reagan Democrat" remains the same: white, blue collar, older, sometimes more socially conservative (in a state like PA) that typically votes Democrat.

There are plenty of them in NE PA, where on a statewide level, pro-life Democrats have been elected to state office.

Only on Atlas, is junk that they are spewing on Vox, Salon and the rest of the truly partisan left-wing press considered as gospel.

[Seriously?]

This isn't a left wing or right wing issue. It's about facts. And citing those clowns in the mainstream media Atlas loves to mock doesn't help your case here.




So...how did all those blue collar voters in western Pennsylvania vote? Even NE Pennsylvania wasn't all that strong for Reagan, he only won Lackawanna one time and by a pretty weak margin compared to his statewide and nationwide numbers. Meanwhile in 1984 Reagan broke 64% in Montgomery county. Most of those blue collar Democrats actually did not vote for Reagan.

The actual Reagan Democrats were mostly conservadems in the South, who are now consistent Republican voters today, or inner suburbanites who were fearing crime and racial tensions. There isn't really a comparable bloc of voters today.

But that's not even the biggest issue with the term. Because most Reagan Democrats whether they returned to the Democratic Party or not later are now either in retirement homes or dead. The youngest someone can be in 2016 and have voted for Reagan is 50, and that means you cast your first vote in 1984, not a lifelong Democrat who crossed over for Reagan. So most blue collar workers ANYWHERE didn't vote for Reagan, they simply weren't old enough. It's been 32 years since the guy was on a ballot anywhere.

It's time to move on and quit trying to define blocs of voters as defined by a 32-year old election, whether those definitions are accurate or not. People weren't still talking about "LBJ Republicans" during Reagan's time, and that was a more recent election than 1980 or 1984 is to today. This term was already effectively meaningless by Bill Clinton's second term, the fact that it's still in use today is sheer insanity.

No one is saying that "Regan Democrats" had to vote for Ronald Reagan. We are basically talking about older, white, blue collar, lower-middle class, socially conservative folks that generally pull the lever for Democrats in counties like Luzerne in Pennsylvania.

It's an argument in semantics whether to call them "Reagan Democrats" or "Trump Republicans" at this stage in the game. Trump has shown a proclivity to bring those type of voters into his camp. Most of these voters reside in the NE in more rural areas of Pennsylvania, New York, etc.

[Seriously?]

If we're talking about blue collar swing voters then why not just call them "blue collar swing voters" instead if this insanely moronic and inaccurate term?

Because they are the same profile of voter up North that haven't assimilated into the Republican Party and haven't really voted Republican in that regard since Reagan in 1984 or Bush (on Reagan's goodwill) in 1988? The term fits if counties like Luzerne flip to the Republican side in this election.

[Seriously?]

If we're talking about blue collar swing voters then why not just call them "blue collar swing voters" instead if this insanely moronic and inaccurate term?

Because they are the same profile of voter up North that haven't assimilated into the Republican Party and haven't really voted Republican in that regard since Reagan in 1984 or Bush (on Reagan's goodwill) in 1988? The term fits if counties like Luzerne flip to the Republican side in this election.

Why is Luzerne County, which at most gave Reagan 53.5% of the vote which was significantly below his national numbers so much of a Reagan Democrat stronghold but Montgomery county which gave Reagan 64.2% of the vote not one?

The term doesn't fit because the people of the profile you're describing about for the most part did not vote for Reagan. The people who did vote for Reagan but then voted Democratic afterwards were not like older blue collar socially conservative people AT ALL, and they don't make up any actual voter bloc today.

Hell Ford actually did better in comparison to his national numbers in Luzerne County in 1976 than Reagan did in 1984. So did George HW Bush in 1988. There's no evidence Reagan had any type of special appeal or personal following in Luzerne County.

Ummm. It's because of the shift in areas like that which allowed Reagan to win in 1980 and complete an utter butt kicking of Mondale in 1984.

If I learned anything from watching the Trump campaign in this cycle, he's mimicking what Reagan did in 1980, even down to the slogan "Make America Great Again." It's the exact rough profile of a voter that he wants to attract to defeat the Democrats this cycle.

[Seriously?]

If we're talking about blue collar swing voters then why not just call them "blue collar swing voters" instead if this insanely moronic and inaccurate term?

Because they are the same profile of voter up North that haven't assimilated into the Republican Party and haven't really voted Republican in that regard since Reagan in 1984 or Bush (on Reagan's goodwill) in 1988? The term fits if counties like Luzerne flip to the Republican side in this election.

Why is Luzerne County, which at most gave Reagan 53.5% of the vote which was significantly below his national numbers so much of a Reagan Democrat stronghold but Montgomery county which gave Reagan 64.2% of the vote not one?

The term doesn't fit because the people of the profile you're describing about for the most part did not vote for Reagan. The people who did vote for Reagan but then voted Democratic afterwards were not like older blue collar socially conservative people AT ALL, and they don't make up any actual voter bloc today.

Hell Ford actually did better in comparison to his national numbers in Luzerne County in 1976 than Reagan did in 1984. So did George HW Bush in 1988. There's no evidence Reagan had any type of special appeal or personal following in Luzerne County.

Ummm. It's because of the shift in areas like that which allowed Reagan to win in 1980 and complete an utter butt kicking of Mondale in 1984.

If I learned anything from watching the Trump campaign in this cycle, he's mimicking what Reagan did in 1980, even down to the slogan "Make America Great Again." It's the exact rough profile of a voter that he wants to attract to defeat the Democrats this cycle.

Yeah that's just not true. I showed that earlier.  Luzerne County was not a notable stronghold for Reagan.

You are looking at it the wrong way. A slight shift in the percentages turns a state from D to R. A 5-6% swing in Luzerne would deliver PA for the Republicans. No one is expecting a double-digit gain in these types of elections. It's more subtile than that.