PA-SurveyUSA: Obama remains 12 points ahead of McCain

[tokar]

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?

[tokar]

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%.

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.

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.

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?

[tokar]

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%.

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.

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.

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?

Four states close:

VA, NH:  Goes McCain

MI, PA:  Goes Obama

CO:  Tossup.

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

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

[tokar]

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:

States out:  NH, PA, MI, CO, and NM.

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

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.

[tokar]

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).

[tokar]

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.

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?

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

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%.

[tokar]

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

[tokar]

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%.

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

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

[tokar]

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

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...

[tokar]

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

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.

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.

[tokar]

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.

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."

[tokar]

Well your decision is rather dumb.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.