[Devils Avocado]

That would definitely cause Obama some cause for concern, but there have been at least 32 polls of Pennsylvania since the beginning of September, according to fivethirtyeight.com, and in only one of them was Obama not leading -- a 9/14 Rasmussen poll that had the two tied. McCain's going to need to pull off a political miracle to swing that state around in the next seven days........

[rwfromkansas]

Good point. It still is a hard climb.

[mainerforglobalwarming]

I was just looking at the micro-polling thread in PA, it's only a 3 point race on paper right now. According to what I'm figuring by doing the math in my head. So I expect a McCain surge in Pa and nationally this week.

[torchthemummy]

That would definitely cause Obama some cause for concern, but there have been at least 32 polls of Pennsylvania since the beginning of September, according to fivethirtyeight.com, and in only one of them was Obama not leading -- a 9/14 Rasmussen poll that had the two tied. McCain's going to need to pull off a political miracle to swing that state around in the next seven days........

When McCain wins PA you will know that the Silent Majority (don't have twenty bumper stickers to show how they care, don't bother to argue empirical facts with full-blown Democrat/Obama Moon Bats, less likely to partake in polls by biased sources that inflate Dem registration numbers, etc.) has returned.

By the way - welcome to Free Republic!

[Claud]

What the heck, since FR is in vanitytown anyway, here’s my analysis of Pennsylvania that I posted on another thread.....

Here’s the thing. When it’s a straight D vs. R fight, Pennsylvania is REAL close. And it’s a microcosm of the country. The rural parts of the state go solid R, urban Philly & Pittsburgh go very heavily D. And actually, the Ds have been doing better lately in places like the Philly burbs, so Dems have had an advantage.

Basically the fight in Pennsylvania revolves, for a Republican, solidifying the rural base and picking up some suburban voters. For the Dem, it’s solidifying the urban base and picking up suburban voters. The last two Presidential elections have followed this model.

HOWEVER, and this is what many of the national people don’t quite get about Northeastern urban politics, when the race has racial overtones as this one obviously does, that throws the numbers WAY off, sometimes wildly. Urban Democrats are of two kinds—you got blacks, and you got ethnic, usually Union, whites. And we’ve seen time and again with mayoral elections that when a candidate is perceived as the “black” candidate, he *does not get* a huge chunk of white Democratic voters.

Case in point, how do you think Rudy Guiliani wins a mayoral election as a Republican against Dinkins in NYC? If you want a PA example, there’s the 1999 mayoral race between Sam Katz (R) and John Street (D) in Philly. Here’s a quote from Wikipedia on this race:

“Katz, running as a liberal to moderate Republican, ran on a platform of cutting the high wage taxes in the city and bringing back businesses which had fled. Street ran citing his support of the Rendell administration’s policies which many had felt rescued the city from a financial crisis. With a 75% voter registration advantage for the Democratic Party, Katz faced an uphill battle.
The race turned out to be racially divisive with Street holding 94% support of the African-American majority wards and Katz boasting support from about 80% of the white-majority wards. [10] Although both of the city’s major daily newspapers, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News endorsed Katz’s candidacy, in the end, Street held on to a slight 7,200-vote majority on election day. [11]”

This is not Pennsylvania as a whole. This is JUST Philadelphia. So in a city with 75% Democrats, the Republican candidate only lost by 7200 votes. 80% of predominantly white wards went for the moderate Republican over the Democrat, even though, and I can’t confirm this but I suspect it’s the case—they were probably majority Democratic wards.
The implications for this election are enormous, if this same dynamic plays out.

Because what is suggests is that white ethnic Union Democrats may simply not vote for the candidate perceived as “the black candidate”. (And for those that don’t know, Street went into this election with some similiar black radical associations that Obama has—he was very much “the black candidate”).

If Obama cannot count on these white Democrats that Kerry got and Gore got, he is finished in Pennsylvania. He simply won’t have enough votes out of Philadelphia to counteract McCain’s advantage in the rural areas and the battleground suburbs.

Bottom line, yes places like Philadelphia usually go Democrat. But when race is a factor, even Philadelphia can’t be taken for granted as a Democratic stronghold. Hillary knew this. And this was the point she made over and over again-—Obama just can’t connect with traditional Democratic constituencies. This is what she meant.

If Obama can’t rely on Philadelphia, he can’t rely on Pittsburgh or Scranton which have (I think) higher proportions of these ethnic white Democrat voters than Philly. It’s impossible for him to win the state in that scenario.

[fortheDeclaration]

That would definitely cause Obama some cause for concern, but there have been at least 32 polls of Pennsylvania since the beginning of September, according to fivethirtyeight.com, and in only one of them was Obama not leading -- a 9/14 Rasmussen poll that had the two tied. McCain's going to need to pull off a political miracle to swing that state around in the next seven days........

Not if Democrats are being oversampled.

And not if Democrats don't vote for him, as I believe many Reagan Democrats and Hillary Democrats will not do.

Kerry only took that State by 2% of the vote.

[Antoninus]

McCain's going to need to pull off a political miracle to swing that state around in the next seven days........

Only a noob would be that credulous of the polls.

Welcome noob.