PA PrimD: Public Policy Polling: Obama Leads PA by 4%

[Sam Spade]

Numbers-wise, polling companies with large swings typically translates into lack of weighting (see e.g. Gallup, SUSA).  But then again, I really don't know much about PPP's methodology - have they made it specific to you, Alcon-fascist?

[Sam Spade]

Numbers-wise, polling companies with large swings typically translates into lack of weighting (see e.g. Gallup, SUSA).  But then again, I really don't know much about PPP's methodology - have they made it specific to you, Alcon-fascist?

They use a tighter voter screen than SUSA.  That may suggest that a lot of the voters SUSA is picking up for Clinton are what I'll call "potential voters" -- ones that PPP eliminates from their sample.  I think PPP has a similar screen to Rasmussen though.

Thanks - helps a bit.  I think I see what is going on here now.

[Sam Spade]

Numbers-wise, polling companies with large swings typically translates into lack of weighting (see e.g. Gallup, SUSA).  But then again, I really don't know much about PPP's methodology - have they made it specific to you, Alcon-fascist?

They use a tighter voter screen than SUSA.  That may suggest that a lot of the voters SUSA is picking up for Clinton are what I'll call "potential voters" -- ones that PPP eliminates from their sample.  I think PPP has a similar screen to Rasmussen though.

Thanks - helps a bit.  I think I see what is going on here now.

Want to fill me in, then?  'Cause I can see numerous scenarios going on here (although I think a lot will involve turnout of the rural working-class, who I'm guessing are not excited right now).

In fact, I think turning this campaign negative may have turned those voters off and lost Clinton a decent number of votes.  Double-edged sword.  Only a guess.

My comment was meant to be specific to this poll, not to polling of PA at large.  You may be right on the other, but I don't see anything really that specific to indicate such.

[Sam Spade]

My only real support for that (it's more theorizing ) is that the undecideds have not gone down in the last few days as they tend to.  But that could simply be projection, or coincidence, or just general tomfoolery.

Example?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course.

[Sam Spade]

I don't recall where I read this, Pollster.com I believe, but the PA primary polls are finding:

1. More undecideds than previous polls
2. A lesser rate of deciding in the last few days

They adjusted for different methodologies and all.

But damned if I can find the reference.  I'm reasonably sure I saw it though.

Ok, I believe you.  Of course, the RCP index says the opposite.

I wish in my comments I could be more vague or confusing.  I will try more often.

[Sam Spade]

Sorry, I'm really sick right now and it's reflecting in my posts.  I'm not actively trying to be vague.

I don't see anything on the RCP index relating to undecideds.  Not even their chart includes undecideds.  Would you mind a link to whatever you're seeing?

Well, the chart shows a slight uptick in both sides' numbers over the past week.