Politisite Political Projections : Pennsylvania
Web Posted on April 21, 2008
By Albert N. Milliron, Chief Political Correspondent,
Iron Mill Interactive Media, Inc / Politisite.com
Politisite uses a Trending / Momentum Model in determining possible outcomes of elections.
Trends: One or two data points doesn’t make a trend. The trend is your Friend and should always be used in analysis of possible outcomes. Had pollsters considered trending in New Hampshire, they probably would have had the numbers correctly. The problem is that they use data that is a day or two old and they give percentages based on the numbers. Trend lines are not used. Real Clear Politics has trend lines below the polls so one can see how the candidates are moving. You can also use these graphs to gauge where a candidate will be on election day. When I invest in the stock market trend lines are part of what I use. I like momentum. It is very difficult to stop a rolling train. When things are in motion, they will continue to stay in motion unless there is proper resistance. This can be immediate resistance which takes more power (a Major News Story) or gradient resistance which causes things to stop, like a rolling ball.
The Polls Trends from Pennsylvannia
Figure 1. Quinnipiac University Pennsylvania Polling / Graphs by Politisite.com
|03/12 - 03/12||697 LV||51||38||Clinton +13.0|
|02/26 - 02/26||820 LV||46||42||Clinton +4.0|
|03/05 - 03/05||690 LV||52||37||Clinton +15.0|
|04/20 - 04/20||722 LV||49||44||Clinton +5.0|
|04/17 - 04/17||730 LV||47||44||Clinton +3.0|
|04/14 - 04/14||741 LV||50||41||Clinton +9.0|
|03/31 - 03/31||730 LV||47||42||Clinton +5.0|
|03/24 - 03/24||690 LV||49||39||Clinton +10.0|
|04/07 - 04/07||695 LV||48||43||Clinton +5.0|
Figure 2. Rasmussen Pennsylvania Polling / Graphs by Politisite.com
|03/07 - 03/09||600 LV||56||38||Clinton +18.0|
|07/06 - 07/08||LV||36||25||Clinton +11.0|
|03/28 - 03/31||504 LV||49||41||Clinton +8.0|
|09/28 - 09/30||LV||42||24||Clinton +18.0|
|03/16 - 03/18||LV||35||25||Clinton +10.0|
|04/13 - 04/15||LV||33||23||Clinton +10.0|
|04/18 - 04/20||LV||48||41||Clinton +7.0|
|04/11 - 04/13||576 LV||49||40||Clinton +9.0|
|04/04 - 04/06||LV||47||42||Clinton +5.0|
Figure 3. Stategic Vision Pennsylvania Polling / Graphs by Politisite.com
|04/18 - 04/20||710 LV||50||44||Clinton +6.0|
|03/29 - 03/31||588 LV||53||41||Clinton +12.0|
|04/05 - 04/07||597 LV||56||38||Clinton +18.0|
|03/08 - 03/10||608 LV||55||36||Clinton +19.0|
|04/12 - 04/14||638 LV||54||40||Clinton +14.0|
Figure 4. SurvetUSA Pennsylvania Polling
|04/09 - 04/10||1,002 LV||47||43||Clinton +4.0|
|04/19 - 04/20||602 LV||48||42||Clinton +6.0|
|04/17 - 04/18||608 LV||47||42||Clinton +5.0|
|04/16 - 04/17||602 LV||47||43||Clinton +4.0|
|04/18 - 04/19||607 LV||46||43||Clinton +3.0|
|04/15 - 04/16||601 LV||45||44||Clinton +1.0|
Figure 5. Zogby Pennsylvania Polling
Polls track Senator Clinton Lower than she produces in final results. Senator Obama tracks higher than he produces in final results. Real Clear Politics has Hillary Clinton winning by 5.7% . Obama has produced some real negitives during this campaign cycle. Politisite projects Senator Clinton to win by 8-12 percentage points. Hilliary Clinton will not drop out of the race and will win by 54-56% to Obama's 42-44%
What others are saying
April 21, 2008
On the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, here is one last update on the results by race, education and gender and measured by the Quinnipiac University surveys (and kindly shared with us courtesy of Quinnipiac polling director Doug Schwartz).
I have followed these results over the last several weeks for the same reason that ABC News polling director Gary Langer lists education at the top of his column today on "groups to watch" in Pennsylvania:
It’s hard see a single factor more compelling than socioeconomic status, particularly as defined by education. It’s split the Democratic electorate nearly all year, and as with her past victories, it’s what Hillary Clinton will be counting on tomorrow.
Years of education also split the Democratic electorate in past elections, such as 2000, 1992 and 1984, and survey researchers have known for decades that it has been one of the strongest predictors of racial tolerance. Yet amazingly, as per my post earlier today, at least seven of the Pennsylvania pollsters have released surveys that fail to ask or report any measure of income or education. Consider that omission when thinking about which polls to trust.
But I digress. Back to Langer's point about education:
Across primaries to date Obama’s won college graduates by 52-43 percent, while Clinton’s won less-educated voters by a very similar 52-42. The picture sharpens among whites only (there’s no difference by education among blacks): White college graduates have split 47-47 percent, while those with no college degree have gone 2-1 for Clinton, 60-31 percent.
The proportion of college-to-non-college voters isn’t always critical – Obama cruised among both groups in Wisconsin – but it’s mattered more often than not. Last month, in economically stressed Ohio, less-educated voters were in great supply (just 38 percent of white voters were college graduates, compared with an average of 52 percent across all primaries to date) and that helped Clinton immeasurably: She won less-educated whites by 71-27 percent, while her edge among white college graduates was just 52-45 percent.
The numbers that Langer cites above are from exit polls. In Ohio, the final Quinnipiac poll before the primary showed Clinton leading by a six-point margin (50% to 44%) among college educated whites and by more than 30 points (63% to 31%0 among non-college educated whites. Compare that to the numbers below, which include results from the latest Quinnipiac Pennsylvania survey released this morning.
Democratic Presidential Primary
Obama: Obama made a serious misstep with his remark that small-town voters in Pennsylvania "cling" to guns, protectionism, bigotry, and religion "as a way to explain their frustrations."
The comment damages Obama because it so perfectly fits the Obama stereotype. Obama is a Harvard-educated liberal with a mostly wealthy liberal base. The candidate of Jackson Hole, Boulder, Fairfax, and Connecticut, he has struggled to connect with working-class voters. The venue-- a fundraiser in San Francisco--is icing on the cake.
Clinton's attack on this line has been fair on the point that this perpetuates the perception of Democrats as anti-gun, anti-religion, wealthy elites. The loss of the God and guns vote explains the GOP takeover of the South in the past decade.
His inclusion of immigration and trade in the comments are also telling. Elites in both parties have long favored open borders and free trade (globalization), while popular sentiment tends to favor immigration and trade restrictions (protectionism). Obama and Clinton have both been trying to walk fine lines on these issues, and Obama's comments stir the pot.
Obama's comments, while reflecting condescension and poor political sense, also reflect some truth. NAFTA and Mexican immigrants are the culprits of first resort for laid-off Midwest workers, who also tend to be negative about the economy. Tying their gun-ownership and faith to this "bitterness" and "frustration" is simply ignorant and offensive.
Hillary's aggressive exploitation of this comment contrasts her passive response to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright videos, letting Republicans and the news media do the attacking for her. The Wright flap damaged Obama, but he seemed to recover, as far as the race for President is concerned. This time, she is attacking, airing television ads in Pennsylvania about the comments.
The more acute question is whether this could help swing the nomination to Clinton. It could. The comments hurt Obama in Pennsylvania, and could pad Clinton's margin of victory there.
The incident, by contrast, brings to light how skilled a politician Obama is. To get to this point--the brink of the nomination--he has had to walk a very fine line. Obama has appealed to hard-core liberals without sounding the bitter tones of the anti-war, anti-Bush protestors, and (until now) not showing disdain for middle-Americans.
Clinton: Clinton is still the underdog, but she shows no signs of giving up. As long as she has a small chance of winning the nomination, she will keep fighting.
Her strongest chance is to win the nation-wide popular vote--a difficult feat that requires a big victory in Pennsylvania next week. If she gets more votes nationwide than Obama, she has as strong an argument to super-delegates as Obama does.
On the score of persuading super-delegates, Clinton has some serious advantages over Obama. First, being a former first-lady and professional dealer in patronage, she will be stronger at offering sweet deals and making believable threats. Second, the Wright and "bitter" flaps have strengthened her case that Obama is less electable than she.
Her "firing" of strategist Mark Penn was no such thing, it appears. The campaign has spread word that pollster Geoff Garin, renowned among Democrats as an ethical operator, is now the chief strategist. Garin's role may certainly be overemphasized as a mask for Penn's continued involvement, which the campaign wants to downplay after his active involvement in the Colombia Free Trade Agreement was revealed.
Central to this situation is the huge debts her campaign owes Penn's polling firm. One close source posits she owes the firm $10 million. If the debt is not repaid, is this an illegal campaign contribution? Because the firm is ultimately owned by a British company, is this an illegal foreign contribution? March campaign reports show that she owes nearly 2.5 million to Penn's company.
In the Gallup tracking poll, Clinton hit her all-time low Tuesday, posting 40% support to Obama's 51%. This is a national poll, and so it has little direct bearing on the nomination battle, but it makes a Clinton comeback looks still not difficult.
The talk of an Obama comeback in Pennsylvania is premature. The only poll showing the race close (Bloomberg/LA Times) is of registered voters. The likely voter polls show 9-to-14 point leads for Hillary.
It's a similar story in Indiana: Clinton leads by double digits in a poll of 571 likely voters, while Obama leads in the Bloomberg/LA Times of registered voters. Clinton is still the heavy favorite in both of these states
Judge for yourself.
-- Charles Franklin
The Pennsylvania race has turned slightly toward Clinton over the weekend, with her lead now at an even 6 points in our standard trend estimate. If you believe in taking more chances with random noise, the sensitive estimator has a 6.4 point Clinton lead.
In the rush of new polling over the weekend, it is also good to check how much any of them may be affecting our estimates.
Dropping any single pollster makes only a bit of different to our estimates. The Clinton trend ranges from 48.5% to 49.6%, while Obama ranges from 42.6% to 43.5%. So dropping your least favorite pollster can, at most, account for the difference in a 5 point race and a 7 point one.
And note that we still have about 9 percent undecided. I wonder what they will do?
-- Charles Franklin
n=722 likely Democratic primary voters, fielded 4/20
Clinton 49%, Obama 44%
-- Mark Blumenthal
SurveyUSA - WCAU-TV Philadelphia, KDKA-TV Pittsburgh, WHP-TV Harrisburg, and WNEP-TV Scranton.
Pennsylvania 4/18 through 4/20, n=1,800 adults, n=710 likely Democratic primary voters
Clinton 50, Obama 44
WCAU-NBC10 story (via alert Pollster reader Joe E).