The Rasmussen PA poll is no fluke either. The trend in PA is pro-McCain.
A 10/30 Mason-Dixon PA also shows a 4 point difference: Obama 47 v. McCain 43, with 9% undecided. This is an even better result for McCain, because Obama is under 50%, and because of the higher percentage of undecideds, who tend to swing toward McCain.
http://www.politickerpa.com/danh/2414/mason-dixon-poll-shows-tighter-race-pa
Looked up 2004 results. Kerry got 85% of DEM vote in PA in 2004 and won the state by only 2.5%.
Bush got 89% of the GOP vote in 2004.
Something with math skills better than mine could apply the results to this year’s election.
For PA demographic 2004 breakdown, see http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/PA/P/00/epolls.0.html.
If Obama wins, it will rip the backbone of this country apart.
I think McCain/Palin will win Pennsylvania, as long as they can overcome the Philly ACORN effect.
Is there ANY poll of Rasmussen that doesn’t have Obama over 50%?
Sheeesh.
This poll is good news, but Ras is junk this year.
There is a problem I see about the heavier weighting of the democrats. My guess is that the pollsters have determined through national polls that Obama will have far greater support from democrats because they will turn out in greater numbers. This is logical because Obama has spent far more money, has they support of the national press and McCain and the GOP are not exactly in favor by the general public.
So, the logical conclusion is to assign higher turnout figures to each and every state based on the expected national increases in proportion to historical turnout. For example, if Ohio and Pennsylvania had 40% democratic turnout in 2004 and it is expected that this year overall turnout of democrats will increase by 10%, then the expected turnout at the polls for Ohio and Pennsylvania would be 44% (40% x 1.1).
If this is the logic being used to weight the turnout in the battleground states, the polls in these states may be fatally flawed.
The reason they may be fatally flawed is that the battleground state’s historical turnout is already at peak amounts. The past campaigns have focused heavily on the battleground states and have filled the market with TV and radio advertising, visits from the candidates and celebrities, door to door volunteers, and phone trees.
There is a cost concept called diminishing returns. The first few advertising dollars picks up the low hanging fruit and need little money to reach them, the next buyers cost more to reach but they require even more money. At some point, the extra dollars are not going to make a difference. At same point, the extra popularity and media support are not going to change the turnout.
Applying this to the battleground states means that one should be very skeptical to assume significant increases in turnout for democrats.
I live in good old Jack Murtha’s district. Usually, besides Pittsburgh and Philly, Cambria County is the lone blue spot in a sea of red on the electoral map.
I work in a hospital. Most of the docs I work with are for McCain; the nurses, etc., mostly very vocal for Obama. The few I’ve talked to that are for McCain/Palin are relatively quiet about it because the Obama maniacs jump all over their asses.
I have noticed, however, that the yard signs are about 50/50. In my eyes, that is HUGE around here. In other recent elections one would be hard pressed to even see a a sign for Bush.
Also, I have not noticed nearly as many signs for old Jack as I have in recent elections.
I am growing cautiously optimistic for Pennsylvania, as long as we can overcome the voter fraud in Pittsburgh and Philly.
Wjy does Ras never have any undecided?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
OB had a big lead against Hilary in PA in the primaries and got smoked. Repubs always lose the polls and win the elections.
Pray for W, McCuda and Our Troops
bmflr