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

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

New Poll: Pennsylvania President by Public Policy Polling on 2008-04-20

Summary:

Obama:	47%
Clinton:	43%
Other:	0%
Undecided:	10%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

Q1 The Democratic candidates still running for

President are Hillary Clinton and Barack

Obama. If the primary was today, who would

you vote for? If you would vote for Hillary

Clinton, press 1. If for Barack Obama, press 2.

If you’re undecided press 3.

Clinton.................... .43%

Obama................... .47%

Undecided.............. .10%

Q2 (Asked only of those who said undecided in

Q1) Would you say that you are leaning toward

voting for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? If

you are leaning toward voting for Hillary

Clinton, press 1. If you are leaning toward

voting for Barack Obama, press 2. If you’re still

completely undecided, press 3. Respondents

who picked Clinton or Obama in Q1 were

coded as null for Q2.

Clinton................... 3%

Obama .................. 2%

Undecided............. 5%

Null........................ 90%

[Alcon]

Last poll 4/15

Obama 47% (+2)
Clinton 43% (+1)

[Padfoot]

this poll has an enormous sample size in comparison to most of the others.

[Eraserhead]

I'm pulling for you, PPP. But I'm not betting on you.

[J. J.]

PPP was right on in WI, and wrong nearly every place else.  I'm not counting on it.

[Verily]

PPP was right on in WI, and wrong nearly every place else.  I'm not counting on it.

Texas: C+6, actual C+4
Ohio: C+9, actual C+10

There's a reason people have said they've been good. They have.

[Alcon]

PPP was right on in WI, and wrong nearly every place else.  I'm not counting on it.

You're confusing them with some other pollster.

PPP's lone mistake so far was underestimating Obama in Georgia.  I'm betting this will be the second one, but they've been stellar so far.

[Verily]

Going back otherwise...

NY: C+12, actual C+17
GA: O+10, actual O+35
TN: C+11, actual C+13
SC: O+20, actual O+29

One problem they did have for some of the Feb 5 states was that Edwards was still included in their polls (in NY and TN). And they were bad at dealing with the black vote in the South, apparently. Then again, all of their Feb 5 polls were conducted almost a week before the election.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The concern that exists with them regarding PA is more the wild swings seen in their polls of late rather than their past record.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Still 10% undecideds in these polls. I still say Obama's ceiling is about 44% in PA. He hasn't polled above that in any of these polls. Clinton will win 55-44 or so.

[Alcon]

The concern that exists with them regarding PA is more the wild swings seen in their polls of late rather than their past record.

Yes.  They swung a good deal beforehand too, but this is very worrying.  But they were not "wrong nearly every place else."

It's also possible that they got one totally whacked sample and then corrected it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The concern that exists with them regarding PA is more the wild swings seen in their polls of late rather than their past record.

Yes.  They swung a good deal beforehand too, but this is very worrying.  But they were not "wrong nearly every place else."

It's also possible that they got one totally whacked sample and then corrected it.

Note that I'm not the one trying to rubbish them here!

[Alcon]

Statistically, SurveyUSA and PPP are ranked first and second on my favorite pollster ratings.  Who shall triumph?!

[Verily]

Anyway, comparing internals. SUSA in red, PPP in blue

Race
White: 81 | 76
Black: 14 | 18

I'll give this one to PPP; as Alcon pointed out, 22% of Kerry voters in PA in 2004 were black.

Gender
Male: 45 | 42
Female: 55 | 58

I give this one to PPP, reflecting exit polls in other states. But paradoxically this would imply that Obama does better with more women involved, obviously not true.

Age
Unfortunately, they broke down age groups differently, so these will be listed separately.

SUSA
18-34: 21
35-49: 29
50-64: 28
65+: 21

PPP
18-29: 16
30-45: 25
46-65: 35
65+: 24

Ironically, the one area where they broke down the numbers the same way, the 65+ range, PPP had more voters. So, again, Clinton's most favorable demographic was actually larger with PPP than with SUSA!

Region
Northeast: 11 | 9
Southeast: 43 | 45
South: 10 | 10
West: 7 + 4 | 10
Southwest: 24 | 26

SUSA divided West and Northwest in their numbers; PPP did not. PPP is marginally more regionally favorable to Obama, but not in a way that could explain more than a fraction of a percent of difference. As both are so close to each other, I'll call it a tie.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Considering they have a pretty good track record, I'm holding out a little hope.  And that hope is anywhere from an Obama upset to Clinton by 5.

[Verily]

In conclusion to the above, the chief difference between SUSA and PPP appears to be actually finding different results, not using different base demographics.

For example, PPP finds a six-point margin among elderly voters (seven with leaners); SUSA has Clinton ahead by thirty among those older than 65. But such numbers are unreliable as the margin of error is quite large, although the MoE is smaller on PPP's crosstabs because of a very large sample size.

I would be inclined to put my dollar with SUSA simply because they agree with the conventional wisdom, but PPP being accurate would not be a complete surprise. (Of course, they could also split the difference with a virtually tied result.)

[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?

[ChrisFromNJ]

Anyway, comparing internals. SUSA in red, PPP in blue

Race
White: 81 | 76
Black: 14 | 18

I'll give this one to PPP; as Alcon pointed out, 22% of Kerry voters in PA in 2004 were black.

Gender
Male: 45 | 42
Female: 55 | 58

I give this one to PPP, reflecting exit polls in other states. But paradoxically this would imply that Obama does better with more women involved, obviously not true.

Age
Unfortunately, they broke down age groups differently, so these will be listed separately.

SUSA
18-34: 21
35-49: 29
50-64: 28
65+: 21

PPP
18-29: 16
30-45: 25
46-65: 35
65+: 24

Ironically, the one area where they broke down the numbers the same way, the 65+ range, PPP had more voters. So, again, Clinton's most favorable demographic was actually larger with PPP than with SUSA!

Region
Northeast: 11 | 9
Southeast: 43 | 45
South: 10 | 10
West: 7 + 4 | 10
Southwest: 24 | 26

SUSA divided West and Northwest in their numbers; PPP did not. PPP is marginally more regionally favorable to Obama, but not in a way that could explain more than a fraction of a percent of difference. As both are so close to each other, I'll call it a tie.

Whites break towards Hillary 52-38 in PPP's poll, and 58-36 in Survey USA's poll. Blacks break towards Obama 81-12 in PPP's poll while they break 87-11 to Obama in SurveyUSA's poll.

If Hillary gets 60% white support, than it will be very hard for Obama to win the state. If there is higher than expected black turnout and the turnout is closer to 20%, than Obama can come close. SurveyUSA has black turnout at 14% and PPP has black turnout at 18%. If the black turnout is what PPP predicts it will be, Obama has a chance to win the state by a razor-thin margin if the white undecideds break his way.

However, it looks very unlikely.

[Alcon]

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.

[Verily]

PPP actually hasn't had much of a swing in their polls, either, certainly not anything I'd call wild, save for their C+26 poll at the beginning of the PA campaign to O+2 thereafter.

[Democratic Hawk]

South-Central appears to be the region to watch for any sign of a close race-cum-photo finish. The aggregate for SUSA and PPP, in South-Central, is Obama 47.5% - Clinton 44%

Dave

[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.

[Alcon]

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.

[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.

[Alcon]

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.

Shouldn't Zogby be crapping a new poll soon?