"With the Casey (D-PA) endorsement, who would bet against Obama taking PA? Only Diebold and ES&S."

TIA calculated the 3/29 one-day Gallup tracking poll at 54 - 38 Obama.

See Sweet Home Alabama: Why Obama will win the Pennsylvania Primary

Hillary is trading at roughly 84-16 to win PA. So far the Casey endorsement has been worth 0.0% in the trading price.

But if TIA wants to manipulate a Hillary win in PA as outright theft, fine. I won't be impressed or surprised.

I had Hillary at basically even money in CA and OH but I doubt the Obama backers will be that dense again, to ignore demographic realties in PA and set up a bargain.

The only remaining primary with a competitive price is Indiana. Everything else is 70/30 or higher, both sides favored depending on the state

Obama doesn't need PA. TIA must really be bored, or practicing for November outrage, if he's paranoid about PA.

I was getting somewhat interested there, hoping the recent polling would drive the price down to 60/40 or lower. That's more or less my "Go" value price on Hillary in PA, giving 3/2.

But today Hillary is up almost 5%, last trade near 75%.

This reminds me somewhat of South Carolina. Hillary was at severe demographic disadvantage there, but her camp felt compelled to prioritize the state due to isolated spot on the calendar. And that led to some false projections of a tight result. Everyone wants a horse race.

Hillary's edge in PA isn't as decisive as Obama's in SC, but the month gap prior to PA allows extreme focus, and IMO some overblown trust in potential for a reversal.

If PA were stuck on the same day with many states, let's say a Super Tuesday or mini-Super Tuesday, there would be acceptance of the demographic tilt toward Hillary and it would be considered second-tier opportunity for Obama.

BTW, Obama is up to 87/13 theoretical advantage for the nomination. I have no idea why Obama backers are so wrapped up in PA. If my candidate had this type of foundational lead late in the game I'm making vacation plans, and occasionally making sure he didn't drown.

On edit: gad, in this climate I just realized that throwaway line could be mistaken for racial meaning, a Joe Frazier type of thing. Take out drown and substitute anything you want.

Yes, lots of people think that with Obama able to focus on a single state, Clinton can't hold the lead because she can't match him in spending (the last part is true, of course). But she has extremely high name ID -- she surely doesn't have to match Obama in spending.

87/13 isn't really very good, is it? But yeah, clearly Obama doesn't have to win PA. However, Obama backers hope that if he does, Clinton will be forced to drop out.

Three new polls this morning, ranging from +5 to +18. Around and around we go....

Now speculators "think" on Apr 1 it's 84% HRC.

"Your reality!" It churns.

Pennsylvania Democratic Primary, Apr 22nd, Barack Obama to Win

The answer to TIA's question is that many Intrade speculators are betting against Obama taking PA.

Could they be wrong? Sure. But at this point, they are following the survey evidence, which consistently shows Clinton ahead in PA. That certainly raises questions about what TIA is trying to accomplish with his post.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/state_toplines/pennsylvania/toplines_pennsylvania_democratic_primary_march_31_2008

Pennsylvania Primary
Survey of 730 Democratic Primary Voters
March 31, 2008

Democratic Primary       Hillary 47%   Obama 42%   Unsure 11%
 
Favorables                    HRC       Obama      
Very Favorable                 40         43
 
Very Unfavorable               10          8
 
Not Sure                        1          2
 

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Penn_Release_040208.pdf

Survey of 1224 likely
Pennsylvania Democratic
primary voters

Meanwhile, in the last 24 hours, we have Quinnipiac with Clinton +9 and SUSA with Clinton +12. TIA doesn't have to consider all that information, but the Intrade gang presumably will. Does the PPP result reflect an inexorable trend, a "blip," or something in between?

By the way, the PPP poll shows Obama with (I think) of the white vote, whereas the exit poll tab estimated that Obama got 25% of the white vote in Alabama. In case people want to play with the PA/Alabama analogy.

Oh, but wait. This is ER, not GD-P. Oops. Anyway, we'll see how things look closer to the primary.

"Too long of a sample period and done before the Casey endorsement really took hold."

The Casey Endorsement- Friday, Mar 28, in Pittsburgh. NYTimes reports on 11:11AM Fri 28 "He is joining Mr. Obama today (Mar 28) as he begins a six-day bus trip across Pennsylvania and plans to be with him for about three days as Mr. Obama meets up with just the kind of blue collar, Catholic men who have eluded Mr. Obama. ..." "...Mr. Casey is going against the grain in his state, where polls show Mrs. Clinton ahead by at least 12 percentage points and where she has the endorsement of most of the state’s major Democratic figures."

Quinnipiac's polling period included Mar 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28...and the Quinnipiac-reported 9% point lead for Clinton after the close of the polling period on the 31st is weighted by responses before the Casey endorsement and Casey's accompanying of Obama about PA over the next three days. By the 31st, an apparent 25+ point Clinton lead in weeks prior had been reduced to just 9%:

Fully after the endorsement and after stumping about Pennsylvania with Sen Casey on Mar 28, 29 & 30, "PPP surveyed 1224 likely Democratic primary voters on March 31st and April 1st. ... It’s a remarkable turn around from PPP’s last Pennsylvania poll, conducted two and a half weeks ago, that showed Clinton with a 26 point lead in the state. ... Barack Obama has taken the lead over Hillary Clinton 45-43 in Pennsylvania, according to the newest survey from Public Policy Polling."

Polls need be esteemed in context.

"With the Casey (D-PA) endorsement, who would bet against Obama taking PA? Only Diebold and ES&S."

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=538018#

If it's tiptoe, then I'd love to have you double back to some other threads and engage some content that you ignored. Content aside, I want to know if you are serious about what you post.

People have been banned before (apparently) for acting as TIA's sock puppets. He has his own web site, and doesn't have to commandeer this one.

Yes, indeed, polls need to be taken in context, and all together. That was my point. The fact that your response focuses on Quinnipiac and ignores SUSA makes me think that TIA probably wrote it: he has a weird knack for only seeing what he wants to see. When several polls come out at about the same time with markedly different results, it generally isn't prudent to place much confidence in any of them.

Many people continue to bet against Obama taking PA, as your Intrade link usefully documents. That continues to be the answer to TIA's question. More generally, as I'm sure Awsi Dooger can explain better than I could, whether one would bet against Obama would depend on the odds and the amount.

As for Diebold and ES&S betting against Obama, well, I have no info on that, and it doesn't appear that you or TIA do either. (To underscore something demodonkey said downthread, it wouldn't be surprising to see disproportionate undervotes on Danaher machines in Philly, which could certainly hurt Obama.)

Reading anything beyond a simple reporting of contextual fact would be wrong on your part. The analysis/reporting I provided of your Quinnipiac example is enough to demonstrate a difference of relevancy amongst polls surrounding an important (surprise) event, such that a blanket dismissal of all the polls "at the same time" because they have "markedly different results" is quite inappropriate for the PA situation (and unuseful to any more-than-just-technical Intraders, if there are any paying attention). The poll reported on April 2 by PPP -- besides having been conducted wholly *after* Casey's key PA endorsement event (unlike Quinnipiac's poll, already ongoing 4 days when the Casey event unexpectedly intervened) -- also covered the timeframe of Obama's speaking appearances around northeastern Pennsylvania through April 1. SUSA, though, ended its polling on March 31, *before* Obama's speaking appearances on April 1 in northeastern PA. SUSA's poll results would not be as "encompassing" of the post-Casey event-effect as PPP's. Quinnipiac's results would simply be a distortion.



The statement doesn't really reflect the situation in PA with the "several polls" in question: The PA polls situation -- Mar 24 (Quinnipiac) thru Apr 1 (PPP), was more complicated than merely 'polls conducted about the same time'. The situation involved several polls, begun before or after a major unexpected event in time (Mar 28 in Pittsburgh) and concluded more or less before that event's "effect" and finalization day-to-day in different places across Pennsylvania (March 30 Harrisburg, Mar 31 Lancaster, Apr 1 Wilkes-Barre, Dunmore and Scranton).

SUSA -- probably under contract for pre-planned polling dates with four PA TV stations -- ended its polling Mar 31, a day before Obama's scheduled appearances in Northeastern PA, an area where WNEP reported on the evening of Sunday March 30 that Hillary held a 10+ point lead over Obama. One of the four contracting TV stations, WNEP presumably would have been aware that its pollster, SUSA, would be finished polling on Mar 31, and thus any upcoming poll results from SUSA after the major Casey event wouldn't be reflective of Obama's appearances in Hillary "strongholds" in northeastern PA. In contrast, PPP carried its polling through April 1, during which timeframe Obama appeared in Wilkes-Barre, Dunmore, and Scranton.

SUSA PA contractors:
WCAU-TV Philadelphia,
KDKA-TV Pittsburgh,
WHP-TV Harrisburg, and
WNEP-TV Scranton/Wilkes-Barre.


Sunday night, March 30 (...two days before Obama's scheduled appearances in NE PA cities and with the WNEP reporter presumably aware its pollster, SUSA, would conclude polling before Obama even got to WNEP territory...yet no forewarning to its viewing audience that any upcoming SUSA poll would not reflect those appearances.)
http://www.wnep.com/Global/story.asp?S=8096255




Big Day of Campaigning in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
http://www.wnep.com/Global/story.asp?S=8089134&nav=menu158_2
Tuesday will be a busy day of campaigning in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area.
Both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton will make campaign stops.


Barack Obama Bus Tour Stops in Wilkes-Barre
http://www.wnep.com/Global/story.asp?S=8100591&nav=menu158_2 April 1
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton rolled into Wilkes-Barre Tuesday. Senator Clinton hosted an afternoon rally at King's College. Senator Obama held a town hall meeting in the morning at Wilkes University, before heading to an event in Dunmore.

Are you representing that these posts represent your own thinking? If so, then it is easily within your power to make that much clearer than it has been.

I thank you for quoting what I wrote, which was of course not a "blanket dismissal of all the polls."

My statement is simply commonsensical. Certainly one can posit that different field dates account for the differences in the survey, but it would be naive to assume that they do.

You apparently think that Casey's endorsement is important, and you may be correct, but your evidence remains sketchy (and the SUSA poll could be taken to point in the other direction). You apparently think that Obama's appearances in northeast PA were important, and I'm not sure your evidence there even rises to the level of sketchiness. That doesn't mean you are wrong; it means that you have offered no basis for agreement or disagreement.

Setting aside Muhlenberg because of the dates, the latest polls show a very close race, and that may be correct, but I don't love any of the pollsters in that mix. I think we'll get a new wave of Quinnipiac today, and that will be interesting.

Of course, none of this gets anywhere near the premise, or whatever it was, that voting tech firms are betting on Clinton. So I still have to wonder what this thread is doing in ER.

These posts represent my own thinking. Where others' thoughts have been used, links to sources have been provided, including:

• The link to a quote by DU-er Tropics_Dude83, who replied to a question about the Quinnipiac poll "How accurate have the Q. polls been compared to Rasmussen?" with: "March 24 - 31. Ridiculous. Too long of a sample period and done before the Casey endorsement really took hold. I'd ignore this. ..." He used the term "ridiculous" with advice to "ignore it" to describe the Quinnipiac poll, and it was his post that moved me to confirm those two key contextual facets of the Quinnipiac poll, its date and the date of the surprise Sen. Casey endorsement, neither of which facts you volunteered -- apparently deemed not important by you -- when you introduced the Quinnipiac poll into the discussion by tossing out:
  
  
  we have Quinnipiac with Clinton +9 and SUSA with Clinton +12. TIA doesn't have to consider all that information, but the Intrade gang presumably will. ...
  
  
  (I would think the Intrade gang et al would have appreciated "all that information" and much more than you made available.)
  

Actually, the crux of the matter for someone who thinks the PA Casey endorsement is important really isn't about the field dates per se, but rather the fact that Quinnipiac's polling -- which concluded with Clinton at +9% -- had already conducted ~50% (Mar 24-27) of its polling prior to the intervention of the surprise, major endorsement by Sen Casey on Friday afternoon and follow-up stumping the next few days. Thus, regardless your statement being commonsensical, its premise -- "When several polls come out at about the same time with markedly different results" -- appears impertinent to the crucial point above. And the conclusion that follows: "it generally isn't prudent to place much confidence in any of them" (emphasis yours) seems intended to diminish the significance of all the polls (emphasis mine...and hence my "blanket dismissal" comment earlier). For those who think the Casey endorsement is important, the Quinnipiac poll includes a distorting factor (see Tropics_Dude83 above) and should be ignored. For those who think the follow-through post-Casey stumping in northeastern PA Apr 1 was important, the Sunday-initiated SUSA poll wouldn't reflect that (nor would it be unaffected, possibly, by the Casey event occuring on a Friday.).

Pennsylvania polls

Peace Patriot has this to say about Election Fraud (symbolized by Diebold and ES&S) and the Primaries, as per TIA's
The 2008 Primaries: Statistical Footprints of Election Fraud

Now, do you have a comment on today's SUSA poll, which has Clinton up by 18?

And speaking of questions you haven't answered, what does any of this have to do with election reform? I've read Peace Patriot's posts before, just as I've read TIA's, so quoting them doesn't add value.

What stands out immediately about the SUSA poll: It's result sharply contrasts with other Pennsylvania polls around same time (RCP linked earlier, above). Call it an outlier. Beyond a surface look, maybe much more can be speculated/imagined/assessed.

Uncritically (or noncommittally) quoting stuff I've already read tells me almost nothing. How could it? If you stake out your own positions, then there's a basis for communication.

SUSA: sure, we can "call it an outlier" -- and it is -- but where does that leave you? The last SUSA poll you tried to argue away because it was fielded "*before* Obama's speaking appearances on April 1 in northeastern PA." Woohoo.

Well, whatever. I still don't know what this thread is about. Do you think Obama will win PA? Do you even care whether Obama will win PA? Shrug.

I've read your stuff and TIA's, and commend you for your efforts in the DU game.

You convinced me the 2004 Final exit "poll" could not be plausibly reconciled quantitatively with the vote count it matched. The vote count was fraudulent. Your panel-study evidence of "false recall" was particularly non-persuasive.


non sequitur...Woohoo.

Opinions minus arguments equal posturing. I encounter lots of that here, so it's pretty boring.

SUSA: not a non sequitur at all. You (apparently) explained away the last SUSA poll based on timing; what is your reason this time? I think a house effect would make more sense, although of course it would help to know what might be causing it. We should know more soon.

the "errors of your way"? As autorank informs in his current sig: 1.22 million Iraqis are dead, 5 million orphans (future "soldiers" vis-a-vis PNAC perpetual-war plans?): That's more than 4% of the entire population of Iraq. It's been reported that 59% of the dead from "Shock and Awe" were women and children, i.e. a reproductive segment of future Iraqi society. (The military -- i.e., a segment of the Bush-Pentagon -- calculates and "plans" around these matters, one reasonably presumes.)

I call that demographic genocide, by "beneficiaries" of 2000 and 2004 and 2006 election fraud (not Rovian "voter fraud") against the American people and the Constitution of the U.S.A.

But to indulge your "academic" (dare I say what I feel?...No, I dare not tempt DU admins that apparently believe TIA made individual inferences from aggregate/generic poll data; therefore, let's just say...) "inclination":

SUSA's not important...and what is important is that a seemingly-populist presidential candidate -- given past example -- is not assassinated (now that DLC-Hillary is about to be "dismissed", pending possibility of primary election fraud).

If important or necessary, I'll get back to you regarding your panel study example. Suffice it to say, it's a simple matter to debunk it's application to your purpose of denouncing exit polls; I'm sure hundreds of DU-ers could "see through it" once clued in (...even Febble, as if she's not already aware).

BTW, I mildly mis-spoke: Before being "non-persuasive", your panel-study example is unimpressive.

This is the ER forum. If you actually don't give a damn about the evidence as to 2004, that is your privilege, but then, why are you posting about it?

It is indeed boring, as well as depressing, to watch people express "opinions" that they see no need to offer support for. Progressives should not argue like creationists, IMO. You can call that an "'academic'" "'inclination'" if you like, but lots of people share it.

If you have evidence of election fraud in 2004 and 2006, by all means present it. No one is stopping you. The only reason we aren't discussing relevant facts is that you aren't presenting any.

I certainly share your hope that Obama will not be assassinated.

The panel study provides direct evidence that some people reported their 2000 votes differently in 2004 than in 2000 -- alongside indirect evidence from other polls that incumbents almost always fare better retrospectively. If you want to argue that people actually report their past votes accurately, well, go ahead. Again, no one is stopping you. If there's something you want to clue me in to about the panel study, by all means. If you think you are better off sticking to sweeping assertions and innuendo, well, perhaps you are right.

ETA: If you're actually interested in this subject, you might read this and, if so inclined, offer a substantive response.

Philadelphia, voting on the ancient Danaher1242 that our Governor Ed Rendell loves (as much as he love Hillary) may be the indicator if anything funky is going on.

Pittsburgh is on ES&S iVotronic, and Harrisburg on the same Danaher as Philly.

Watch the pre- and post-election numbers. Watch 'em.