Obama's Electability: The PA Chart Every Democrat Needs to See

So the Obama drones over at Kos spent most of the day after PA consoling themselves after the drubbing by shilling some http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/23/12477/3996/699/501709">halfhearted http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/23/113931/788/762/501646">pieces of http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/23/13332/4094/52/501331">Obamaganda. The story goes that PA doesn't tell us anything about Obama's electability because:

(1) The state was really hard for Obama and Hillary was mean to him!

(2) Obama caught up! well.. kind of... and, besides

(3) It's a good thing when you spend lots of money for nothing!

But even if we bought into the idea that Obama should be forgiven for losing PA, the http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html#polls">RCP chart bellow does more than enough to expose the Kos arguments for the bullshit they are:



What this chart shows us is that for the last three weeks of PA (from 4/2/08 to 4/22/08), Obama's numbers didn't move up against Hillary at all. By all accounts the race was massively lopsided in Obama's favor - he outspend her by massive margins, he had tons of volunteers making calls, he dominated the airwaves and benefited from a more than friendly media - and against Hillary - she had to constantly fend off calls to drop out, had no money, had the keep her supporters energized despite claims from the media that she couldn't win, and was forced to battle tons of hostile reporters. But despite those hugely uneven forces, the polls simply didn't move.

And that suggests that Obama is either 1) dealing with some sort of "ceiling" on the numbers of white he can win over (in which case we're fucked if he becomes the nominee because we can't win hugely important states or 2) that Hillary's attacks against Obama worked (which again means we're fucked in the fall if he's the nominee because the Republicans will hit twice as hard in the fall). But nothing about that chart should be comforting to Democrats who might find themselves saddled with Obama in the general election.



Oh! The chart also tells us that if you spent time volunteering for Obama in PA in the last three weeks (and if you volunteered, that's probably when it was) you didn't really get anything done. You basically wasted your time. Congratulations. Go ahead and treat yourself to a cheap beer...

Like she has any time she's had the lead. Her numbers always go down as the election gets nearer. Hilariously you're pointing out that she stopped the bleeding and claiming she was never wounded. It's a common theme for Hillary's campaign, the rapid descent as the election draws nearer... doesn't look "electable" to me.

the race is totally lopsided, yet the guy with the advantage can't move up in the polls. Usually that only happens with damaged candidates (e.g. people who get caught taping their feet in public bathrooms for sex).

You don't mean Hillary's 9 point win in PA do you? The one that made Obama even more uncatchable? :rofl:

You haven't heard: it's all about Puerto Rico now.

You didn't get the memo!

Lead, schmead. Ya can't spin this any other way...She was as assured a victory here as he was in Illinois.

soft logic.....specious spin in the 'rightin'

Nice try though.

poor thing.

The race tightens. A ham sandwich could tighten the gap if it spent 10+ million on attack ads like Obama did.

if you spent time volunteering for Hillary anywhere in the last 2 years, you didn't get anything done since Obama has won more states, delegates and votes.

I would have congratulated the Hillary people on their volunteering, but you do what you have to do.

that they helped her achieve. I don't think Obama can really spin it as a victory if he needs to keep spending all that money just to stay in a losing position. That's no better than the demographic ceiling I was talking about.

Obama has more supporters, giving more donations. As such he has more money to spend.


If Hill wasn't broke, she'd have matched every cent he spent.


Apparently in Hill world having a massive base of grassroots support that donates more money to your campaign than the other candidate can raise, is a bad thing.

And that spending took Hill from a 28 point lead to a 9 point win.... meaning a net gain of delegates that's not enough for her to win.

Think of it this way... in a game of football, one team is ahead by 7 points and the other is about to score a touchdown and tie it up... but the team that's ahead puts a bunch of energy into stopping the drive and limits the other team to a field goal.

That team still scored points, but not enough to accomplish what they needed to accomplish.... the team that was ahead still wins.


Hillary got a field goal in PA. She won... but her net gain of delegates wasn't enough to close the gap. She can not catch up to Obama. She needed that 20+ point win, BADLY. Obama is still way ahead.

desperately spinning. you're a dime a dozen. and the baghdad bobette shit is transparent. Facts are that she had every natural advantage in PA- just as Obama had in SC. If she was really strong, it should have been a blow out. she's done, hilldroid.

first, he even further broke Hill's campaign ... Forcing her to spend what she had and go into massive debt to keep her margin at half of what it was when Pa polling started ... All the hooting and hollerin about Hill's fundraising after PA ... Well, at BEST, it paid back her debt ...

second, the money was WELL spent in developing name recognition and familiarity for the fall ... He won't be starting from scratch against McCain ...

crikey.

and blowing name recognition and a huge lead.

If she can't run a campaign wisely, why should we trust her with the public coffers?

I was talking about anybody volunteering for any presidential candidate at any time ever being a bad idea.

You obviously think anybody who ever volunteers for a candidate that loses is a loser who wasted their time.

I think differently.

This is a reply to #2

Now, let's see... if Obama spending $9 million and 6 weeks turning a 20 to 25 point Hillary lead in PA into a 9 point lead... wiping out any serious delegate gain she could have hoped for in her last, BEST chance to make anything resembling a dent in his lead is your definition of "EPIC FAIL" then what do we make of this? Hmmm???

In November, as the campaigns ramped up to get ready to go into Iowa, Clinton was achieving an average 45% level of support nationwide. In a crowded field. Obama was averaging under 25%. She got advance endorsements from over 150 superdelegates before anyone even ever cast a primary vote. She had a massive long established political machine backing her campaign. She had huge name recognition. She had an ex president as her campaigning spouse.

Since that time she has spent almost $200 million dollars, campaigned non stop for six months across almost every state in the nation, had the entire field she was running against drop out of the race with the exception of Obama freeing all their supporters to shift allegiances to the remaining candidates... and she has LOST 4 points in national support and turned an over 20 point lead into a damn near 10 point deficit.. on top of losing the delegate race, the popular vote, the number of states won...

So, tell us again who's engaged in the act of "EPIC FAIL"... then go run along and play.

We. Are. Not. Morons.

We. Do. Not. Have. Severe. Memory. Loss.

Stop insulting us with this idiocy.

It's a common theme here, and every mention plunges the teller into forfeit of credibility, as far as I'm concerned. Huge group.

Here are the numbers I kept from Pennsylvania, courtesy of the best polling website, Pollster.com. Abbreviations are my own choppy version but more or less obvious:

* Susq--4/6-10/08---(40-37)
* Temp--3/27-4/9/08-(47-41)
* Insi--4/8/08------(48-38)
* PPP---4/7-8/08----(46-43)
* Rasm--4/7/08------(48-43)
* Surv--4/5-7/08----(56-38)
* ARG---4/5-6/08----(45-45)
* Stra--4/4-6/08----(47-42)
* Quin--4/3-6/08----(50-44)
* TIME--4/2-6/08----(49-41)
* Insi--4/2/08------(45-42)
* Muhl--3/27-4/2/08-(51-41)
* PPP---3/31-4/1/08-(43-45)
* Rasm--3/31/08-----(47-42)
* Surv--3/29-31/08--(53-41)
* Quin--3/24-31/08--(50-41)
* Stra--3/28-30/08--(49-41)
* ARG---3/26-27/08--(51-39)
* Rasm--3/24/08-----(49-39)
* EMIL--3/16-19/08--(48-35)
* PPP---3/15-16/08--(56-30)
* Fran--3/11-16/08--(51-35)
* Quin--3/10-16/08--(53-41)
* Rasm--3/12/08-----(51-38)
* Surv--3/8-10/08---(55-36)
* Susq--3/5-10/08---(45-31)
* Stra--3/7-9/08----(56-38)
* ARG---3/7-8/08----(52-41)
* Rasm--3/5/08------(52-37)
* Rasm--2/26/08-----(46-42)
* Quin--2/21-25/08--(49-43)
* Fran--2/13-18/08--(44-32)
* Muhl--2/9-17/08---(45-31)
* Quin--2/6-12/08---(52-36)

That's every poll listed by Pollster, from the beginning of February through the first week in April. I stopped inputting at that time.

So where the hell is the 20-25 point lead? Please don't tell me you're pulling a TIA and cherry picking a single poll, or maybe 2, to inflate the backfitted premise.

In February the average of five polls was Hillary 47.2, Obama 36.8.

The only way to remotely threaten the type of 20-25 point gap that Obama supporters thrill to mention is to isolate early to mid March. Here are the Hillary leads in the first 10 polls of March, from March 5 to March 19:

* 15
* 11
* 18
* 14
* 19
* 13
* 12
* 16
* 26
* 13

Even in that two week window, starting and stopping specifically when Obama fares poorest, his average deficit was (Hillary 51.9, Obama 36.2) an average of 15.7.

Remarkable. He gained 6 points, from cherry picking his worst stretch, until election night.

BTW, that PPP poll of March 15-16 is the obvious outlier, a 26 point gap. Obama supporters now clutch it as a desperate reference point, proof their hero soared in the final month. Meanwhile, the next PPP sample, just two weeks later, put Obama ahead 45-43. Amazing turnaround. LOL.

PPP was so scattergun in Pennsylvania they had Obama winning their final poll, then scrambled for deflective rationalization almost immediately, and barely coherent.

Without that 26 point massive outlier, Obama's average deficit in the 9 polls was 14.6.

Here's the fundamental point, the one that separates competent analysis from the simpleton acceptance of vague polls: Obama had already established his 9/1 ratio among blacks, before any of these relatively recent polls in Pennsylvania were taken. Newsflash: Philadelphia has not been uprooted and airlifted to Idaho, or wherever. Given the size of the Philadelphia vote, and known historical percentage of the Philadelphia vote in relation to the statewide vote, there was no chance Obama could dominate Philadelphia's African-American vote by typical 9/1 margin, and simultaneously lose the state by 20-25 points.

Obama supporters don't like incumbency, do they? That's the only conclusion I can draw from the ridiculous assertions of "favored to win by 20-25 points..." Hillary obviously wasn't an incumbent, in this scenario. But incumbents, regardless of the type of race, normally lead by margins like that, or much higher. Almost no one is foolish enough to deny what it signifies, familiarity and comfort. Nothing more. It's hardly a cemented margin, and betting odds are not attached to the early margins in blindfolded lunacy. At the point you guys want to pretend Hillary was leading by 20-25 points, she was roughly a 70/30 Intrade favorite in Pennsylvania. Mirrored to money line realities, that equates to a 5 point favorite in a football game

At the end of 2006 she was at 39% nationwide. Now she's at 42%.

She started out with a base of voters, and has barely strayed from it in 18 months.

That's pretty bad.

..I'll concede the point. There, all done. Obama still gained, this still holds:



Try responding to THAT. Or... run away. Your call.

NICE POST!!!!

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

Obama may have trouble winning over voters from Hillary but do you really think Mccain will have an easier time winning the same voters? Do you really think dems who voted for Hillary would prefer McBush over a fellow democrat?

and the chart suggests that there are probably a lot of other supporters who also will. I mean, Obama had about as good a chance as anyone gets to make his case, and that the numbers didn't budge afterwards suggests that there's something about Obama that keeps white, blue-collar voters from going over to him. I'm not sure what that is (race, class, culture, etc.), but that's not a good sign for Democrats because McCain probably does have some appeal to a lot of those voters.

And a lot of them were going to vote McCain in the general anyway. There are probably old people who have been registered Dem for decades who haven't voted for one since Reagan. They came out to vote for Hillary in the primary but they'll go Grandpa in November no matter who our nominee is.

from winning over these voters. It can't just be a mild preference for Hillary - if that was all that was going on then Obama's gobs of money would have moved those lines some. So it's something harder and deeper, and if that thing favors McCain (in the way that, say racial bias might, if that's what's going on), then McCain could very well win over those voters.

and pro-war, and pro tax cuts for the rich?

Hillary had the natural advantage of demographics, support of the local Governor, big city mayors and their political machine, a shared media market with her home state and her "brand name" (which her entire campaign has been trading on, even though it says nothing about her ability to lead the country). Neither campaign projected Obama to win in this Democrat vs. Democrat primary. Democrats are having record turnouts this year across the country, so unless record numbers of Democrats desert their party (which is a wonderful to show your bitterness and screw your country at the same time), the Democratic candidate in the General Election will get the majority of their Primary candidates votes. This is the same reason the "big state" argument is flawed. It works both ways, if Hillary somehow becomes the nominee, she will also get most of her opponent's Democratic votes in the Primary states where she lost.

Please don't stoop to disparaging active Democratic volunteers or contributors. It's reprehensible behavior, no matter which side it comes from.

or she'll lose

Pretty silly to compare numbers in an electability argument when there's an active republican campaign to vote for Hillary in an effort to promote democratic chaos and when a large percentage of the general election voters -- independents and moderate republicans -- aren't represented.

I'll be voting for the person I believe will do the best job, rather than voting based on various forms of promoted fear.

(Okay, I'm a cynic. I'll actually be voting for the person I believe will do the least damage. I was trying to brighten things up by providing the "glass half full" perspective.)

Senator Clinton was always by far the expected winner of Pennsylvania, so it was the equivalent of campaigning in a red state for Senator Obama. Given that, he almost turned it into a squeaker.

The ultimate test of electability is winning the race for your party's nomination.

like they normally would given the lopsided nature of the campaign. It's not that Obama should have won or that it looks bad since he didn't, but his numbers should have moved over that three week period and they simply didn't.

canvassing what they are really doing is trying to id the candidates supporters. It reallly is not the responsibility of the volunteer to "make the sale" - that job falls squarely on the candidate and the candidate's campaign.

So in this instance, the volunteers no doubt worked hard at trying to id Obama supporters but HE failed to close the deal.

It wasn't that they wasted their time.....there just wasn't enough "1's" to put next to names.....and that is squarely Obama's fault.....never his volunteers.

:hi:

:hi:

You realize PA is only one state?

Among the many many nonsensical memes spread on DU these days is the idea that because a voter preferred Clinton to Obama in the primary that voter is lost to the Democrats if Obama gets the nomination -- that the fact that both Obama and Clinton will end the war faster than McCain, that they both will have more progressive economic policies than McCain, that they both will support a woman's right to choose while McCain won't, etc etc will be lost on these voters and they will go into the voting booth and cast a ballot for someone diametrically opposed to the positions of the person that they voted for in primary.

If that's the case, can someone explain to me why these folks are supporting HRC if they are really anti-choice, pro-war, soak the poor, enrich the wealthy types?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/OH/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226001/

Kerry won across the board. Obama loses among large swaths of the electorate--swaths that happen to be ones that will grow in the general election.

The chart, much like you is a joke.

I've posted a separate thread on this, but it bears repeating. The "logic" of the OP's electability rationale is based on an extremely illogical premise. It assumes that voters who prefer HRC to Obama in the primary do not care about the issues or positions of the candidates -- that, in essence, the white voters who skew towards HRC would do so even if her position on the issues was that she supported 100 years of war, was anti-choice, and wanted to preserve tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.

That is what the OP is saying when he/she suggests that these voters would support McCain over HRC -- that these voters do not share most of the fundamental beliefs/positions of the Democratic party and its supporters.

I don't believe it. And I think if the OP thought about it, he/she wouldn't believe it either.

If the preference of these voters for Hillary over Obama was merely the product of policy issues then Obama's lopsided campaign would have wooed some of them away from her over that three week period. That he didn't, then, suggests that all sorts of identity issues are tied up in the voting patterns, and these identity issues could very well favor McCain.

even in closed primary states, are anti-choice, pro-war, and pro Bush tax cuts and would support HRC even if she took those positions?

Do I have that right?

I know what the polls say. I also know that at this stage in the campaign, when partisans for each candidate are waging war against each other, its easy to say "anybody but the other guy/gal". But when things calm down, do you really think, after head to head debates in which it becomes clear that McCain will preside over the undoing of Roe v Wade and will allow thousands more men and women to die in Iraq and will make sure that the gap between the rich and the poor/middle class grows -- that these voters will say, "yee-haw, that's my guy"?

because PA suggests pretty strongly that they're voting some sort of identity issues.

But do you think that they'll weigh identity over positions in the GE?

If you think that, you also must think that HRC's supporters would still back her (and Obama's supporters would still back him) if they both announced that they were in favor of the war and opposed to abortion and opposed to rolling back the Bush tax cuts.

That is an untenable position. ANd it illustrates why trying to draw inferences about how voters will respond in the GE from their voting in primaries is foolish.

Obama tried pretty hard to reframe things in terms of the economy, etc. and he had all the tools he needed to do so. Granted, Hillary kept dragging everything back to identity issues, but that's not going to be any different in the general election. So these people care at least enough about identity issues that they're willing to be dragged back to them by a candidate. And that should be troubling to Obama.

I mean, Rove got people to vote silly stuff in 2004, despite pretty huge disagreements between Bush and Kerry. And Bush, we should note, won the election by winning Ohio.

In 2004, polls indicated that support for the decision to invade iraq remained in the mid to uppper 40 percent range and support for keeping troops there still topped 50 percent. And throughout 2004 chimpy had favorability rating in the upper forties to mid 50 percent range as well.

While chimpy isn't on the ballot, he hangs like a weight on the repubs that enabled his policies for the past 8 years, which is why so many repub incumbents are bailing out this year.

Comparisons to 2004 are overly simplistic.

And they did in 2004.

I mean, if Obama only had weak problems with identity then we wouldn't have that much of a problem. But that the lines didn't move in the face of hugely intense campaigning by Obama suggests that the voters have real identity problems with him.

he took a good chunk out of her lead in her home state.

Every state they compete in, her numbers DROP, his RISE.

He earns money... she begs for it while not paying bills.

But really... good luck... and hope you're enjoying your stay.

The longer Hillary Clinton stays in, the more likely she makes it that this country will have a Republican president for 4 more years. That's all.

Just like her followers will claim about the national results; she only won in red counties that won't matter come the GE. She can only win this now by seriously pissing off the core voters of dems. She will walk back into PA at the GE and try to setup shop in Philly with a shortened GE season and have to spend all her time begging the Philly voters to come back to her. She will get blindsided by McCain who will have a solid rural vote, and put the squeeze on her in the suburban independent areas.

Obama will have the base voters in the urban areas in large numbers and can from the get go, start on winning the suburban voters and even have the luxury of pushing back at McCain in the rural areas putting McCain on defense.

Her Pyhrric victory is a signal of doom not strength.

in those last three weeks. Obama should have been able to move the poll numbers in that period with all of his electoral advantages, and that he didn't flags serious problems.

Your silly little metric is classic cognitive disconnect. Hillarys only movement has been downward and flatlines. Her only upward movement has been her unfavorable ratings.

Again, it's a red flag when a candidate's monster electoral advantages don't yield increased support over a period of time like 20 days.

It is not Obamas fault if she can not handle her campaigns finances and squandered 200 million dollars. Again you do not think ahead and try to use a weakness as a strength. If she can not show fiscal restraint and handle the financial logistics of something as simple as a campaign; what idiot would put her in charge of the Nations purse?

I read several folks point out how Obama never broke 45% in any PA poll (that changed when the final PPP poll had him at 47% and winning). They said, and I agreed, that it appeared he had a ceiling. They didn't offer any explanation but you are right. The focus group results I posted earlier give us an indication: they don't think he shares their values, particularly patriotism. Obama's own focus groups must show this and this is why his machine is crying so much over the Wright "god damn America" ad in NC. They know reviving this issue will hurt him long-term, although it may help him short-term in NC.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

on DU.

those last three weeks.

He didn't need to win, just stay within single digits - which he did.

She's even farther behind now than she was a week ago.

IT'S OVER.

Because for some reason that doesn't strike me as a winning strategy for November.

They don't care about electability. The reply above is a perfect example. It is all about Clinton. It isn't about the GE. Three months and the fucking numbers didn't move?

But you're beating your head against the wall...the real problem is that Barry and his supporters can't learn from their mistakes, they simply try to spin it one way and blame everyone else. Oh, and whine about it, too!!! If I saw barry try and adapt to the changing political landscape, I'd say good, but I ain't seeing it, and I don't think I will. Lord help us--President McLame!

banky will make it all better;

:eyes:

your banky, maam;

I am on their list and still here. :thumbsup:

stop blaming everyone else. Alas, ain't gonna happen...maybe that's why his suit is so empty because there's nothing holding it up.

you can have one too;

I agree! Hillary losing that tremendous lead with the Democratic machine behind her, and Obama receiving the worst press of his career, was indeed an "Epic Fail" that demonstrates Obama's electability.

Thanks! :hi:

They raise money so they can spend money.....don't doubt for a minute...Hillary would have spent just as much if she was capable of raising the cash like Obama.

Money makes the world go around partner...:)

I'm not saying Obama's having money shows he's unelectable - I'm saying that his inability to move his numbers, even with all that money does.

proves he has massive support AND is a good manager. And you don't know what that expense did or didn't do.

/ack

I agree Obama has an army of yuppie drones mindlessly emptying their walets into his already burgeoning coffers. But he can't win over blue-collar voters, who we need to win in November.

or third oldest in the nation and not representative, for one thing. Obama will be fine. He tends to do better and better with groups he reaches out to, not worse and worse.

money?

and Hillary will eat dirt

It's like looking at polls from 2006.

Theres a lot of noise going on... these guys are outside my house right now. Wonder what they're doing...???

I can't hear you FROM 160 PLEDGED DELEGATES AHEAD!

In February he started out ahead 1 in one poll, 5 in another. He moved the numbers to win by 17. He did this despite being outspent by Santorum (Casey spent in a year about as much as Obama spent in six weeks in PA...) since Santorum, being the #3 rethug in the senate, had massive national rethug support until they pulled the plug at the very end because it was a lost cause.

Actual result 41% 58% Casey +17%
RCP Average 10/23 - 11/02 - 40.8 52.3 4.8 Casey +11.5

Strategic Vision (R) 11/02 - 11/04 1200 LV 40 52 8 Casey +12.0
Mason-Dixon 10/31 - 11/02 625 LV 39 52 7 Casey +13.0
Morning Call 10/29 - 11/01 507 LV 43 51 3 Casey +8.0
Reuters/Zogby 10/24 - 10/31 600 LV 40 48 6 Casey +8.0
Strategic Vision (R) 10/28 - 10/30 1200 LV 39 49 12 Casey +10.0
Keystone Poll 10/25 - 10/29 355 LV 39 56 5 Casey +17.0
Quinnipiac 10/23 - 10/29 933 LV 42 52 6 Casey +10.0
Rasmussen 10/28 - 10/28 500 LV 42 55 2 Casey +13.0
Zogby Interactive* 10/23 - 10/27 LV 44 53 -- Casey +9.0
West Chester Univ. 10/22 - 10/25 601 LV 39 50 11 Casey +11.0
Phil. Inquirer 10/16 - 10/25 698 LV 38 54 6 Casey +16.0
Strategic Vision (R) 10/20 - 10/23 1200 LV 42 49 9 Casey +7.0
Mason-Dixon 10/18 - 10/21 625 LV 39 51 7 Casey +12.0
Rasmussen 10/16 - 10/16 500 LV 43 55 0.0 Casey +12.0
Zogby Interactive * 10/10 - 10/16 760 LV 44 52 -- Casey +8.0
Morning Call 10/03 - 10/08 511 LV 41 46 14 Casey +5.0
Rasmussen 10/05 - 10/05 500 LV 39 52 9 Casey +13.0
Reuters/Zogby 09/25 - 10/02 602 LV 36 48 14 Casey +12.0
Mason-Dixon 09/22 - 09/26 625 LV 40 49 10 Casey +9.0
Zogby Interactive* 09/19 - 09/25 893 LV 42 48 14 Casey +6.0
Strategic Vision (R) 09/22 - 09/24 1200 LV 40 50 10 Casey +10.0
Quinnipiac 09/19 - 09/24 933 LV 40 54 6 Casey +14.0
Rasmussen 09/20 - 09/20 500 LV 39 49 7 Casey +10.0
Phil. Inquirer 09/14 - 09/20 666 LV 39 49 8 Casey +10.0
Greenberg Quinlan (D) 09/18 - 09/19 414 LV 39 53 5 Casey +14.0
Keystone Poll 09/13 - 09/18 604 RV 38 45 12 Casey +7.0
Issues PA/Pew Poll 09/11 - 09/18 1201 RV 31 54 10 Casey +23.0
Zogby Interactive* 08/29 - 09/05 893 LV 43 47 8 Casey +4.0
USA Today/Gallup 08/23 - 08/27 600 LV 38 56 5 Casey +18.0
Rasmussen 08/22 - 08/22 500 LV 40 48 6 Casey +8.0
Keystone Poll 08/16 - 08/21 551 RV 39 44 13 Casey +5.0
Zogby Interactive* 08/15 - 08/21 671 LV 42 51 7 Casey +9.0
Benenson Strategy (D) 08/13 - 08/16 821 A 37 48 12 Casey +11.0
Strategic Vision (R) 08/11 - 08/13 1200 LV 41 47 8 Casey +6.0
Quinnipiac 08/08 - 08/13 1011 LV 42 48 5 Casey +6.0
Morning Call 07/31 - 08/03 550 RV 39 45 16 Casey +6.0
Rasmussen 07/26 - 07/26 500 LV 39 50 11 Casey +11.0
Zogby Interactive* 07/11 - 07/19 950 LV 40 49 11 Casey +9.0
Strategic Vision (R) 07/14 - 07/16 1200 LV 40 50 8 Casey +10.0
Rasmussen 06/19 - 06/19 500 LV 37 52 6 Casey +15.0
Quinnipiac 06/13 - 06/19 1076 RV 34 52 12 Casey +18.0
Zogby Interactive* 06/13 - 06/19 769 LV 41 48 N/A Casey +7.0
Strategic Vision (R) 06/09 - 06/11 1200 LV 40 49 10 Casey +9.0
Greenberg Quinlan (D) 05/21 - 05/25 756 LV 41 54 N/A Casey +13.0
Rasmussen 05/22 - 05/22 500 LV 33 56 8 Casey +23.0
Quinnipiac 05/02 - 05/08 1487 RV 36 49 12 Casey +13.0
Strategic Vision (R) 05/05 - 05/07 1200 LV 41 49 9 Casey +8.0
Keystone Poll 04/27 - 05/01 578 RV 41 47 12 Casey +6.0
Morning Call 04/17 - 04/25 508 RV 38 46 16 Casey +8.0
Rasmussen 04/20 - 04/20 500 LV 38 51 5 Casey +13.0
Strategic Vision (R) 04/07 - 04/09 1200 LV 40 50 9 Casey +10.0
Quinnipiac 03/28 - 04/03 1354 37 48 12 Casey +11.0
Rasmussen 03/29 - 03/29 500 LV 41 50 5 Casey +9.0
Rasmussen 03/14 - 03/14 500 LV 38 48 8 Casey +10.0
Strategic Vision (R) 03/10 - 03/12 1200 LV 38 52 8 Casey +14.0
Mansfield University 02/13 - 03/07 1102 31 45 20 Casey +14.0
Morning Call 02/25 - 03/02 668 RV 37 49 14 Casey +12.0
Rasmussen 02/16 - 02/16 500 LV 36 52 7 Casey +16.0
Quinnipiac 01/31 - 02/06 1661 36 51 10 Casey +15.0
Keystone Poll 01/31 - 02/05 497 RV 39 50 11 Casey +11.0
Strategic Vision (R) 01/20 - 01/22 1200 LV 40 50 9 Casey +10.0
Rasmussen 01/15 - 01/15 500 LV 38 53 6 Casey +15.0
Strategic Vision (R) 12/16 - 12/18 1200 LV 39 50 10 Casey +11.0
Quinnipiac 11/30 - 12/06 1447 38 50 10 Casey +12.0
Strategic Vision (R) 11/11 - 11/13 1200 RV 36 51 10 Casey +15.0
Rasmussen 11/07 - 11/07 500 LV 34 54 7 Casey +20.0
Keystone Poll 11/02 - 11/07 533 RV 35 51 14 Casey +16.0
Strategic Vision (R) 10/14 - 10/16 1200 RV 36 52 10 Casey +16.0
Quinnipiac 09/27 - 10/03 1530 34 52 11 Casey +18.0
Morning Call 09/18 - 09/25 477 RV 29 37 31 Casey +8.0
Keystone Poll 09/08 - 09/13 518 RV 37 50 13 Casey +13.0
Strategic Vision (R) 09/10 - 09/12 1200 RV 38 52 7 Casey +14.0
Strategic Vision (R) 07/29 - 07/31 1200 RV 40 51 7 Casey +11.0
Rasmussen 07/20 - 07/20 500 LV 41 52 N/A Casey +11.0
Quinnipiac 07/06 - 07/10 1639 39 50 11 Casey +11.0
Keystone Poll 05/31 - 06/05 467 RV 37 44 19 Casey +7.0
Keystone Poll 04/25 - 05/01 578 RV 41 47 12 Casey +6.0
Quinnipiac 04/13 - 04/18 1395 35 49 13 Casey +14.0
Keystone Poll 02/23 - 03/20 452 RV 43 44 13 Casey +1.0
Quinnipiac 02/10 - 02/14 1250 41 46 11 Casey +5.0

they drink imported limited-edition organic microbrews! ;)