Ras PA Poll: Obama only down by 3, +6 points in 3 days

This is a quick hit-and-run diary, but A new poll by Rasmussen shows Obama only down by 3 points in PA:

Clinton 47 (50)
Obama 44 (41)

Numbers in parentheses are from 4/14; today's results are from 4/17.

This is statistically significant movement.  My guess is that the people of PA were turned off by Clinton's unbelievable and unprecedented negativity at the ABC presidential debate.

If the actual election is this close next week, stick a fork in Clinton, she's done.

BTW, I wonder if Rasmussen's likely voter screen is capturing those 200,000-odd voters who were registered in the last couple of months and who support Obama by an overwhelming margin.

•  Tips Comments and Flames Please n/t

  by ARingMD2B on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:53:05 AM PDT

  •  Heads up Obama live streaming

    from Erie Pa.  

    http://www.cnn.com/...

    Click on Live video link on the top of the page.

    by Kitty on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:59:20 AM PDT

    •  did cnn had an Alabama Moment?

      the link went down when he questioned McCain

      by New Sweden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:32:14 AM PDT

      •  It's working for me

        try it again

        by Kitty on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:41:59 AM PDT

        •  thanks it's back on again

          it went out when he was speaking about McCain's approval to bush's view on the economy and how good McCain think the economy is going. The screen went blank for a minute or so. He's talking about Webb's GI bill now.

          by New Sweden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:48:46 AM PDT

  •  Many of the newly registered voters are young

    most of whom use only cells phones, which I think are rarely if ever contacted during polling. Therefore, the sample pool may skew toward the older demographic that favors Hillary.

    Having said that, Hillary will win by 20 points and anything less than 30 points is a HUGE loss for her! (Remember: It's the expectations, stupid!)

    by John Campanelli on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:13:12 AM PDT

•  Thanks for the heads up!

  by ajleiker on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:53:57 AM PDT

•  Not Sure I Believe It

  I think Hillary will still win by between 6% and 10%... That Democratic Machine in Pennsylvania counts for a lot.

  by Larry Madill on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:55:28 AM PDT

  •  6

    by Larry Madill on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:55:51 AM PDT

    •  Can't Type Today

      6 to 10% BAH

      by Larry Madill on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:56:31 AM PDT

    •  Or else *what*? Huh? HUH?

      /kidding

      by iconoclastic cat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:57:01 AM PDT

  •  I'm thinking...

    Tweety's 14% is actually pretty accurate.

    by RichM on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:05:12 AM PDT

    •  I still say 10%

      and I also still say Tweety drinks on air and one night he is going to say something about Norah O'Donnell's rack to get fired.

      by Larry Madill on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:08:13 AM PDT

      •  I'd pay to see that

        Not that I wish bad things on anybody, but that would be the highlight of the year if Tweety said something about Nora's breasts on air.

        by Lipo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:44:42 AM PDT

        •  And as he was drug off by Olbermann and Maddow

          Screamed, HA! for the last time.

          by Larry Madill on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:17:44 AM PDT

  •  Tweety is trying to push 15%

    At least he was last night with the PA Dem Chairman.  Personally, I'm thinking it will be somewhere between 3% and 8%, with the latter more likely than the former.

    by Lipo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:43:27 AM PDT

•  Wow, even Rev. Dimsdale didn't have a backlash

  like that.

  by iconoclastic cat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:55:57 AM PDT

•  Ras tends to

  make things look a lot closer and then has Clinton pulling away at the last minute.

  Nevertheless, if he wins anything more than 45% on Tuesday, I will not be concern trolling on Wednesday.

  by nrafter530 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:56:10 AM PDT

  •  Warning!

    Ras tends to make things look a lot closer and then has Clinton pulling away at the last minute.

    Rasmussen is a Republican and I think he likes to manipulate public opinion more than he likes to measure it.

    I've been watching him since he was PollingArmerica or some such shit, before the 2000 coup.

    I don't trust him.

    by lastman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:18:46 AM PDT

    •  He has a track record

      of nailing it often, and then other times being way off...primary polls are mixed, but in Dem vs. Rep polls, it usually leans 2-3 points in favor of the GOP.

      by nrafter530 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:45:07 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, but you're missing the point.

        Yes, he's accurate, but what people measure accuracy by is the final result.

        I say that you have to look at his polling in the run up.  You'll see manipulation like the example above.  He shows the race tightening, I say he is lowering the bar for HRC.  She is likely to win by more than 3.

        You should have seen his site in 2000.  One of the most jingoistic websites I'd ever laid eyes on.

        If you wanna trust his final poll, I can understand.

        Do a little research on Scotty.  Just go to wiki.

        by lastman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:58:31 AM PDT

•  Ras also shows

  softer support for Obama than for Clinton.

  Whatever.  I just want it to be over.

  by winsock on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:57:33 AM PDT

•  Margin of error is 4%

  I wouldn't call it "statistically significant" since both candidates numbers changed by 3.

  by discocarp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:58:10 AM PDT

  •  the change is greater than the margin of error

    6% > 4%

    by ARingMD2B on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:04:54 AM PDT

    •  No

      MoE is for each total. Its 4% for Obama and 4% for Clinton. It doesn't work the way you are suggesting.

      by discocarp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:19:25 AM PDT

  •  Yeah

    it's movement within the MOE, so it's not necessarily statistically significant.

    I think it's an interesting exercise to compare the polls that push leaners hard (SUSA, and yeah -- even the awful-this-cycle ARG) and those that do not (PPP, as another example).

    What we saw in hotly contested states (WI, VA, et al were not all that contested) was that Clinton seemed to generally fare well amongst late deciders and 'soft supporters'.

    Next Tuesday, I'll be most interested in seeing if Obama can come closer to a split among soft support/leaner/late deciders.

    If the previous trends in OH, et al hold -- I suspect he loses by 10 or so.   If he splits - a big improvement - I think it's closer to 5.   If he actually ends up winning among late deciders, I think he's got a legit shot at a near tie.

    I think he's got a couple things going for him in PA that he didn't seem to have elsewhere...

    #1 - The figures out of PA tell us that a big portion of the 'newly registered Dems' tilt heavily towards both areas and demographics that are Obama strongholds.   I suspect many of these voters might be screened out of LV polling models.

    #2 - Unlike "Little Tuesday" - Obama has had more time to focus on PA, and judging from where he's spent his time -- I have a glimmer of hope that his internal numbers are telling him something we're not seeing (i.e., not a big need to shore up base areas -- focus on trimming Clinton margins in her strong areas).

    #3 - So far, we haven't had a NAFTA-gate story break that befuddles the campaign in the weekend before the election.  If Obama can get a 'clean' weekend before the election, I'm hopeful this also helps with late deciders.

    #4 - It would seem from all polling evidence that bittergate, debategate, et al had absolutely no needle moving effect on polls

    #5 - We have also seen polls that indicate that many voters are also tired of crap politics... generally - 'crap politics' has the (intended) effect of depressing turnout.  However, when it comes to turnout, Obama seems to be an entirely different kind of political animal... I have a strong feeling that he can be an outlier to that general idea of negative campaigns depressing turnout.

    Ultimately, I think the Clinton campaign -- which has a slight (say 5-7 pt) edge in basement support/strong support -- was actually hoping to depress turnout and rely on a 'base support win'... can the Obama turnout/new voter machine overcome that?

    We shall see.

    I'm going to put my guess - with the right to revise - on a 6-7 pt HRC win and a smaller than 10 delegate win.

    by zonk on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:10:41 AM PDT

  •  A Primer on Margin of Error (MOE)

    http://www.isixsigma.com/...

    and the use of the term "statistically significant" which means that it could not have occurred by chance.  Six point shift is statistically significant where margin of error is plus/minus 4

    by pikkel on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:11:48 AM PDT

    •  Except

      With a 4% margin of error That means the range of Obama is 40-48 and the range of Clinton is 43-51. Yielding a   potential 8 point range, not a 4% range as suggested. It just doesn't work the way you are suggesting.

      by discocarp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:23:09 AM PDT

•  We're 15 points down...

  that's my mantra until proven otherwise...

  I'm tired of getting my hopes up before election day (e.g., New Hampshire and Ohio).

  by EF in NY on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:58:26 AM PDT

•  Dont know if I believe the actual

  numbers, but the trend is interesting. I hope it's right. I think Hillary will win by around 9%.

  by jj32 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:59:12 AM PDT

•  The Message: We will lose PA

  What about that don't you get?

  by sharris0512 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:59:38 AM PDT

•  Undecideds at 9%. I think a Clinton win is 12 pts

  by slinkerwink on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:59:53 AM PDT

•  Her Royal Clinton

  When HRC responded to debate question on Bosnia lies with "I may be many things but I'm not dumb" she made it clear that:

  1. her lying was calculated and she knew she was lying.

  2. she counted on the rest of us being dumb enough to believe her.

  PA Poll results demonstrate, instead, that WE may be many things, but we aren't dumb.  

  by just like that on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:00:24 AM PDT

  •  but what about?

    Obama lying about the Kennedys bringing his father to America.
    http://www.talkleft.com/...

    At least there was some truth to Hillary's embellishment on Bosnia since according to AP reports, there had been sniper fire earlier in the day.

    Per Obama's father-Kennedy tale, there is no truth whatsoever.

    by katz5 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:08:20 AM PDT

    •  Hillary was there (Bosnia)

      Obama wasn't there when his father came to America and Barack was probably just repeating what he had been told.  There was truth in Obama's "tale" -- he just got the dates wrong.

      by winsock on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:17:22 AM PDT

    •  First I think it's sad

      to compare "lies" of the democrats.

      Second if you must compare lies then the context would be a family story lie that happened before he was born, vs.  a true situation she enhanced to the point of whopper to make myself look better.

      Soem people think retelling a family myth is worse, some people think enhanced for resume padding is worse.

      Each voter has to decide if this speaks of a pattern, or if it has any importance, or if you just need to use these examples to validate a decision set in stone.

      by housesella on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:19:51 AM PDT

    •  oy vey!

      I honestly can't see how anyone can look at those two examples and see anything in common.

      Was Obama around when his father came to America? Well, I guess that depends on what you think about the consciousness of a soul before it exists.

      Hillary, on the other hand, not only existed, but she was an adult at the time she went to Bosnia. Then she made up a fictitious story about that trip and told it repeatedly.

      So, yeah. Exactly alike.

      by elmo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:25:35 AM PDT

    •  A more fitting parallel for the Obama-Kennedy

      story would be Hillary's "I was named after Edmund Hillary" story. Both are bits of family mythology that turned out to be untrue, and neither of them matters a damn.

      by paintitblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:50:43 AM PDT

  •  well what about that

    dumb voter?  There really are alot of them.  My niece just called, and as much as I love her she is dumb.  Not just educated deprived, but common sense is missing and she has a problem with paying attention to anything beyond country music awards.  I haven't talked to her for a long time, and I haven't brought up politics because she wouldn't have an interest, she probably wouldn't vote and I highly doubt she or her husband would ever ever even consider voting for a black guy.  I figured that if I called and talked politcs and pressed her to vote (got her registered in 2004), she would just vote Hillary.

    Anyhow, to my biggest shock of the day, hell month,  she talked about the election.  Said McCain was an old crazy man (she doesn't understand she couldn't vote for him anyway), and that Clinton would be a bad president and that she and her husband needed a ride to the polls since he thinks voting for Obama is that important.   I didn't even think her husband thought.  Really, a big sweetheart of a guy, but in the 15 years they've been married, I have only heard him actually speak a handful of time, and it's always been things like "good beer".

    So even though I don't think this is the common low information voter, I just wanted to share a  heartening story

    by housesella on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:13:32 AM PDT

    •  Thank you!

      I needed that after speaking to my Dad yesterday.  My dad, who I've always razzed about being a racist, apparantly is!  Although he's been calling Bush & Co. "those bastards" for 7 years, he's going to vote McCain, even while voting straight democratic otherwise.  Because.  I'm still working on him and will be until election day but I'm so disappointed in him.  He asked me "do you still love me?" but didn't seem inclined to change his mind.  My fear has been that many of the older folks will switch to McCain but I am heartened by the stories of all the first time, younger voters.  BTW, I'm a poll worker and in my conservative district, where I always leave depressed about the outcome, we had an equal number of democratic ballots cast on Super Tuesday. That was huge!  There was so much excitement on the dem side that day. There is hope! P.S. we need more poll workers, especially for this election, to help with the (hopefully) overwhelming number of first timers!

      by Fury on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:26:26 AM PDT

•  Bradley effect? n/t

  by livosh1 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:01:45 AM PDT

  •  It's an automated poll n/t

    by itskevin on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:54:27 AM PDT

•  I really believe Obama has a chance in PA

  The Pittsburg Steelers are campaigning all over Pennsylvania later today.

  by BoBo2020 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:05:27 AM PDT

•  I linked to your diary in mine

  I posted this diary on today's Zogby's poll

  by yaddab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:06:39 AM PDT

  •  the mean is probably ~C +3 seen in Zog/Ras

    by ARingMD2B on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:10:26 AM PDT

•  cell phones

  I think??? again not sure, but they do not poll cell phones, and if that is true, I cannot think of anyone who does not have one, and I have yet to meet a young person without one! My point is, Obama could be further ahead than we think...let's hope so! Even if and, I think Obama will win next Tuesday, the first thing Hill and Bill will do is demand recount or even a revote or just say she won no matter what as they are not living in reality anymore...the math says so!

  by peacefully on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:10:28 AM PDT

  •  If HRC doesn't win it...

    ...Pennsylvania becomes irrelevant.

    by jack rance on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:17:33 AM PDT

    •  Here's to blessed irrelevance!

      by soms on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:19:03 AM PDT

•  Clinton will get at most 53% in PA

  Judging by these polls.  If they are right, she's done.

  I even think Obama's train tour could result in a PA Win.

  I'll be waiting for the PPP Monday poll.  I trust them a lot.

  SurveyUSA's final PA poll will doubtless show Clinton up 50.

  by Parker2001 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:29:06 AM PDT

•  All but one newspaper has endorsed Obama

  Obama has received a couple new endorsements - from newspapers in Newcastle (northwest Pa) and Bucks County (Courier-Times).  

  He previously received endorsements from the largest papers in PA, including the largest papers in Philadelphia (both), Pittsburgh, the Lehigh Valley, northeastern PA, and south-central PA (harrisburg).  He also has received endorsements from smaller papers, such as the Sunbury Daily Item.

  Meanwhile, the only newspaper endorsement I can find for Hillary in PA was one university paper.

  by JPZenger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:31:57 AM PDT

  •  You should post a diary about this!

    by yaddab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:36:30 AM PDT

•  Not sure

  the 200,000 + are all Obama people--Clinton has the teachers union registering and canvasing like in Florida.  But a vast majority are surely Obama supporters

  by docb on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:39:53 AM PDT

•  BLOWBACK!!!!!!n/t

  by Feliks on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:41:19 AM PDT