Pennsylvania

[Brittain33]

Since people are talking about SW Pa. again, let me repost this link to an article in the L.A. Times with former Hillary supporters in Uniontown, Pa., a coal town southwest of Pittsburgh and far out from the city. It got drowned out by the "as goes NE Philly, so goes the country" talk. What response? Write this off because McCain will pick off these voters in the end?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-women7-2008sep07,0,7702239.story

[Brittain33]

What about the fact that the Democratic edge in registrations in Pennsylvania over Republicans is up by more than 500,000 from 2006 to 2008? Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 600,000 the day that Santorum lost by almost 20 points, and now it's up by 1.1 million.

We know that registration rough numbers often are deceiving, but does anyone want to argue that this number is meaningless because more than a half-million of those people are Hillary voters who are now going to vote for McCain--on top of all the Hillary-McCain voters who were registered Dems prior to 2006. (I'm sure there's some bad assumptions there, but you take the point. This number is a bad sign for Republicans, the only debate is how much of a bad sign it is.)

[Brittain33]

J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections:  "When a politician or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group."

Don't be so mean to Phil.

[Brittain33]

PA has gone for the Dems every election for 20 years and the Dems just gained 4 congressional seats in the state. I really don't see PA swinging GOP.

That's an excellent way to analyze a Presidential race. Way to consider all other relevant factors.

Your analysis is based on extrapolating from conditions in one small part of the state and handwaving about numbers. I think looking at four congressional districts, a senate race, 20 years of history, and registration trends is superior to talking to older white Democrats in your neighborhood when we know McCain is doing disproportionately well among old people anyway.

[Brittain33]

I love how you can discredit that McCain is doing "disproportionately well" among older people, saying it is almost meaningless...in the state with the second highest senior population in the country.

There's no way I can respond to this without insulting your intelligence, so I'll ask you to read it again, taking into account the words "we know" and asking yourself if that means I'm "discrediting" anything.

[Brittain33]

You're brushing off that white seniors are important enough to swing the state.

I'm quoting the polls as showing that. You're brushing off the polls because of anecdotal evidence that is likely already calculated in.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Based on what, other than that's what you'd like to believe? Seriously?

[Brittain33]

Well then you tell me - who makes up that insane number of undecided voters? If Obama was leading in PA with over 50% of the vote, I'd concede the point. However, the guy is usually stuck around 45%.

I have no idea, but that's a more defensible answer than assigning them to a specific age and party group, unless the polls are broken down that way.

Surely some Pennsylvania polls have cross tabs showing undecideds by age and party.

FWIW, African-Americans regularly poll much higher undecided numbers than the general population.

[Brittain33]

FWIW, African-Americans regularly poll much higher undecided numbers than the general population.

You really think that's the case this year?

It was in the primaries. I haven't looked at cross-tabs in the general.