home

SUSA PA Internals

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:38:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

The SUSA's internals.

Whites make up 81% of the vote, A-As 14% of the vote. But SUSA has Obama making real inroads into the white vote. It now is a 22 point spread (previously a 30 point spread), 58-36. The A-A vote is, predictably, 87-11 Obama.

Here's the deal, if the white vote breaks 62-38 (assuming a 4-2 break among the white undecided for Clinton), she wins by about 8 or 9, assuming a split among "other voters." If it is less or more than that, it will be almost a one to one percentage change in the result. Almost all undecided voters in the SUSA poll are now white voters.

< Scared Of An Image Of bin Laden? | Pennsylvania Registered Dems: By The Numbers >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA PA Internals | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This strikes me as odd (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:44:06 PM EST
    SUSA says:

    Of the 1,800 adults interviewed for this survey, 1,594 were registered to vote. Of them, 710 were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely to vote in the presidential primary.

    Also, they cut the polling hours due to Passover:

    SurveyUSA stopped interviewing at 6 pm on Saturday night 04/19/08 and 6 pm on Sunday night 04/20/08. Normally SurveyUSA would have continued calling later on both nights, as SurveyUSA did in the 4 previous PA tracking polls.
    This is a very good point.... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Oje on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    For working class people as well. Whether they are at work, or running weekend errands because of their long workweek, they will not be home until after 6pm in many cases. This SUSA poll is not comparable to their previous polls. They have changed the methodology substantially.

    If you pull strings with SUSA, you should request a crosstab of Clinton-Obama support in previous surveys conducted before 6pm. Every interview is date and time stamped. SUSA could approximate the kind of error in today's survey report by providing internals on how support for the candidates varies with the date and time of interviews.

    Parent

    Beautiful day (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by honora on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    Saturday was an amazingly beautiful spring day.  I can imagine that lots of people were out doing stuff  until after 6pm.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#41)
    by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    I was knocking on doors on both Saturday and Sunday and very few people were home. It was a stunning day.

    Parent
    The Jewish vote could potentially matter (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    in Philly and suburbs, but they wouldn't make a huge dent. In the event, I think SUSA's methodology looks fine.

    Parent
    But the point is different (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    They stopped calling EVERYBODY at that time.

    Parent
    I don't know enough about habits (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    to say who that might leave out.

    Parent
    I don't either (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:48:01 PM EST
    But it is a major change in methodology. I understand why they did it but it is an real asterisk.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:50:16 PM EST
    What we know is that even the exit polls won't be very useful tomorrow--they don't know any more about demographic turnout than we do.

    We'll have to wait for the votes to be counted to know the margin.

    Parent

    Maybe the Sat. nite bowlers :) (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by nashville on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:50:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Fyi, some polling places will be different (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:51:50 PM EST
    too, because of Passover, so I read -- those usually in synagogues will be at different sites tomorrow.

    This could cause confusion in some neighborhoods.  Similar situation happened in mine in Wisconsin -- where the site had been a church, but many Jewish neighbors complained, so it was moved for the primary . . . but to a site without good access, especially for people with disabilities, so it was moved again in April elections, with more confusion.

    Parent

    The calling hours is interesting (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:45:11 PM EST
    The likely voter model part seems standard to me.

    Parent
    Includes both Rs and Ds? (none / 0) (#35)
    by ineedalife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:16:57 PM EST
    Was the 710/1594 (44.5%) turnout between both Democrats and Republicans? What is the Democratic turnout estimated to be?

    Parent
    Isn't it a closed primary? (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:22:11 PM EST
    They would have to be registered Dems to have any effect on polling I would think?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#40)
    by ineedalife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:34:07 PM EST
    But these numbers project an almost 100% turnout.

    Parent
    I don't imagine her doing it (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    But I really wish she'd put more effort into improving the AA vote by addressing racism.  I mean she should forcefully call Obama or KO on any statement about negativity and soundbite politics with a rebuttal that points at race-baiting...for example the Clinton/Mandela smear.

    The 87-11 spread should not be so predictable, and should never have become so predictable in other states.  It represents one of the more disturbing aspects of this primary when one considers that clinton/obama have similar ratings from the NAACP , the ACLU ratings, and the NCJA (yes I know the NCJA is problematic, i'd love a more leftish CJ org).

    But ANYTHING she says on race (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:54:38 PM EST
    will be misconstrued, deliberately, by the media and Obama.

    She is stuck on this one. The AA's made up their minds a long time ago.

    Parent

    maybe i'm naive (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:20:02 PM EST
    But

    "You know, Bill Clinton is [insert witty remark husband-deprecating remark].  But a husband saying he'll stand by his wife does not make him a racist.  And that's what was circulated back in [whenever SC memo went out on mandela].  [Pause for frothing KO] But remember, my NAACP rating is 97, and it's been from [X to X] for years.  So these attacks on my campaign and fear mongering with the AA community, which has always been a core constituency for me [poll numbers in NY], are as negative as you can get."

    Parent

    no no no (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    A politician who has made statements that were widely perceived, rightly or wrongly, as race-baiting, should never tell those offended people that they are wrong about it.  That's just as bad as Obama defending the offensive statments made about small town people.  Everyone is aware that the Clintons are not racist and have an earned affinity among AAs.  The problem is that the Clintons have now been portrayed as two people who will do anything, including betraying AA's and taking their votes for granted, for political gain.  She can't counter this with "Everyone knows that I love black people and I'm being smeared as a racist.  Even the NAACP knows!"  It just won't work.  An offended group of people don't need to be educated and talked down to (like Obama has with his cling bitter statement).  The damage is done.  She just needs to apologize (which she's done and done well.) and move on.  I thought the Rev. Wright stuff was a great way to mend this, but she went the wrong way with it.  Obama has so many other shady associates that she could have pretended to be understanding of Rev. Wright or at least be mum about it like she was initially, and attack him about Rezko or Ayers or whoever.  If any more racist charges come up or if a questioner tries to hold her accountable, she should just say what she said at the State of the Black Union - I'm sorry if I or Bill has offended anyone.  That was not my intention.  Blah blah.

    For what it's worth, I think both camps have race-baited, and they both suck for it.  Completely reckless, they are.  And don't get me started on those crazed Obama supporters who liken Hillary to a slave owner and try to find hidden racist messaeges in her tv ads.  This is why I don't think we are a very socially mature nation.  Not when it comes to women's issues or black issues.

    Parent

    Consider why I chose the example I did (none / 0) (#80)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:51:21 PM EST
    Hillary is in a quadruple bind with race and gender issues.  And the example I selected was one that allowed her to dance along the gender issue and point out the ridiculousness of the charges without getting into interpretations.

    Clinton's mandela comment wasn't widely played and bumps up against expectations about husband/wife situations.  It doesn't easily bump up against "clinton doesn't understand the black perspective" or force someone to change views -- because most people wont have heard it.  You're right that she can't tell people that they are wrong/misinterpreted (she cant pull a WORM), but what she can do is point out dirty tactics and place seeds of doubt/questioning in what people hear from talking heads.  

    Parent

    What was the mandela comment? (none / 0) (#82)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    I used to know, but this campaign season feels like it's been going on for years and I'm forgetting things!

    Parent
    it was (none / 0) (#86)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:14:05 AM EST
    if clinton had to choose the best person by his side, he would choose hillary, despite knowing great leaders like mandela.

    Parent
    No, you're not naive... (none / 0) (#38)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:23:03 PM EST
    and if she had done that right away, it might have worked.

    Or maybe, if she's the nominee, she can do something like that to reach out to the AA community.

    I honestly think she was flummoxed by the aggressiveness and success of Obama's race-baiting. A definite mistake by her campaign.

    Parent

    agreed (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:11:39 PM EST
    she was in a triple(?) bind

    Media made defensive racial discussion seem off limits.  And any defense discussion by clinton is seen as whining or attacking (sexism).

    But they really should have gambled earlier on and addressed either the race or sex issue--a possible short term hit should have helped reframe the discussion.  Problem is that delivering that message would take a lot more preparation than a weekend (her speech gaffes would not have been as tolerated as the obama ones).  But being constrained by both has really destroyed their chances, so it would have been worth the effort.

    IMHO, the wright timing was perfect for obama with that month+ window.  The day after the Mississippi primary...perfect.  Wasn't that FoxNews?  Maybe they were just scared of it being branded a last minute hitjob.  They need not have worried considering the nytimes ran the infamous KKK=3am  op-ed on the 11th.

    Parent

    Rev Wright (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:24:13 PM EST
    I consider Rev Wright to be a real goofball, but I get him - I think most African American's do.  She could have made it easier for her to gain AA votes as the nominee if she had backed off that controversy during the last debate.  I was dissappointed in the way she handled it.  Instead, she pressed the issue.  That was stupid, from my point of view.  She would have gotten lots of points if she had been more gracious with Wright.  Just a simple "It is my own personal decision that he wouldn't be my pastor.  Everyone can make that decision on their own." would have been okay.  I wouldn't expect her to be as understanding about it as Huckabee was, but still.  I couldn't help but think, "You don't get black people.  Obama does."

    Parent
    That was exactly her response (none / 0) (#66)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:25:44 PM EST
    until the ABC "moderators" brought up Wright.

    Parent
    She should have stuck with that response. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:50:26 PM EST
    Maybe I'm not remembering accurately, but I remember cringing when the moderators asked her to respond to the Wright situation.  She just pressed the issue.  

    Parent
    Depends on which SD you ask. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:55:24 PM EST


    So, if I understand BTD correctly (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by barryluda on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:07:01 PM EST
    the two things to watch in PA are:

    First, how the white vote breaks out between them; and

    Second, the percentage of A-A voters who vote.

    So what, if anything, can happen today / tonight that moves the needles on either of those?  It'll be interesting to see what they each do on TV tonight and how that impacts these two levers.  I can't imagine what either can do at this late date to change the second lever.

    read Sheila Jackson (Tex), and the mayors were (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:17:38 PM EST
    criss crossing PA on her behalf this past weekend; not all 100. So she's got some loyal AAs. She would of had them this time too if Obama was of another hue.

    Parent
    Good question (none / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:39:35 PM EST
    but I don't see what happened in the past couple of days to move the needle either?

    Parent
    Problems with Poll (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:41:17 PM EST
    It's all probably MOE, but with regard to the time/day issue, the obvious demographics changes in the available data that I saw:

    the 65+ group is the lowest of any percentage of the past 4 polls (21/24/24/24)

    the 18-34 is the highest of the last four polls
    (21/19/19/19)

    ALSO, the big surprise is that the poll shows that Obama destroyed hillary's substantial lead in health care. His record is: 47/37/32/38.  Negative ads work.

    Dang. Well, we can kiss universal health care (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    goodbye. Thanks Obama and your Harry and Louise ad. I will never ever forgive him unless he wins the GE and does a complete reversal on health care.

    Parent
    But our cars with run on pure, sweet (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    corn ethanol.

    Parent
    *will* (none / 0) (#67)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:26:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Fear mongering (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:16:10 PM EST
    See, now I see Obama's health care ad as being the real fear mongering happening in this campaign. His Harry and Louise tactics DISGUST me as a health care voter, and he is trying to scare people, just like the insurance companies tried to scare people. And yes, he succeeded. I spoke to one woman this weekend who was for Clinton because of health care but then she got confused by what Obama was saying about it and it took awhile to explain it to her. I hope it worked.

    Parent
    I"m so upset about this (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    that I'm just not rational. How can they betray us like this? My family needs universal health insurance, we can't afford to pay what we're paying and keep our home and buy groceries and pay for gas. We just can't afford it, something has to give. How can half the Democratic party just abandon us like this? It's like they don't see us at all, like we don't exist. If she gets out, I feel like we've got no one left to speak for us, to fight for us.

    Parent
    We are going to have to (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Foxx on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:13:36 PM EST
    fight for it ourselves.

    I am completely disgusted with Obama and his democratic party supporters over this, they have abandoned us and party principles.

    Parent

    i agree (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    i'm at the point where i'd have to sell my car to afford the dental work i need to work for free in the peace corps.  there is something horribly fubar with that situation.

    not to mention that an independent analysis shows billions in economic savings with no decrease in quality of care if we switch to a single payer system (8 billion savings the first year in CA alone, including illegals, dental, eye/visions--and I think that's a very conservative number in the longer run).  I cannot believe that not only are they not pushing single payer, but they aren't even strongly pushing universal care.  

    Don't they realize it's not only unethical, but it's also bad for the economy not to cover workers in mass?  Bulk coverage and standards saves money.  Not to mention that hospital trips, lost time spent worrying about rent/mortgage or juggling bills, and time spent sick because deductibles are too high or you can't afford coverage all cost more than preventive care.

    Parent

    SDs and margins (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    I don't think that the overall margin means that much tomorrow.  The SDs will be looking at the exit polls, not the margins -- they already know that Obama would draw a huge number of AA voters to the polls in November -- what they don't know, and need to see, is that Obama can connect with middle/working class non-AA voters.

    Obama got only 34% of the white vote in Ohio.  SUSA has him at 36% now.  2% more after having seven weeks to get the job done against a candidate with such high negatives as Clinton isn't going to cut it.  

    And while its true that Obama didn't have "everything" (media, momentum, money) going his way in Pennsylvania like he did in Ohio, I don't think that will matter to the SDs.  Most of Obama's wounds have been self-inflicted, and those that weren't self-inflicted were vulnerabilites that Clinton had never bothered to exploit, but that the GOP most certainly will.

    And the Ohio polling has to have the SDs scared to death.  (all SUSA polls) In late February, both Clinton and Obama were up by 10 points over McCain.  Polling that was done during the peak of the Wright controversy had Clinton up by 6, Obama down by 7 -- but there were anomolies in that polling that suggested that Clinton was still up by 10, and Obama down by only 3 or 4.

    Well, SUSA finally released a new poll, and Clinton is up by 11 over McCain, and Obama down by 2.  Obama was hurt, and hurt bad, by Wright, and his ensuing missteps have kept him where he was.  And worst of all, of the undecided 8%, almost all are white voters -- which Obama is losing in OH by 13 points.

    IMHO, if Obama doesn't hit 40% in the non-AA vote, there's going to be a lot of 'quiet' discussion about how to put Obama out of our misery, because it will mean that if the Dems don't do it, the GOP will.

    yeah, not a doubt in my mind that we are (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    losing in November. With the economy tanking and the war, I'm starting to believe the Democrats in power are perfectly fine with a Republican in the White House.

    Parent
    Another factor for the SDs (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    Latest from talking head on Fox (leave me alone) David Peliogose (sp) Suffolk University Research Center...  now at 44%

    20% will jump ship to vote for McCain.
    4% will vote for Nader.
    20% Undecided.

    What's worse is the Clinton supporters are still much more likely to vote for McCain.

    24% of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.
    14% of Obama supporters will vote for McCain.

    Parent

    People who value experience (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:16:20 PM EST
    are going to vote for the most experienced candidate.

    This is what she was trying to say a long time ago. It's just the truth.

    Obama is an unknown. If I am an Independent/Repub who might switch to Dem to vote Clinton, I wouldn't necessarily switch for Obama.

    Of course, Obama has boasted for months and months that he doesn't need her supporters, and has done everything he can to alienate us, so many Dems are probably ready to switch to McCain as a protest.

    I can't believe anyone is surprised by this result.

    Parent

    this represents a major change (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:41:19 PM EST
    When I did my study on sexism and misogyny in the electorate based on the SUSA 50 state poll, I found that it was Obama supporters who would switch to McCain, not Clinton supporters.

    While a few women (net 1.6%, representing .9% of registered females) switched from Clinton to McCain, the big shift was among men.  A net 11.3% of men (representing 5.6% of voters) would switch from Obama to McCain.

    Overall, as a result, Obama got 4.7% more registered voter support than Clinton.

    (keep in mind that these are 50 state averages, and are not weighed by state population, but by demographic distribution.  So those percentages are not equivalent to the ones being cited above.  But the contrast between those numbers is stunning)

    Parent

    Paul - a few things... (none / 0) (#84)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:32:32 PM EST
    IMHO, if Obama doesn't hit 40% in the non-AA vote, there's going to be a lot of 'quiet' discussion about how to put Obama out of our misery, because it will mean that if the Dems don't do it, the GOP will.

    First off, I think he's going to be really hard pressed to get 38% of the white votes. I don't know at what point the number is that it hurts him but he clearly isn't going to get 40%.

    But he does get to replay this in Indiana but I think the result is the same.

    Moreover, KY and WV apparently will be demoralizing.

    But the last thing...you have to find better terminology than 'put him out of his misery'

    Parent

    WV and KY could.. (none / 0) (#85)
    by AX10 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:51:22 AM EST
    go for Hillary the same way many of those caucus's in the west went to Obama.
    She could get 70% in those two states.

    Parent
    Top Issues for Next President (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Cheryl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:01:39 PM EST
    Big difference in how the polled view the issues.

    Top four issues for Hillary supporters:

    Social Services 57%
    Economy 56%
    Terrorism 52%
    Health Care 50%

    Top four issues for Obama supporters:

    Education 73%
    Environment 69%
    Iraq 52%
    Health Care 47%

    Bottom four issues for Hillary supporters:

    Iraq 46&
    Immigration 39%
    Education 27%
    Environment 24%

    Bottom four issues for Obama supporters:

    Ecomomy 39%
    Social Services 36%
    Terrorism 32%
    Immigration 16%

    Education and the environment for Obama and social services and the economy for Clinton. Pretty striking difference and one which favors Clinton in my opinion.

    How do they separate social services from (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    health care, I wonder. Part of the same to me.

    As we can see, the Obama supporters don't care about social security and health care as much as our traditional Democratic voters do. That angers me and I wish they'd go start their own self-serving selfish party.

    I know I am generalizing but I have argued social security and health care with them and they do not care. They care about their high house payments and their student loans and their car payments. They do not care about old people and sick people.

    That polling data sickens and angers me far worse than any media bias/gender bias/race baiting, etc. and that is saying a lot.

    Parent

    Obama is a luxury vote (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    That's the way I've felt about him all along.  If you are living well, you can afford to take a flyer on a fad.  If the guy turns out to be a disaster so what.  You'll still be collecting a paycheck.  You can afford to be all earnest about the ice caps and saving the whales.  You've got time to get high on hope.  And you can afford to go to Europe, so you know you really want them to like you when you get there.

    Parent
    I think this is right on (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:46:18 PM EST
    And doesn't this describe Kos and others in the creative class to a T?  The Republican tent has not been as accommodating to the libertarians over the last several years.  They are looking for a new tent.  Economic regulation and social services are of minimal interest or relevance to them.  

    Where is the working class going to go if you don't give them the bread and butter?  You know the rational reason to vote Dem.  Well, I'd say right into the Republican tent.  At least they get a pat on the head, a chance to say God Bless America without being embarrassed about it, and a wedge issue or two over there rather than a condescending kick in the pants.  

    Parent

    Gone around the bend (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    I think I've finally reached saturation point with poll numbers and PA demographics, to the point where I actually feel like doing my real work.

    Never thought that would happen!

    Women's vote (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:40:39 PM EST
    is at 55 percent for Survey USA. I thought I remembered reading elsewhere that it could be 60 percent in PA, am I correct? Are they underestimating the women's vote? Though I guess it may not matter becuase I also suspect they are underestimating the African American vote...

    Good point (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:13:26 PM EST
    they could accidentally be right!

    Parent
    So we wait (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:44:09 PM EST
    I feel pretty strongly that SUSA has the wrong turnout model, and that AAs will be closer to 17%.

    My prediction for Hillary is down from yesterday.

    I am very skeptical (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:50:16 PM EST
    of your call on that.

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    And as a Hillary voter, I hope I'm wrong.

    But here's my reasoning again: in 2004 AAs constituted 13% of the electorate. But there are more AAs in the universe of Democratic primary voters than the general electorate. Not more on a Mississippi scale, but more nonetheless. I think they will turnout like they did in 2004, but they will represent a larger overall percentage.

    We shall see.

    Parent

    GOTV (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:55:29 PM EST
    Will probably have a lot to do with it.  The AA % will increase if the white voters don't also increase.  In California, the AA% actually dropped a bit because, in part, there was such a huge surge in Hispanic and Asian voters.  

    Parent
    I Should Add (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:57:33 PM EST
    That the reason I think AA voters might increase overall is that Obama seems to have put a lot of money and effort into trying to suppress her vote with the inevitability campaign followed by the negative ads.  The issue for me is whether Clinton will have a sufficient GOTV effort to re-invigorate part of her base by Tuesday.  

    Parent
    The AA turnout in Philly (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:57:54 PM EST
    is in the bank for Obama. You can count on that (I'd say he gets 400,000 votes out of Philly). So Hillary needs to turn out her vote.

    Parent
    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MaryGM on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    In fact, tomorrow there is an all-day "hip-hop voter summit" (whatever that means) taking place in Center City featuring everyone from Russell Simmons to Ciara.

    I think his AA turnout is going to be massive.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#42)
    by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:38:41 PM EST
    BUT, one interesting thing I did notice while doing visibility in NE Philadelphia is that many cars with African Americans honked and waved as they drove by, and a few even stopped to grab Hillary stickers. Now I fully expect that he will take 90 percent of the African American vote, but I did think that was interesting. I also know that Hill supporters had WAY more visibility at the Hip Hop event...

    Parent
    I Tend To Agree (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    Although I also think some white voters will come home to Clinton.  It's her numbers that have bounced around, his have stayed relatively stable.

    I'd guess Clinton by 6-10 points tomorrow would still be remarkable given that he's had seven weeks to focus on Pennsylvania, has spent record amounts on advertising and has outspent her multiple times over generally, has done a bus tour and a train tour, and has had the media repeatedly telling everyone that Clnton can't win.

    If that's right, I'm sure the Obama camp will try to spin it, but I doubt automatic delegates will find "by spending inordinate amounts of time and record amounts of money we were able to only lose by single digits" any more convincing than I do.  Unless we're going to have a different standard in the Fall where simply closing a gap in a state will get you the EVs.

    Both candidates need a win tomorrow, IMO.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by TalkRight on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:48:13 PM EST
    14% looks too optimistic for Hillary. With so much money being spent by Obama, this looks more and more scary. If it does increase the AA Voter turnout and depresses the White Voter turnout.. Obama might get his wish fulfilled.. a very close finish indeed. :(

    Parent
    Any turnout expectations or projections (none / 0) (#3)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    that are reliable or valid? The weather looks like it will be good, overcanst to partly cloudy over most of the state.

    Here's a point (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    why do 13% of conservative Dems say they're voting for "other." There is no "other" on the ballot, so perhaps they mean McCain.

    Voter depression at work?

    1594 (none / 0) (#16)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:51:36 PM EST
    registered to vote, but less than half of them expected to go to the polls...  Hm.  It's all about GOTV now.  People, make those phone calls.  Sign up at HillaryClinton.com   We've got to make this happen for our girl!

    (ps: lots of folks don't get home from church until after 6.  Just thought I'd throw that out there to see if it sticks.)

    Many registered voters (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:54:01 PM EST
    remain Republicans and independents. SUSA usually finds a pool of 500 or so, so 700 likely voters actually suggests a huge turnout.

    Parent
    Big Day in Pittsburgh (none / 0) (#29)
    by smott on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:06:21 PM EST
    Big Dawg talking now!
    Go to kdka.com and look for the video link if you want to see...

    Clinton $$ problems (none / 0) (#31)
    by magster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:09:14 PM EST
    Is a 10% ++ for Clinton even good enough for her to compete in NC and IN, considering she is in the red right now?  How big a lead does she need to give her possible donors a sense that their money could actually lead to a nomination at this point?

    I am assuming (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:14:32 PM EST
    The magic number for money, continuing, momentum, perception etc is all about the same. I'd say 9-10+ points.

    And remember, if she does well she can always lend her campaign more money and drive the Obama supporters crazy!

    Parent

    The magic number for continuing (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by AF on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:25:16 PM EST
    is 1%, I think.  

    Parent
    Which also spurs online contributions ;) (none / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:26:16 PM EST
    I think the 6 week gap hurt them both on donations.

    Parent
    Big difference between 9 and 10 (none / 0) (#45)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    In terms of symbolism, I think there is a big difference between the two. IMO she needs to clear 10.

    Parent
    1 to low, 9 is same as 10 (none / 0) (#78)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    Yes 10 seems so much more, but spinning 9 into a "loss" will be pretty darn hard.

    And if she gets a 1% win I hope she withdraws gracefully tomorrow night....

    Parent

    It's about double digit vs single digit. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:44:54 PM EST
    Obviously strictly speaking there is nothing magic about 9 vs 10. At least I'm not aware of any big difference in terms of delegates or pop vote totals or anything.

    It's just that if she wins by 10 or more you will hear (and her campaign will say) over and over CLINTON WINS BY DOUBLE DIGITS!

    Conversely if she wins by 9 or less the counterspin will prevail. 9 is the best single digit win she can hope for but any single digit win is def not what she wants right now.

    Parent

    heck I heard her say awhile back, I'm getting used (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:24:43 PM EST
    to being outspent!  thats so humble of her!
    feeds to her underdog status, and we know how that plays out there !

    Parent
    I have numerous problems (none / 0) (#50)
    by americanincanada on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:01:59 PM EST
    with some of the numbers in this SUSA poll.

    it is the first time that I feel like I actually doubt them.

    What problems? (none / 0) (#56)
    by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:13:51 PM EST
    do you see? Curious because I am confused about the methodology change, I know why, but I just am not sure how that would make a difference.

    Parent
    4-2? (none / 0) (#51)
    by dmk47 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:04:53 PM EST
    Why would you write that something may break 4-2? Where I come from, we reduce our fractions.

    It made sense to write it that way... (none / 0) (#63)
    by zzyzx on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:24:17 PM EST
    ...because there were 6 points of undecided.  I got the point.

    Parent
    Gender Numbers Are Odd (none / 0) (#83)
    by Clintonomics on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:28:16 PM EST
    This poll definitely bummed me out a little. Hope it is the rare SurveyUSA miss. I did see something odd in the CrossTabs. Obama breaks out to a 15 point lead (53-38) among male voters in this poll after being slightly behind (44-48) in the prior SUSA poll. This is a huge move and opens up a massive gender gap with Hillary ahead 60-37 among females in the poll. 53-38 probably means Obama was actually slightly ahead among white males in this poll sample. All this strikes me as odd given the dynamics and demographics of the Pennsylvania race. Glad we get to see the real results tomorrow. Still crossing my fingers and hoping for a large margin for Hillary.

    SUSA PA Internals | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment