Pennsylvania

[War on Want]

Okay, since everyone on the board seems to disagree about Pennsylvania I think it would be cool to get a fairly detailed analysis about the demographic outlook of the state and politics. How much will the suburbs trend towards Obama this time around, will they trend towards him at all? How will Dauphin County vote this time around? How is Obama looking in Pittsburgh and around Erie?

[Keystone Phil]

PN?

Obama will do well in the Philly suburbs but not as well as one would think. He's going to struggle in Bucks because of the strength of the local GOP and his total disconnect with Lower Bucks. He'll win Montco, Delaware and Chester by a few points respectively.

Dauphin will still go McCain even though Obama will benefit from better results in and around Harrisburg.

Pittsburgh is going to be a lot like Philly - strong because of black turnout but the white, working class voters are going to be a problem. Same thing around Erie.

[The Mikado]

From the trends, demographics, etc., I think Obama ends up winning with a Kerryesque margin.  3-5% win, and I'm leaning towards the lower end of that margin.  However, I'm presuming the national popular vote to be somewhere between +2 for Obama and +1 for McCain.  If it falls somewhere outside that window, throw my prediction out.

[KeyKeeper]

Only time will tell how PA will play out.

[J. J.]

In the "T" McCain could beat Obama by 40%+.  Republican candidates have done that.

South West PA will probably go McCain but I don't the margin.

In the South East, McCain could possibly do as well as Bush in 2004 , if not better.  I think he might actually run slightly better in Phila itself than Bush in 2004.

The question will be the margins.

Southeast PA Counties: Phila, Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, Bucks, Berks, Lehigh, Northampton.  (any county that touches a county that that touches Phila or Delaware.)

Southwest PA Counties:  Allegheny, Lawrence, Butler, Westmoreland, Fayette, Wahington, Greene, Beaver, Armstrong.  (Any county that touches Beaver, Allegheny, or Washington).

The "T":  Everything else.

I have PA as a tossup, but leaning Obama.  That was prior to Palin.

[Politico]

Philadelphia alone will put Obama over the top in Pennsylvania. Pennslyvania and Michigan will be locked up for Obama after the debates, shifting a lot of attention towards Ohio, Missouri and Florida.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Butler, Armstrong, and Westmoreland are Solid McCain. They all went to Bush by strong margins, and have been trending Republican for a long time now.

Greene flipped in 04, and will stay that way with McCain.

Fayette has flipped, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Beaver and Washington are likely flips (not quite as strong as Fayette, but close.)

Allegheny will likely go Obama due to the Influence of Pittsburgh, but I'd lean toward a 55%-45% margin at the most. Most likely a 53%-47%.

How on earth people think Obama can make up lose kind of losses in Philly is beyond me.

The Democrat model has always been get demolished in the T while eeking out just enough in Western PA and Philly to make up the difference.

If you take Western PA out of the equation, you find it very difficult to make up the ground in Philly. (Unless you are going to kick in the vote fraud machine into epic proportions.)

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, people make the mistake of thinking that Philly alone = PA win. You have to take Philly by a massive margin AND Western PA by a decent amount.

[Ronnie]

Philadelphia alone will put Obama over the top in Pennsylvania. Pennslyvania and Michigan will be locked up for Obama after the debates, shifting a lot of attention towards Ohio, Missouri and Florida.

What makes you think that Obama will win the debates so handily?

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Especially considering that Obama got trashed in the first debate type format that has been held already. (Saddleback)

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, people make the mistake of thinking that Philly alone = PA win. You have to take Philly by a massive margin AND Western PA by a decent amount.

I predict we're looking at a record turnout and record margin of victory in Philadelphia. That will be enough when you consider that native son Biden will help the ticket fare at least as well in western PA as Kerry/Edwards four years ago.

[Torie]

I just don't see where the McCain margin is coming from in Pennsylvania. It just doesn't pencil. Of course, with the bounce ... if it lasts ... keep hope alive!  I also don't detect a big swing to McCain vis a vis Bush among down market whites in the state. Whatever.

Maybe some guru who is good with the numbers can enlighten me.

Regarding Philly, are not the Dems already awesome in getting blacks to turn out and vote?  How many are left to round up, vis a vis 2004?  In fact, in 2004, in most black precincts in Philly, the turnout was awesome (101% in one precinct but that probably was an entry error).

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At some point you run out of voters. 80-19 with huge turnout was stretching it on 04, how on earth you going to top that enough to concede the Southwest to McCain?

[Politico]

Philadelphia alone will put Obama over the top in Pennsylvania. Pennslyvania and Michigan will be locked up for Obama after the debates, shifting a lot of attention towards Ohio, Missouri and Florida.

What makes you think that Obama will win the debates so handily?

It's going to be JFK Vs. Nixon all over again. It doesn't matter who wins on substance because Obama will kill McCain on style. McCain will look and sound like the old, outdated candidate he is. On top of that, Obama will probably have some great new material that may end up dumbfounding McCain like Bush was dumbfounded in his first debate with Kerry. If that happens, watch out - the election will swing dramatically in Obama's favor.

Ultimately, this election is about change. It's what the vast majority of the electorate is looking for. I predict they are not going to think a 72-year-old man is the choice for agent, the agent of change, after seeing him up on that stage debating Obama. As a result, I think Obama will pretty much have the "blue/bluish purple" states all locked up after the debates. Obama will no longer need to defend Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. That means McCain will be left scrambling, trying to defend states like Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. My bet is on Obama winning at least a few of these states, and therefore the election.

[Ronnie]

Philadelphia alone will put Obama over the top in Pennsylvania. Pennslyvania and Michigan will be locked up for Obama after the debates, shifting a lot of attention towards Ohio, Missouri and Florida.

What makes you think that Obama will win the debates so handily?

It's going to be JFK Vs. Nixon all over again. It doesn't matter who wins on substance because Obama will kill McCain on style. McCain will look and sound like the old, outdated candidate he is. On top of that, Obama will probably have some great new material that may end up dumbfounding McCain like Bush was dumbfounded in his first debate with Kerry. If that happens, watch out - the election will swing dramatically in Obama's favor.

Ultimately, this election is about change. It's what the vast majority of the electorate is looking for. I predict they are not going to think a 72-year-old man is the choice for agent, the agent of change, after seeing him up on that stage debating Obama. As a result, I think Obama will pretty much have the "blue/bluish purple" states all locked up after the debates. That means McCain will be left scrambling, trying to defend states like Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. My bet is on Obama winning at least a few of these states, and therefore the election.

I don't remember Obama beating Hillary so much on style in the debates.  Don't forget, Obama tends to studder A LOT in debates.

Frankly, neither Obama nor McCain are that great in debating, and I don't think that one would completely massacre the other one like Reagan vs. Carter.

[Politico]

Philadelphia alone will put Obama over the top in Pennsylvania. Pennslyvania and Michigan will be locked up for Obama after the debates, shifting a lot of attention towards Ohio, Missouri and Florida.

What makes you think that Obama will win the debates so handily?

It's going to be JFK Vs. Nixon all over again. It doesn't matter who wins on substance because Obama will kill McCain on style. McCain will look and sound like the old, outdated candidate he is. On top of that, Obama will probably have some great new material that may end up dumbfounding McCain like Bush was dumbfounded in his first debate with Kerry. If that happens, watch out - the election will swing dramatically in Obama's favor.

Ultimately, this election is about change. It's what the vast majority of the electorate is looking for. I predict they are not going to think a 72-year-old man is the choice for agent, the agent of change, after seeing him up on that stage debating Obama. As a result, I think Obama will pretty much have the "blue/bluish purple" states all locked up after the debates. That means McCain will be left scrambling, trying to defend states like Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. My bet is on Obama winning at least a few of these states, and therefore the election.

I don't remember that Obama beat Hillary so much on style in the debates.  Don't forget, Obama tends to studder A LOT in debates.

Frankly, neither Obama nor McCain are that great in debating, and I don't think that one would completely massacre the other one like Reagan vs. Carter.

Short of McCain blowing a gasket or being completely befuddled a la Bush 2004, neither one will completely massacre the other one like Reagan Vs. Carter. With that said, we will have a Clinton Vs. Dole scenario. McCain is going to look old and tired up against the youthful Obama just like Dole looked old and tired up against Clinton in '96.

Let's face it: 72-year-old men should be basking in retirement in Florida, not running for president. People are going to clearly see that this guy is too old when he's up on a stage failing to keep up with the youthful Obama, the fresh candidate of change.

[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

[Ronnie]

Philadelphia alone will put Obama over the top in Pennsylvania. Pennslyvania and Michigan will be locked up for Obama after the debates, shifting a lot of attention towards Ohio, Missouri and Florida.

What makes you think that Obama will win the debates so handily?

It's going to be JFK Vs. Nixon all over again. It doesn't matter who wins on substance because Obama will kill McCain on style. McCain will look and sound like the old, outdated candidate he is. On top of that, Obama will probably have some great new material that may end up dumbfounding McCain like Bush was dumbfounded in his first debate with Kerry. If that happens, watch out - the election will swing dramatically in Obama's favor.

Ultimately, this election is about change. It's what the vast majority of the electorate is looking for. I predict they are not going to think a 72-year-old man is the choice for agent, the agent of change, after seeing him up on that stage debating Obama. As a result, I think Obama will pretty much have the "blue/bluish purple" states all locked up after the debates. That means McCain will be left scrambling, trying to defend states like Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. My bet is on Obama winning at least a few of these states, and therefore the election.

I don't remember that Obama beat Hillary so much on style in the debates.  Don't forget, Obama tends to studder A LOT in debates.

Frankly, neither Obama nor McCain are that great in debating, and I don't think that one would completely massacre the other one like Reagan vs. Carter.

Short of McCain blowing a gasket or being completely befuddled a la Bush 2004, neither one will completely massacre the other one like Reagan Vs. Carter. With that said, we will have a Clinton Vs. Dole scenario. McCain is going to look old and tired up against the youthful Obama just like Dole looked old and tired up against Clinton in '96.

Let's face it: 72-year-old men should be basking in retirement in Florida, not running for president. People are going to clearly see that this guy is too old when he's up on a stage failing to keep up with the youthful Obama, the fresh candidate of change.

People look at things other than age.  They look at policies and their character as well.  McCain will be just as prepared as Obama, and I think it will be just another boring old debate.  Obama, not for one moment, looked young and fresh compared to Hillary in the debates, and that is simply because he can read from a teleprompter miles better than bringing something up on the spot.  He studders, looks unconfident, says "uh" a billion times in a sentence while debating.

[J. J.]

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

Republicans in general are making inroads in SW PA.  I can remember where it was good if a Republican presidential nominee lost Westmoreland County by less than 10,000 votes.

[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.)

[Torie]

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.)

McCain either needs to cut pretty deeply with down market whites, or carriage trade seculars (RINO's now Dems since the Democrat primary has become meaningful now in Montco and envirions, or RINO's, or cafeteria RINO's), or a combo of the two, or it is curtains in PA. I keep saying that, but I can't get anyone yet, to say, you know, that is very perspicacious of you! 

[J. J.]

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.)

McCain either needs to cut pretty deeply with down market whites, or carriage trade seculars (RINO's now Dems since the Democrat primary has become meaningful now in Montco and envirions, or RINO's, or cafeteria RINO's), or a combo of the two, or it is curtains in PA. I keep saying that, but I can't get anyone yet, to say, you know, that is very perspicacious of you! 

I want to see some polling.  The Palin choice could play very well in PA, especially with "down market whites."  Conversely, it might not help enough.

[TeePee4Prez]

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.)

McCain either needs to cut pretty deeply with down market whites, or carriage trade seculars (RINO's now Dems since the Democrat primary has become meaningful now in Montco and envirions, or RINO's, or cafeteria RINO's), or a combo of the two, or it is curtains in PA. I keep saying that, but I can't get anyone yet, to say, you know, that is very perspicacious of you! 

I want to see some polling.  The Palin choice could play very well in PA, especially with "down market whites."  Conversely, it might not help enough.

Biden definitely outdoes Palin in PA though moreso in the East. 

I do this economics and the War will outdo the black-white issue in the end, but not entirely.

[Keystone Phil]

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.)

McCain either needs to cut pretty deeply with down market whites, or carriage trade seculars (RINO's now Dems since the Democrat primary has become meaningful now in Montco and envirions, or RINO's, or cafeteria RINO's), or a combo of the two, or it is curtains in PA. I keep saying that, but I can't get anyone yet, to say, you know, that is very perspicacious of you! 

I want to see some polling.  The Palin choice could play very well in PA, especially with "down market whites."  Conversely, it might not help enough.

Biden definitely outdoes Palin in PA though moreso in the East. 

I do this economics and the War will outdo the black-white issue in the end, but not entirely.

You really overstate Biden's appeal.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.)

McCain either needs to cut pretty deeply with down market whites, or carriage trade seculars (RINO's now Dems since the Democrat primary has become meaningful now in Montco and envirions, or RINO's, or cafeteria RINO's), or a combo of the two, or it is curtains in PA. I keep saying that, but I can't get anyone yet, to say, you know, that is very perspicacious of you! 

I want to see some polling.  The Palin choice could play very well in PA, especially with "down market whites."  Conversely, it might not help enough.

Biden definitely outdoes Palin in PA though moreso in the East. 

I do this economics and the War will outdo the black-white issue in the end, but not entirely.

You really overstate Biden's appeal.

I think many Republicans are overstating Palin's appeal.  She's like a one-hit wonder.  She's everywhere and everybody truly loves here.. and then she fades away just as fast as she came into the spotlight.