(UPDATED) Internal Polling and Obama in PA

Update [2008-4-20 20:48:56 by LarsThorwald]:  To respond to comments made in geekesque's diary regarding tamping expectations.  I truck with geekesque 100%.  I did not mean to suggest that Obama will win--I explicitly rejected that idea.  Nor do I think he will come within a point or two.  I limited my prediction to within 5 or 6 at best, but likely to within 10.  Predictions of a 10 to 12 point loss don't make me scarlet with rage, either.

I guess we'll all know in two days, so navel-gazing is silly now.  But I still stand by my gut, which, while a bit marshmallowy soft around the middle (don't grow old, kids!), has served me well as an engine of instinct.  Something is different here, certainly in relation to Ohio.  Maybe the point was that despite the comparisons, this really is far different than Ohio.  Maybe the point was that there is an electricity here that I would crap my pants if I ever saw anything rivaling it for McCain.  Maybe the point was that no matter what, every door knocked on, every phone call made, every sign planted makes a difference.  Just a wee bit of difference.  Or maybe I just like hearing myself gab.

This is a short, choppy diary, because I am canvassing and just stopped back for a quick sody pop and a pretzel.  Then I am going back out and knocking on doors here in Central PA.  

Quickly, over the fold, citizens.  Chip chap chop.

***

Polls by Gallup and Rasmussen and ARG and SUSA and Quinnipiac and the lot are all well and good, and they serve a purpose, and are useful.  

But something that we really don't talk about is internal polling.  Internal polling is the polling done by the campaigns themselves.  These folks are paid professionals, and they get paid a hell of a lot more than Zogby or the like.  They have an extremely vested interest in getting it right.  

Example.  In Gore's book, The Assault on Reason (did I get the title wrong?  No matter, you know what I mean), he tells the story about how when he first ran for Senate he had a pollster from his campaign say, "If you run this ad, your opponent will run this ad.  We will then run this ad.  The result is that in 10 days there will be a 7 point increase for you."  Gore then expresses shock (and a creeped out sense of foreboding) when they followed the ad buy plan and the polls show that in ten days his lead increased.  By seven points.  

That's internal polling.  Internal polling is much better than the stuff we see.  It just is.

Okay, back to the here and now.

I thought it was odd that Obama took out new ads yesterday, not one but two.  I don't think he did this in the weekend before Ohio, but then again he was dealing with the NAFTA controversy at the time.  Or maybe it was because Axelrod knew they were going to lose Ohio, and lose by ten or more.  Why spend cash where it won't help?

Anyway, I thought it odd that Obama bought the ads for airing starting yesterday, the "newspapers across PA endorse," and the precise, almost surgical strike on Clinton's healthcare plan.  

Those seemed like two distinct and separate ads to run.  Curiosity noted.

Then today I hear that Ed Rendell was on Face the Nation, and said something along the lines that a 3, 4, or 5 point win is a huge win for Hillary, something he had said before.  Curiosity noted again.

And then there is this.  I noticed something different in the last weekend here in PA than I noted in Ohio.  In Ohio there seemed to be, I don't even know how to describe it, a broader approach to canvassing.  It's hard to pinpoint or describe, but there seemed to be a wider casting of the net in an effort to get lots and lots of fish as quickly as possible.  

Here in PA it's different.  Here there seems to be a more targeted canvassing.  Both the Ohio and Pennsylvania operations were run by Paul Tewes from the Obama camp, a competent, sharp guy, so it doesn't seem to be two different styles as a result of it being two different state coordinators.

So why would the same guy seem to be running such different ground games (at least to me)?

The fact that Obama went last night to NE Philly to go door to door was sort of the last piece that fell into place for me.  Such a specific region, such a targeted area....

My friends, what I am about to say may be so wildly off the mark that it will haunt me forever.  But f*ck it, it's Sunday, I'm knocking on doors, and I have me some pretzels.  I'll put it all out there:

I think the internal polling must show that this thing is much closer than the 10 points that has been bandied about.  In fact, there is such a different feel here that it is possible--possible--that this thing is around 5 points.  And that targeting specific spots, using targeted advertising, will get it a point or two closer.  

I won't go so far as to say what a person who has worked on the campaign since Iowa said to me just before I started writing this, when I bounced this off of him:  

"Or maybe," he said, "they have numbers that show that with a targeted push on some issues and in some areas, he could pull this off and win."

I won't go so far.  And I don't have anything stronger to go on than my sense of the difference in the ground game, the difference in the responses from voters I meet, the general feel here.

No, I can't go so far as to predict a win.  No way.  Not with her advantages here.

But I will say with confidence that this does not feel like Ohio.  It feels different.  It feels different.  

Something is happening here.