On November 3^rd voters went to the polls to fill vacancies on the state Supreme Court, Superior Court and Commonwealth Court.  The outcome was that Republicans won 6 of 7 contests, including the elevation of Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin to the state’s highest court. The fact that Republicans prevailed is significant because Pennsylvania now boasts 1.2 million more registered Democrats than Republicans, Republicans were outspent by Democrats in these contests and the state has become more Democratic in recent years as evidenced by Barack Obama’s 10-point margin last year over John McCain.  Democrats are the majority party now, and control both the governor’s office and the State House of Representatives. Republicans control only the state senate.

 This same dynamic of voting against the “party in power” also played out in elections in New Jersey and Virginia this year.  Elections for governor were on the ballot in both states and voters again chose Republicans.  In New Jersey, normally a reliably “blue” state, voters ousted Democratic Governor Jon Corzine by electing GOP challenger and former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie on a message of bringing change to New Jersey.  His victory was hailed as a return to a system of checks and balances since Democrats have total control of state government in Trenton including the State Senate and State Assembly.  In Virginia, voters chose Republican Bob McDonnell over Democrat Craig Deeds despite the fact that the state recently elected a Democratic governor and United States senator.  Republicans also picked up seats in the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Assembly.  President Obama carried both New Jersey and Virginia in 2008.

 The impact of these elections has clear consequences for the upcoming 2010 elections in Pennsylvania.  In our state over the last few decades the political pendulum has swung back and forth between Republicans and Democrats at all levels.  For instance, from eight years of Democrat governors to eight years of Republican ones; from a 12-to-7 GOP-controlled congressional delegation after the 2002 election, to a 12-to-7 Democratic-controlled congressional delegation after the 2008 elections.  This back-and-forth between the parties holds true even in the state legislature in Harrisburg where Democrats captured control of the State House by 28 votes in 2006 after a close vote recount in a Chester County seat.  Similarly, Republicans won control of the State House back in 1978 by 21 voters after winning a vote recount in a Somerset County seat. 

 All this seems to indicate that 2010 will again be the Republicans’ turn. The theme of many GOP candidates will be the message of returning to a system of “checks and balances”.   Our polling this year confirms the “checks and balances” message is resonating, where by an astonishing 60 to 30 percent margin voters in Pennsylvania said they would rather vote for a candidate for state representative who “can be a check and balance to Governor Rendell and the Democratic agenda in Harrisburg”, rather than a candidate who “will help Governor Rendell and the Democrats pass their agenda in Harrisburg”.   Support for the “checks and balances” argument includes 80% of Republicans and even 44% of Democrats.  Our polling in several competitive congressional districts shows a similar pattern, where voters prefer a candidate for congress who will not be a rubber stamp for President Obama’s policies.  Even Democratic U.S. Senator Arlen Specter is feeling the heat, because in our recent poll only 31% of the state’s voters said he deserved to be reelected in 2010, while 59% said it was time to give a new person a chance.  This poll sent such shock waves across the country that it became the topic of discussion by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh on his radio program the day after it broke.

 But Republicans would be foolish to celebrate early.  If the economy makes a strong comeback by the middle of next year, Democrat candidates at both the federal and state level will be able to say things improved under their watch, and that their policies and programs were the correct medicine to fix an ailing economy that most voters readily admit was largely inherited.  If however, the perception among Americans is that things are not getting much better, and unemployment continues to hover near the 10 percent mark, Republican candidates could use the “checks and balances” theme as a successful strategy to remind the public that one-party domination is not the best way out of the economic mess we’ve gotten ourselves into. If this happens, using history as a guide the smart bet would be to put your money on the GOP.

So Harrisburg City Council President Linda Thompson beat Mayor Steve Reed by more than 1,000 votes in the recent Democratic Primary Election on Tuesday, May 19^th.  This upset of Reed, who was affectionately referred to as “mayor for life” by many Harrisburg residents, has huge ramifications for anyone living, working or raising a family in the city.  But a recent SP&R poll of likely Democratic voters taken two weeks before the primary election for ABC27 News showed Mayor Reed leading Thompson by 15 points – or a margin of 45 to 29 percent with Les Ford trailing at 8 percent (19% were undecided).   So what happened? Was the polling flawed? 

The answer is yes and no, really.  Polling in primary elections is very different than in general elections. In primary elections, since turnout is usually lower knowing who precisely to poll is the real challenge unlike in a general election when turnout is usually higher among voters of all major political parties and therefore is less of a factor.  However, in primary elections whichever candidate does a better job of getting out their base of supporters can really fly under the radar even in polls of “likely” voters.  This explains why pre-primary polling in the Harrisburg mayor’s race did not necessarily match the official results on Election Day.

 In the case of the Harrisburg mayoral election, the Thompson upset is a classic example of how the polling universe we selected to call for the poll really impacted the accuracy of the results.  Notwithstanding, our pre-election analysis of the ABC27 poll clearly laid out Thompson’s recipe for an upset despite Reed’s 15-point margin.  In this analysis, posted both on our website and available to our Premium Access Members prior to Election Day, we wrote that Reed was winning comfortably with the traditional “super voters” in the poll, or those who cast ballots in the most recent similar-type election years (those being 2007, 2006 and in 2005 when Reed last faced a primary challenge).  This was our main universe for the calls that were made, and our polling was conducted almost exclusively with these “super voters” who are usually the most reliable indicator for predicting election outcomes.  However, our poll also surveyed a very small sub group of voters who cast ballots for the first time in the Democratic Presidential Primary Election on April 22, 2008 between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  Among this sub group of respondents, most of who were black, Thompson was beating the mayor.  This led us to conclude in our analysis that quote: “If Linda Thompson can increase turnout on Election Day among infrequent voters, and in particular approximately 2,500 black voters who cast ballots for the first time in the ’08 Democratic presidential primary between Obama and Clinton, she has a chance to pull off an upset.”  We went on to say quote: “…therefore, the lower the turnout, the better Reed will do; the higher the turnout, the better Thompson’s chances”.  The end result was that our pre-election analysis laying out Thompson’s strategy for an upset was right on the money, because nearly 6,500 voters cast ballots in the recent primary election, an increase of more than forty percent since the last time Mayor Reed faced primary opposition in 2005 when approximately 4,500 voted.  Simply put, Thompson’s Get-Out-The-Vote (or GOTV) operation was superior to Reed’s, and she was able to gin up turnout throughout the city partly by getting more of these “first-time” voters to the polls.

 So, the key question is why didn’t we sample more of these “presidential-type” or first-time voters?  The answer is that pollsters have to make on-the-spot, educated decisions about who precisely to poll based on a host of issues, many of which are based on limited or incomplete information.  Things like the candidates’ fundraising abilities, how much paid media the candidates are doing, the grassroots or GOTV efforts of the candidates, and sheer interest in the race.  In our estimation which ultimately proved incorrect, we had little reason to believe that these new “presidential-type” voters who cast ballots for the first time in 2008 were likely to vote in this primary election. They simply didn’t have past primary vote history in these types of off-year municipal elections, and therefore were not a big part of the polling universe we used.

 Rather, we stated publicly that the burden was on Thompson to turn them out, and she did! In hindsight, had we polled more of them our poll would probably have shown a much closer race.  But had they not turned out, Reed could have won in a landslide which would have made the poll look like the race was closer than it actually was.  Plus, taking into consideration the fact that an unusually high number of people were undecided only two weeks out (at 19% citywide), we stated in our analysis that the undecided vote could ultimately break in favor of Thompson if she was able to mobilize her supporters particularly in parts of the city where the poll showed the sentiment for “change” was highest.  So, taking all this into account it is not a stretch to make the case that Mayor Reed could poll at 45 percent support in a pre-election poll and only get 39 percent on Election Day.  This is particularly true when you take into account the poll’s five percent margin of error and the nineteen percent undecided.

 So the lesson learned is that the accuracy of polling is largely tied to the universe of people being surveyed, or the turnout model we are basing the interviews on.  Therefore, when you are evaluating the accuracy of polls, some of the key questions to ask should be things like “which types of voters did they survey?”  And, “what kind of turnout is the pollster expecting”, particularly if it’s a primary election?  Answers to these questions cut to the very heart of the “science” behind our polling, and in future polling analyses we will continue to address and explain these issues to the best of our abilities both before and after Election Day.

McCain’s 10-point percentage loss to Obama (he won the state by an approximate 54%-44% margin) has to be considered a landslide victory for Obama.  In 2004 and 2000, both Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Al Gore carried the Keystone State by 2.4% and 4% respectively against President Bush in both 2004 and 2000. Therefore, Obama’s 10-point margin represents a significant increase over the last two presidential years, and Obama made gains in virtually all counties of the Commonwealth in comparison to Kerry’s margins in 2004 with a couple exceptions. So what happened, and could McCain have closed the gap enough to win?

There are several things that had McCain been able to do differently, could have proved successful.  For one, the Obama campaign outspent McCain on paid media with TV ads in almost all media markets, including the vote-rich but expensive Southeast media market where 40% of the state’s population resides if you include Berks County and the Lehigh Valley, both of which are part of the Philadelphia TV market.  This huge fundraising advantage meant that Obama was able to dominate the message flow in the campaign – and more importantly neutralize McCain’s counter message that Obama’s plans to “spread the wealth”  - with higher taxes on small business owners and the wealthy as a way to provide middle class tax cuts – would further cripple the US economy.  This is partly why McCain’s use of “Joe the Plumber” got virtually no traction.  The lesson here is that if you don’t have the money to carry out a message, you will not be able to move critical undecided voters in the remaining weeks.  For instance, our mid October poll showed that Obama held an 8-point, 48% to 40% lead over McCain, but had McCain been able to get the undecided voters to break for him he could have closed the gap in the remaining weeks. Second, the Obama campaign was far more organized and energized than the McCain camp in the state: Obama had more field offices, more troops on the ground, better phone bank operations and a ground game that was unprecedented.  This ground game, which first got its notoriety in the Iowa Caucuses when Obama surprised all the pundits with an upset over Hillary Clinton, should have been a warning sign to McCain.  It is precisely this same ground game that helped propel Obama to victory in closely-contested battle ground states like Ohio, Florida and Indiana where polls showed a tightening of the race in the remaining 2 weeks. 

The third factor that impacted the race was the sheer dominance of the economy as the #1 issue on people’s minds. Pre-election polls, as well as exit polls on Election Day, showed that more than 6 in 10 voters said the economy was the most important issue influencing their vote preferences, and among these voters Obama beat McCain by a decisive margin.  This was an issue largely out of McCain’s hands to control – and one that fundamentally changed the dynamics of the race as far back as mid-September when the stock market dropped 777 points in a single day, precipitated by the failure of Lehman Brothers, the bail out of mortgage lenders Fannie May and Freddie Mac, and the government rescue of insurance giant AIG and others.  Prior to this Wall Street meltdown, and as late as our September 18^th statewide poll commissioned jointly with the state GOP, we had McCain in a statistical tie with Obama in the state.  This tightness of the race also mirrored national polling showing the race was up for grabs.  However, after the Dow dropped on 9/22, and Americans watched in horror as their savings, investments and pensions evaporated, all of which helped contribute to a paper loss of $1.7 trillion dollars in the stock market in a little over 2 weeks time, the momentum shifted back to Obama and his surge both nationally and in most battle ground states was the final nail in McCain’s coffin.  This was clearly the game changer.  In fact, McCain failed to recapture the lead in a single poll from that day forward either nationally, in PA, or in most other battleground states.  In a state like Pennsylvania with high concentrations of blue collar “Reagan Democrats”, this was a fatal blow to McCain because our subsequent polling showed these conservative Democrats, which up until that point were the key “swing” voters, were now going back to the Democratic Party and Obama due to concerns about their economic safety.

From a strategic standpoint, a closer look at the county break downs in Pennsylvania showed Obama over performed in relationship to Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. Obama only carried 18 of the 67 counties in the state, but won by a margin of 603,484 votes, almost 4 times Kerry’s vote margin over Bush just four years earlier.  The McCain strategy from the start was to hold Obama to “Kerry” numbers in the vote-rich Southeast, and at the same time maximize gains both in the South Central and “T” (both traditionally GOP bastions), as well as in the Southwest where huge vote margins for Hillary Clinton over Obama in the primary election were fertile ground for McCain. Unfortunately for McCain, many of these things never happened.  Consistent with our mid-October polling Obama went on to win Philadelphia by an even bigger margin than John Kerry, winning the city by an 83/16 margin, or a drop of 3 points from Bush’s 19% in 2004.  In the four suburban counties surrounding Philadelphia, Obama won by 15 points, besting Kerry’s 9-point margin from four years ago and even beating McCain in reliably Republican Chester County. Taken together with Philadelphia, this means that Obama came out of the Southeast with a vote margin of more than half a million votes, or 655,976.  This was no doubt a huge margin to make up in the rest of the state.  In the South Central/Harrisburg market, McCain beat Obama by 7 points, but Obama was able to shave 7 points off this margin in comparison to Bush’s 14-point margin four years ago. [Our mid-October poll showed Obama and McCain in a statistical tie in the Harrisburg media market, a huge problem for McCain]. In the conservative “T” which includes the Johnstown-Altoona media market, McCain still won by 16 points, but it fell far short of Bush’s 26-point margin in this same region 4 years ago.  Only in the Southwest did McCain actually over perform in relationship to Bush. In this region, McCain won the Pittsburgh media market (excluding Allegheny County) by 12 points, compared to Bush’s 8-point margin in 04, but it simply wasn’t enough.  Offsetting this was Obama’s 15-point margin in Allegheny County, which almost exactly mirrored Kerry’s margin in 2004.  

More importantly from a regional standpoint is that in the key “growth” counties of the state, our political consultant Steve Dull maintains that Obama was able to over perform by an average of 8 to 10 points in relationship to the Bush/Kerry results from 2004, and this is a huge problem for McCain and the GOP if the party can’t compete in these areas.  We are talking about counties in the South Central region like Lancaster, York, Dauphin, Adams and Franklin, as well as counties in the Pocono’s like Monroe and Pike.  Lancaster County is prime example of this changing dynamic, where even though McCain won by a 56/43 margin, it was nothing close to Bush’s 2:1 margin in 2004.  If Republicans can’t find a way to grow their bases of support in these growth areas, as well as maximize support from conservative Democrats in the Northeast and Southwest, they won’t be able to compete on a statewide basis given how the tide has turned against them in the Southeast. 

According to Steve Dull, some bright spots for the GOP include Beaver and Westmoreland Counties, both of which were reliably Democratic in past years.  Beaver flipped from Kerry in 2004 to McCain in 2008, and the GOP picked up a state Senate seat (SD47) and House seat (HD15), and also retained a House seat won in 2006 (HD14).  In Westmoreland County, McCain not only won but over performed in relationship to Bush in 2004, and the GOP picked up a House seat (HD57) and retained a Senate seat won in 2004 (SD39).  If Republicans can build on these successes in the Southwest, they can continue to be competitive both statewide and in down ballot races.

In addition, Tom Corbett’s 6-point win over John Morganelli in the Attorney General’s race can probably serve as a case study in how the GOP can be successful winning statewide elections in the future.  In this race, Corbett was able to win the 4 suburban counties surrounding Philadelphia by a 51/47 margin (or 627,897 to 579,953 in votes cast), despite the fact that Obama won these same counties by 15 points. The failure of Morganelli to do better in these collar counties meant it was virtually impossible for him to make up the difference else where without huge financial resources.

The GOP’s problems in PA are unlike the GOP’s problems nationally, where the GOP needs to figure out a way to appeal to Independents, young voters and Hispanic Americans – 3 growing constituency groups that are essential for growth in the future and all ones that exit polls show Obama won by decisive margins.  In Pennsylvania, which is largely a no-growth state, the GOP’s problems are more about strategy and tactics, and if they can make inroads in these areas they can continue to keep the state in play for future presidential contests.

                                                                                                          ###

Sarah Palin obviously exceeded most expectations in last night’s vice presidential debate with Sen. Biden.  She held her own, showed a good command of the issues, wasn’t afraid to call Biden/Obama on the carpet, and reminded voters of her working class roots that Americans remembered from her debut to the nation during the GOP Convention.  However, her performance probably won’t do enough to close the gap with Obama in the state.  Obama currently maintains an average 7 point lead in the state based on the cumulative average of recent polls from realclearpolitics.com. This surge for Obama came after a wave of support for McCain that peaked the week of September 19^th when our last statewide poll (conducted jointly with the Republican State Committee) showed McCain with a 2-point 46/44 lead in the state.  At the time McCain’s support was cresting after enjoying a couple of good weeks prior to the fallout on Wall Street.  In this 9/19 poll, McCain’s biggest gains were in the West, where he was virtually tied with Obama in Allegheny County (a big deal since Kerry won by 14 points in 04), and the Central PA region, where he was beating Obama by more than 40 points (a region Bush carried by 26 points).  In the latest polls, Obama’s recent surge has come largely from Democrats in these two same regions – and reflects the fact that some of these Democrats broke for Obama after the bottom fell out on Wall Street, further reminding voters that under Bush’s watch, the economy is out of control, and that change is coming to Washington under an Obama presidency.  This surge for Obama mirrors a similar dynamic nationally.  So it is precisely these gains in the West and Central regions where Obama has made up ground.  In the recent (independent) polling that has come out, McCain now holds a narrow lead in the Central region, and Obama is again winning Allegheny County by a huge margin (similar to Kerry numbers in ’04).  However, Republican support for McCain is still in the mid/high eighty percent range, so even Palin’s shabby performance in interviews prior to her VP debate didn’t cost McCain GOP support.  On VP night, almost all the females in our focus group conducted jointly with The Bartlett Group and Channel 27 News the same night as the VP debate concluded that Biden won the debate. This surprised me.  Most said Biden stuck more to the issues, and connected with them more on an emotional level.  Most said that Palin came across as superficial, and that the down-home folksy charm thing was over the top.  None of them said they switched their minds as result of her performance. Anecdotally, Republicans I talk to now say they are reinvigorated by Palin’s performance, so all it may have done was reenergize the base.  Ultimately, how this impacts the race in PA is still anybody’s guess, but we don’t think it was the game changer McCain needed either in PA or any of the other battleground states.  This means we’re not convinced her performance was enough to win back some of McCain’s support from conservative, white working class Democrats he seemed to be enjoying in the polls “pre-Wall Street bailout”.  This is the reason why temporarily they are breaking for Obama. However, since many of them are the same types of voters who probably voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, we don’t get the sense that they are solid for Obama, so if McCain can reconnect with them, or if the focus of the campaign shifts to issues other than the economy in the remaining few weeks, he may be able to win back the hearts and minds of some of them.

So what effect is Sarah Palin having on the ticket? Obviously a good one so far, but the key is how she handles herself the next 2 weeks on two key things: the VP debate scheduled for early October when she squares off against the seasoned Biden, and the unscripted one-on-one interviews with the press.  National polling shows McCain has pulled in the lead by anywhere from 4 to 10 points, and the main swing in support has not come from Republicans as you would have thought, but Independents and females in particular.  Among Republicans, McCain has consistently held approximately 85%-90% of the vote both “pre” and “post” Palin. However the energy level has risen with the GOP base, practically erasing a huge advantage in intensity the Democrats have enjoyed all year long. Among Independents however, what was once a 5 to 10 point lead for Obama has now shifted to an approximate 5 point lead for McCain.  This is huge. McCain now leads among all Independents, and the the real shift was Independent females (McCain has traditionally led with Independent males).  So the Palin effect has been real.  In PA, however, the results are not as clear.  Independents in PA make up less than ten percent of all votes cast are are not likely to be a factor.  In states like New Jersey however, Independents and “undeclared” voters are a huge factor, and our early polling in various pockets of NJ shows McCain dead even with Obama among Independents “pre” Palin. This may be enough to turn NJ from a solid blue to leaning blue state.  He could even be doing better with them (we’ll know more soon).  In PA though, the Palin effect will largely come among Republicans, and two regions in particular are vital.  First, the South Central or Harrisburg region, where our August poll showed Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr getting 4% of the vote.  In this region, McCain NEEDS to win by a bigger margin than Bush did in ‘04, or we won’t be able to offset the Obama gains in Southeast PA, where our polls show he’s on track to over perform (in relationship to Kerry ‘04 results). The other area of the state is the Southwest/Pittsburgh region – a treasure trove of blue collar, Reagan Democrat-types, although mainly Democrat in registration.  This is an area already fertile ground for McCain, adn our polls show he is winning by ten points (excluding Allegheny County), but the Palin effect could be even more importnat if her blue collar working class image further solidifies his base in this region.  We’ve said all along that SW PA is the real battleground for McCain given the huge potential from Hillary-type voters who can’t seem to swallow casting an Obama vote. Our polls in the spring showed Clinton beating McCain by 17, but McCain beating Obama by 11 if he was the Democratic nominee. So, this area is ripe for a Palin message if she can survive the next couple weeks.  In the Southeast, our initial polling is showing that Palin is either loved or hated, so we question how much traction she will get with soccer moms, or hocket moms for that matter. By the end of September, I predict we will know whether or not she effectively helps or hurts McCain because by then the nation will have gotten a much closer look at her.  As I write this her first battle scars from her first live interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson are not thought to be lethal, but definitely have given her opponents enough ammo in the chamber to keep pressing their case that she is unfit and lacks the foreign policy credentials to be one heartbeat away from the Oval desk.  The next couple weeks will tell us the answer.

Despite the fact that Attorney General Tom Corbett’s recent indictments in the bonus-gate scandal have generated considerable news coverage throughout the state – our polls show media awareness of the bonus-gate issue at 60% or higher in some media markets – it has had virtually no impact on his poll numbers for his reelection bid this November.  According to our recent statewide poll completed August 11-14, Corbett holds a 35/28 lead over Democratic challenger and Northampton County DA John Morganelli, with 36% still undecided. This compares to a 37/29 Corbett margin in our March poll, conducted way before the AG’s presentment of the grand jury findings.  Of all regions in the state, there are two media markets in particular that Corbett should care most about – namely the Harrisburg region (which includes Cumberland, Dauphin, Perry, Lancaster, York, Lebanon, Adams and Franklin Counties) and the Southwest/Pittsburgh media markets (Allegheny, Lawrence, Beaver, Washington, Greene, Fayette, Westmoreland, Indiana, Armstrong and Butler).  These are both regions where media exposure has been most significant, but are important for different reasons.  The Harrisburg region is a bastion of GOP voters where Corbett needs to run well to offset losses in the Democratic-trending Southeast, and the Pittsburgh region is his native stomping ground where he served as U.S. Attorney, and where Republican candidates including Corbett have done well in past statewide contests due to cross-over support from culturally conservative Democrats.  In the current poll, Corbett improved slightly in the Southwest/Pittsburgh market, going from a 13-point, 42/29 lead over Morganelli in March to an 18-point, 43/25 lead in the current poll.  However, Corbett’s support actually DROPPED in the South Central/Harrisburg region, where he now holds a 42/24 margin, compared to a 51/19 lead in March.  

This election is still Corbett’s to lose given his 35/28 margin, but he’s clearly not out of the woods.  To win, he has to make sure he can at least break even in the Southeast outside of Philadelphia, where he’s currently in a dead heat (he split the 4 suburban counties 50:50 in 2004).  Given his 43/25 margin in the Southwest, he appears to be on track to over perform in relationship to 2004 when he split this region 50:50, so bonus-gate may give him a leg-up in this regard.  However, historically the undecided voters break along party lines so he may end up winning this region by a closer margin than he has today (which could be a problem). In the South Central/Harrisburg region, he won by a 67/33 margin in 2004, but appears to be underperforming in the current poll, especially considering the fact that his numbers have slipped since March. This is really a surprise given the media circus surrounding bonus-gate in the mid state.  Corbett can’t afford to win by less than a 2:1 margin here, especially since Philadelphia is on track to go 80/20 against him similar to 2004 and possibly even worse given the likelihood of higher turnout from minorities due to the Obama factor. 

If our recent “legislative reform” poll for ABC Channel 27 News proves anything, it proves that when it comes to reforming state government, unless you bring up the bonus-gate investigation directly mid state voters have more important things on their minds.  This may disappoint the reform gadflies out there who live and breathe this stuff for a living.  In the poll, before we specifically bring up the bonus-gate investigation, we first asked voters to pick their top priority for the legislature to concentrate on (from a list of 7).  The results show mid state voters rank “reforming state government to cut down on corruption and abuse” third highest (at 18%) – behind “creating jobs and strengthening the economy” (at 24%) and “reducing property taxes” (at 20%).  This suggests that voters still rank traditional pocketbook issues – the kind that affect their daily lives and their ability to make ends meet – of paramount importance.  However, reforming state government does rank higher than some quality of life-type issues, like health care (15%), fixing roads/bridges (at 8%) or fighting crime/drug problems (3%).  So, this 3^rd place ranking shows the issue does have some sizzle to it, which is impressive because to some extent what our polls continually show us on a macro level is that during tough times when Americans are having a hard time making ends meet, they don’t have the luxury of worrying about things like corruption in government, or even social issues like guns, God or abortion (contrary to what Barack Obama might think).  So, this poll seems to suggest that the reform issue is still lurking in the back of people’s minds, and even though it’s not the #1 priority for most, they’re not ready to let state legislators off the hook just yet.  This is why almost all mid state voters (80%) say they are aware of bonus-gate, and most (or 82%) go on to say they think it should be a “high” priority for the legislature to concentrate on, even though we told them some reform measures have already been accomplished (like an open records law, changes to the internal rules of the House, and others).  So, what this says to me is that voters are kind of saying to politicians: “we have bigger fish to fry right now, but you still have some unfinished business left to do, so let’s get to it sooner rather than later, because we’re still watching.”  The poll results are available on our website at www.susquehannapolling.com.

If the presidential primaries taught us anything, it’s that both Senators Obama and Clinton relied on distinctly different constituencies to carry them through the state-by-state contests. For Sen. Obama, he ran well with African-Americans, white collar professionals, young voters, first-time voters, voters who are hungry for “change”, and higher income voters. For Clinton, she won with Catholics, females, Jewish voters, senior citizens, lower income households, blue collar “Reagan Democrats” who are more culturally conservative, Hispanics and voters who rated “experience” more important than making “change” for the sake of change.

To Obama, winning back the Clinton-type blue-collar voters that propelled her to victories in big industrial states like Ohio, PA, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky are the real prize for winning in November. For instance, in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania, Clinton won 70 percent of the vote or more in 15 counties in the mountains, including the anthracite region in the east and the bituminous coal country in the west – and some of these are counties that are 3:1 Democrat in voter registration.

Since the primaries, national polls show Obama is now running well with females, so it seems as if he has restored the traditional “gender gap” we typically see in national elections, where Democrats run double digit points ahead of Republicans with the female vote. Obama also polls well with Jewish voters despite previous concerns. However, males – and white working-class males in particular, are one of the key remaining swing votes up for grabs. According to newspaper accounts, in the state-by-state primaries Clinton and Obama split the white working class vote, with Clinton winning them in Georgia, Missouri, and New York, and Obama winning them in New Hampshire, California, Maryland and Virginia.

National polls show that pluralities of white, male voters don’t like Obama, and don’t relate to his background and perceived values. In contrast, by a 2-1 margin they express positive views about McCain and identify with his values and background. To make matters worse for Obama, McCain is showing strength with these voters because of his military record, the perception that he is more conservative on social issues, and Obama’s alienation of many of them due to comments he made in the primary elections alleging that voters in rural towns “cling to guns, religion, etc.,” when they are economically distressed. In Pennsylvania, according to most recent polls Obama holds a small lead statewide, but enough undecided vote is still out there to swing the election to McCain. In our estimation, the real battleground is not Southeastern PA, where one in three votes are cast, and where polls currently show Obama posting margins equal to what John Kerry got in the 2004 election, but rather the Southwest/Pittsburgh media market, where white, working class males are fertile ground. In this region, which accounts for about 22% of the vote, McCain is beating Obama, and some of these are areas that are 2:1 Democrat in voter registration.

If McCain can run well in this region (as Bush did), do decent in the Democrat-leaning Northeast where high concentrations of blue collar voters also reside, and at least keep it close in the Southeast he may be able to pull off an upset. So what do we know about these blue collar white males, or “swing” voters? According to Wall Street Journal reports, they once were the bedrock of FDR’s New Deal in the 1930’s. Then they became so-called “Reagan Democrats” in the 80’s (the term comes from white, blue collar union voters originally in the state of Michigan that switched allegiance to vote for Reagan and helped deliver the state for him), until Bill Clinton won many of them back in ‘92. Two years later, the WSJ purported, many of them became “angry white males” resentful of affirmative action and the women’s movement and contributed to the Contract with America for the GOP gains in ‘94. In the ‘06 mid term elections, when the anti-GOP sentiment peaked over dissatisfaction with the US Congress, runaway spending, the war in Iraq and numerous corruption and congressional scandals, they voted Democrat in record numbers and helped flip the Congress back to the Democrats for the first time since Reagan was president. In terms of their weight in numbers, they make up one quarter of the electorate nationwide and are largely those with incomes less than $50,000, no college degree and unionized. So how can the presidential candidates win them over? For Obama, more than his positions on issues he has to win them over with character. Voting for president is more about the person, not the issues. This means that more than his positions on health care, free trade, or the war in Iraq, Obama needs to convince these voters he’s not all that different than they are. That he cares about the same things they care about: making ends meet, putting his kids through college and keeping the country’s moral compass from veering too far off to the left. This doesn’t mean they don’t care about the key issues facing the nation, but we don’t think it’s their litmus test.

For McCain, it’s really the opposite strategy. These voters already like him, can identify with him, and are comfortable with him given his many years of service to the country. What they don’t know is if he has the right answers to the tough questions facing the country. How to bring down gas prices? How to bring the troops home from Iraq with honor? What can he do to lift the economy out of its doldrums? Right now, he’s winning this group and they seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt, or kind of a “pass” on these issues. But they’re patiently waiting to see what else the candidates have to offer, and which ever candidate closes the sale faster with this group could be our next president.

Susquehanna Polling and Research has entered into a strategic partnership with the Bartlett Group of Susquehanna Township to offer focus groups, which will provide a new level of service to clients of both firms.

Focus groups are used to provide qualitative data about the attitudes, perceptions, and opinions of participants regarding the topic of discussion or the product or advertising slogan being proposed. Focus groups are not intended to reach a consensus, to arrive at a plan, or to make decisions about what course of action to take but they factor into eventual decisions about advertising, product development or taking a course of action, including in a political campaign.

 “We partnered with the Bartlett Group because it was a good fit for many of our clients who not only need polling information but also want to test the results of that polling information with a focus group so they can make better decisions for their customers and clientele,” said Jim Lee, president of Susquehanna Polling and Research.

Because of politics and cable news programs, many people know the term “focus group” but maybe they don’t fully understand what it involves.  According to Tammie Campanaro, project manager for the Bartlett Group, a focus group is a qualitative form of marketing research. It is made up of a relatively small, homogeneous, and informal group of individuals who are assembled to discuss a specific topic led by a trained moderator. She explained that most focus groups consist of six to 12 people who are selected to participate based on specific characteristics such as age, gender, occupation, interests and education. Focus groups are seen as an important tool for acquiring feedback regarding new products, current products or services, competitors, and advertising.

For new products in particular, focus groups allow companies wishing to develop, package, name, or test market a new product, to discuss, view, and/or test the new product before it is made available to the public, Campanaro said. This can provide invaluable information about the potential market acceptance of the product, she explained.

In traditional focus groups, a screened (qualified) group of respondents gathers in the same room. They are screened to ensure that they are part of the relevant target market and that the group is a representative subgroup of this market segment. The session usually lasts from one to two hours.

The moderator guides the group through a discussion that probes attitudes about a client’s proposed products or services. The discussion is loosely structured, and the moderator encourages the free flow of ideas. The moderator is typically given a list of objectives or an anticipated outline. He/she will generally have only a few specific questions prepared prior to the focus group. These questions are designed to spark an open-ended discussion.

Through a one-way mirror or a closed circuit television system, client representatives get to observe the discussion first-hand in a stadium-seating arrangement at the Bartlett Group facilities at 3690 Vartan Way in Susquehanna Township outside Harrisburg.

With the one-way mirror, participants cannot see out, but the researchers and their clients can see in. Usually, a video camera records the meeting so that it can be seen by others who were not able to travel to the site and so the focus group findings can later be discussed by the client with his top marketing and advertising people. Transcripts can also be created from the video tape.

Plus, the video allows researchers to examine for more than the spoken words. Focus group experts try to interpret facial expressions, body language, and group dynamics, among other things. Moderators may use straight questioning or various projective techniques, including fixed or free association, story-telling and role-playing. Focus groups are often used to garner reaction to specific stimuli such as concepts, prototypes and advertising. The Bartlett Group was founded in 1986 and it provides services for all aspects of focus groups. Its clients include Members First Federal Credit Union, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Capital Blue Cross, Geisinger Health Systems, Wegman’s supermarkets, Stauffers of Kissel Hill nurseries and Giant Foods supermarkets.

On Monday, June 16, the Lou Barletta for Congress campaign released polling data our firm conducted earlier this year showing him poised to defeat long-time Democratic incumbent Paul Kanjorski in the 11^th Congressional District (Lackawanna, Luzerne and parts of Columbia, Monroe and Carbon).  In the poll, Lou’s image in the district is nothing short of excellent – a 59 to 13 ratio in positive to negative name ID, which really shows how much people admire and respect him since he stood up for his small, coal mining town of Hazleton (of which he has been their mayor for years) and passed the anti-immigration ordinance he believes is critical to help stop the bleeding in his crime-invested, cash and service-strapped city.  In the poll, only 39% believe Kanjorski deserves reelection, while 45% say it’s time to give a new person a chance, and Lou holds a 5-point 47/42 lead over Kanjorski if the election were held today. Clearly this drives home the point that Lou is “in the hunt”.

          Perhaps what’s most striking and even somewhat ironic is that Lou Barletta may be the best-positioned GOP congressional candidate in the entire nation to defeat a Democratic incumbent congressman in what otherwise should be a hugely successful year for the Democrats.  All the evidence points to big gains for the Democrats in congress this year, and the three recent special elections in Mississippi, Illinois and Louisiana, all seats long held by Republicans that Democratic candidates won in upsets – is further evidence of the growing tide of Democratic gains headed for the November elections.  Despite this favorable climate for the Democrats, Paul Kanjorski hasn’t benefited even slightly from any “bounce”.  His numbers in the current poll are virtually unchanged from our poll in May ’07, almost like his poor image is stuck in the mud and he has no room for positive growth.  For instance, his 50/25 favorable to unfavorable image in the current poll (which is much lower than Lou’s 4:1 image) has actually worsened since last year when he had a 57/17 positive to negative image.  This means there are serious cracks in his reputation since a 25% “negative” is way too high especially in a district that leans in his favor by a near 2:1 ratio in Democratic registration.  Plus, his 39% “reelect” is virtually unchanged from 38% last year, which means his base of support has flat lined even despite the favorable climate the Democrats have been bragging about lately.  Pollsters generally regard incumbents with “reelects” under 40 as prime targets for defeat.  [If you don’t believe us, just ask former State Rep. Tom Scrimenti, and former Congresswoman Melissa Hart, both of whom our polls showed were headed for defeat in past elections.]  Since Kanjorski’s numbers haven’t moved an inch, the old mantra “a rising tide lifts all boats” simply doesn’t apply to him, and suggests he has clearly overstayed his welcome in an economically distressed district where voters are begging for the kind of leadership, courage and convictions that Lou Barletta has to offer.  We hope Republicans at the national level stand up and pay attention because this is probably their best chance to win a seat back in what otherwise could be a tough year for the GOP. 

…And this may surprise you, but the GOP is making inroads

By Steve Dull, Senior Consultant, Susquehanna Polling and Research, Inc

Pennsylvania will be every bit a toss-up state as it was in 2004 and may very well be the key to which party wins the White House in November.  If anything, the state is trending slightly Republican in voting patterns based on the last two presidential elections this decade. The growth areas in the state and the west are trending Republican to offset the increasing Democratic trends in the suburbs.  Increasing Democratic registration gains have had little if any impact on how the state is voting. What is more significant is that despite the fact that Barack Obama spent nine millions dollars in campaign ads in the state, which is a state record, and McCain spent very little, no polls have shown Obama receiving fifty percent of the vote in the Keystone State.  So what voting demographic will determine who wins this state and perhaps the White House?

Perhaps no statistic is more overrated than voter registration.  In 2004, Pennsylvania was the third closest state won by the Democrats for President (behind Wisconsin and New Hampshire).  For example, in 2000 the Democrats enjoyed a 485,000 voter registration advantage and in that year, the nation voted equally between George Bush and Al Gore, while Pennsylvanians voted for Gore by a 4.2 point margin. In 2004 the Democrats were able to increase this margin to 580,000 voters, and while the nation voted 51/48 for President Bush, the Keystone State voted only 50.9% to 48.4% for Kerry, or only a 2.5 point margin, and the actual vote margin was reduced by 60,592 votes from 2000, which resulted in a 144,248-vote win for the Democrats.  This means despite the increased gains in Democratic registration, their vote margins actually shrank.  Though both sides in the state will make major efforts to register voters, it is mainly how existing registered voters and those voters who register or consider themselves independent vote on Election Day that will determine the outcome.

The GOP made gains in the western and rural counties of the central “T” and the growth counties.  The growth areas which lean Republican is generally an oblique line running from the Pocono’s (leaning Democrat) through the exurbs of Philadelphia (leaning GOP) to the south central border counties ending along the Franklin County Mason Dixon line (trending Republican).  This line has been a major factor in offsetting the continuing trend of the Philadelphia suburbs to vote Democratic.  Even in the city of Philadelphia the GOP received 19% of both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential vote despite a massive voter registration effort to register minorities, college-age and alternative life style voters to reflect the changing demographics, which admittedly did result in a big increase in turnout there. However, in 2004 many historically, working-class Jewish divisions concerned by national security and international terrorism voted slightly more GOP in Philadelphia to offset slight Democratic gains from 2000 elsewhere in the city. 

This is a state of swing voters.  I come from a family of swing voters. My father was a registered Democrat, the party of his father. He was a skilled, blue collar union member.  He switched to Republican registration to win nomination in the primary for tax collector in our predominately GOP town.  However over the next three Presidential elections he voted for the Presidential candidate of three different parties without changing his political party registration because of how he viewed the most important issue at the time in each of those elections.  It will be this type of voter without regard to registration but more driven by the key wedge issues of the election that will determine the outcome in the state.

Because it is how people vote that is most important, polling is the best guide to the future.  What is most shocking is that Obama, unlike Hillary Clinton, is still unable to get to 50% in general election polling in the state despite outspending Clinton 3-1, and John McCain spending next to nothing in the April 22 primary here.  Obama might be over performing among “hope and change” college kids and Africa Americans but he had his difficulties in the primary among 60 and over voters who I call “JFK Democrats “even though he was strongly endorsed by Senator Bob Casey, the son of a late prototypical JFK Democrat.  Some of these Democrats may have never voted GOP for President but are up for grabs this time in November.  They are centered in the coal regions of western and northeastern part of the state that Hillary Clinton carried by 2 and 3 to 1 margins in the Democratic Primary. It will be primarily these voters whom Obama insulted with his “cling to guns and religion” remark in the Primary who will determine which Presidential candidate carries the state.

With five months to go, the ‘08 Presidential Election is very much up for grabs in the nation and in Pennsylvania. Will it be the change of  expanding the government sector in the economy through higher taxes, appeasement of foreign dictators in hope of avoiding military deaths and cultural liberalism or change driven by a market-based economy, using the military to stand up to international terrorism, and supporting judges who believe in traditional values?  Pennsylvania may very well be the Keystone State that determines what kind of “change” we will have in November.

No doubt about it. The GOP brand is at an all time low, and for many reasons this should be the Democrats’ year.  Consider the following: Approximately 75% of Americans say the country is on the wrong track, a sentiment which historically works against the party occupying the White House.  A majority of Americans –and most Pennsylvanians for that matter – believe the Iraq war was a mistake and not worth the sacrifices. Most people think we are currently in a recession, or headed for one shortly and with record gasoline and food prices, mortgage foreclosures through the roof and problems in the credit market, people are simply looking for change.  Plus, the president’s approval rating has been flat-lined near 30% for more than a year.  So, when you ask Americans which party they want to win the White House, by a 10-point margin they say the Democrats. When you ask Americans which party they belong to, fewer and fewer identify as Republican.  According to a recent Wall Street Journal poll, only 27% of voters have favorable views of the Republican Party, the lowest in the survey’s history.  Still not convinced?  In three recent special elections for Congress in Illinois, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the Democrats went 3 for 3 in districts largely considered safe for Republicans.  Even GOP Congressman Tom Davis, called President Bush “radioactive” in a recent news interview when asked if GOP candidates should distance themselves from him.

          Despite this bleak picture, McCain is still in a statistical dead heat with both Clinton and Obama in national polls, and is still competitive in Pennsylvania.  McCain’s resilience can be attributed to many factors. As someone who has been willing to buck the Republican Party establishment, his maverick-style image has made him attractive to Independent voters, moderates and Hispanics, which has helped him get some “separation” from the low GOP brand.  Plus, polls show he is fairly-well liked by most voters, has strong appeal to senior citizens and veterans and the same WSJ poll showed that among all three presidential candidates, Americans gave the highest marks to McCain on “values and background”, which the survey identified as things like honor, trustworthiness and patriotism.  More recently, a series of focus groups conducted in the key battleground state of Virginia with Independent voters – who are a critical swing group in many states – showed that Independents leaned towards McCain in November.  In a presidential race where people elect a person rather than a party, the fact that voters like him, trust him, and feel comfortable with him could be enough to get him elected.

So how do GOP congressional candidates or others down ballot survive?  What lessons can we learn from McCain?  For congressional candidates, it means GOP candidates must stand for something, and this means making sure voters know that despite the way the war in Iraq has been waged, there are dire consequences if we get out before the job is done.  On taxes and the economy, it means staking out a claim that to raise taxes now – as both Obama and Clinton have called for – would further shake the economy’s expected recovery.  On the economy, it means not hiding from the argument that America has largely benefited from free and fair trade; to do otherwise sends the wrong message to foreign countries who want continued access to our goods and services.  [This partly explains why repealing NAFTA was a political football for Obama and Clinton in the hard-hit state of Ohio, but rarely mentioned in Texas which has mostly prospered under the agreement.]  On spending, returning the GOP to the party of smaller government, including the elimination of earmarks, is a message most Americans agree with, and one the GOP has gotten away from in recent years.  Plus, extensive research on GOP attitudes conducted nationally show that today’s GOP voters tend to be older, more conservative on social issues, and more likely to live in the South.  As a result, the party is at risk of alienating support from Hispanics, Independents and younger voters – three constituencies essential for future growth. This means GOP candidates must find common ground on social and cultural issues like immigration, global warming, stem cell research and others that appeal to these growing constituencies.  Moreover, two of these groups in particular, namely Hispanics and Independents, are ones that could put McCain over the top.  One recent poll shows McCain polling at 41% with Hispanics, close to Bush’s 44% in 2004.  Even the evangelical Christian vote, in the past reliably Republican, can’t be taken for granted given the growth of newer recruits with progressive-minded policies on the environment and other policies.  It also means not ceding ground to the Democrats as the party best able to protect consumers, by instead voting against bills that give preferential treatment to certain corporations or industries.  One recent example is the mortgage relief bill designed to help struggling homeowners keep their homes, which the GOP rightly argues runs the risk of being nothing more than a bailout for lenders and irresponsible borrowers, a concept polls show most Americans are reluctant to support.  It is precisely positions like this that will help endear the GOP to voters turned off by special interests in Washington, a mantra the Democratic presidential candidates have used effectively this year.

     For state legislative candidates and other down ballot candidates in normally straight-ticket GOP districts, it means being fiscally conservative on tax and spending policies, as well as a social conservative against Rendell’s liberal social agenda.  In swing districts, it means working with Rendell when he is correct, on issues like education funding and lowering property taxes, but not being afraid to disagree with him when he’s wrong (like on higher personal income taxes), by voting the district on an issue-by-issue basis so you are perceived as rising above the partisan rhetoric.  In addition, since TV campaigns for the presidential race will drive the information flow at the top of the ticket, it means having the polls covered on Election Day so you can maximize ticket splitting down ballot.  Remember, in presidential election years turnout increases by 7,000 to 10,000 voters per district, and the increase usually favors the party winning the presidential race in that district, so it’s important to understand if you are swimming with or against the tide.

          Good evening everyone. Let’s first talk about the status of the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama from a national perspective.  Even with Hillary Clinton’s huge win in West Virginia this past week, her expected win in Kentucky this coming week, and her 9-point win in PA a month ago, it’s still unlikely she can legitimately claim the rights to the nomination unless she convinces an overwhelming majority of the remaining uncommitted super delegates to vote for her. Obama is winning with pledged delegates, approximately by 153 at last count, leads with the total number of states won (32 of the 49 contests so far), and leads with the popular vote by slightly less than 600,000 nationwide not counting Florida or Michigan, both of which have been contested because they moved their primaries ahead against the rules of the Democratic Party.  Obama is now even winning with super delegates by approximately 13 at last count, a group that early on Hillary had a significant lead with.  If you have been following the super delegate race, there really has been three break points when super delegates have committed to the candidates – the first phase was early in the primary season before Super Tuesday when the Clinton forces were able to capitalize on her perceived status as the “inevitable” nominee, calling in chits with party leaders and using her husband’s good name to secure what quickly became a formidable, 120-super delegate lead over Obama. So Hillary clearly won the first wave. Then, after super-Tuesday in February Obama went on a winning streak of 10 states practically in a row amassing up leads with both pledged delegates and the popular vote and the second wave of super delegates lined up mostly behind him, narrowing Clinton’s lead considerably to less than 50.  Now, what we are seeing is probably the beginning of the third wave of super delegates breaking for Obama almost on a daily basis since it’s become clear from the handwriting on the wall that Obama will probably be the nominee given his margins with both pledged delegates and the popular vote.  Presently, there are less than 250 remaining super delegates who have yet to commit to either candidate, many of which have said they will make a decision after all the states have voted by June 3 and most of these are not expected to vote against the winner of the pledged delegate race, although the party rules do say they are free to make their own decisions which is why they are called “super” delegates after all.  Of course neither candidate will probably win the vote from Steven Ybarra, an uncommitted super delegate from Sacramento, California…Does anyone know who Steve Ybarra is…?

          Clinton’s main strategy has been to convince super delegates that she is the only candidate that has and will continue to win the big, “delegate-rich” states the Democrats need to win in November to beat John McCain. She points to her wins in California, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, even Michigan and Florida, and of course PA.  It’s an argument she’s hoping that the super delegates will still respond to, assuming you still believe she is in this race to still get the nomination.  So the key is: can the results of the remaining contests in Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico really make that much of a difference?  Since the candidates will probably split the remaining states with Clinton favored in Kentucky and Puerto Rico and Obama favored in South Dakota, Oregon and Montana, it’s probably unlikely all that much will change since neither candidate is likely to emerge with a decisive lead in pledged delegates from these final states.  However, the real game changer in our opinion were the recent contests held in North Carolina and Indiana, where Obama won North Carolina by a huge 14-point margin when the polls showed the race closing to single digits.  This win was significant not only because it added substantially to Obama’s lead with pledged delegates and the popular vote, both of which had narrowed after Pennsylvania, but also because North Carolina is considered a key battleground state that the Obama campaign has now been able to use to undermine Clinton’s argument that she is the only candidate who can win big, delegate-rich states in November. Clinton of course won Indiana, which was important because Obama held leads in that state in early polls, but her narrow 2-point victory seemed to be a nonstarter with the super delegates who may have started to take Hillary’s argument to heart that she might have actually been the best candidate to beat McCain in November. And perhaps the real audience for what happened in North Carolina and Indiana may be a small group of people who make up the rules committee of the Democratic National Committee, who are scheduled to meet May 31^st to decide the fate of the 338 delegates still hanging in the balance from primaries in Michigan and Florida.  This is important because the pledged delegates from these two states could have cut deeply into Obama’s delegate lead given that Clinton won the popular vote in both states; and if you count her popular vote lead from both states its actually enough to overtake Obama in total popular votes.  However, the perception by some committee members that Clinton has failed to derail Obama’s candidacy, particularly after what most have called one of the worst months of his campaign, could have strengthened Obama’s hand with this committee to the point where one of the more likelier outcomes of this committee hearing is that there will be a decision to seat just enough delegates from these two states at the convention in Denver to confirm Obama’s nomination, but not enough to actually swing the nomination to Clinton. The theory is that what this does is also avoid a huge backlash from voters in these two states if they don’t find some way of making sure their votes were counted in some ways, which according to some could even risk turning a state like Michigan into a red state in November.  So the end result of all of this is that by the time all the states have voted, Obama will probably have enough pledged and super delegates to hit the magic 2,025 he needs to secure the nomination.  If you’ve noticed, both Obama and Clinton have virtually stopped attacking each other, and Clinton is sounding more conciliatory in her speeches in terms of stressing that whoever the nominee is will go on to win in November. Plus, Clinton’s revelation that her campaign is $20 million in debt has really given people the sense that her campaign is all but over, although Obama has been very careful to not ask her to drop out of the race and to simply let the remaining states play out with the understanding that as long as he doesn’t make any more public blunders, the math won’t change enough to deny him the nomination.

          Now, let’s turn to a quick recap of the race in PA which I really think is important to understand so you can get a better sense of what Obama is faced with to win a state like PA in November.  Clinton’s win in PA last month was projected for weeks, with the real debate more focused on whether it would be a narrow victory or a 10-point win like in Ohio and New Jersey.  Her 10-point margin in the state proved once again she has a much broader base of support than Obama in these key battleground states.  She won 60 of the 67 counties, and exit polling showed big margins for her with Catholics, females, blue collar “Reagan Democrats”, super voters and senior citizens.  She even won narrowly among white males, which have tended to be up for grabs in the past. Undecided voters broke for Clinton by a near 60/40 margin in the remaining 7 days of the race, a clear indication she had stopped his momentum in early April stemming from both self-inflicted wounds about his comments about how people in small towns in PA “cling to guns, religion, etc.” when they are bitter about their economic anxieties, as well as a poor debate performance on 4/16 in Philadelphia when tough questioning from the media kept him on the defensive.

       For Obama, exit polls showed his strengths primarily among voters 45 years and under, affluent and white collar voters and black Democrats. Among those who registered to vote for the first time, exit polls showed they voted for Obama by a 62/38 margin. Obama needed a big win in the Southeast counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery, where polls showed he was neck-and-neck with Clinton; he ended up narrowly losing these counties collectively by a 52/48 margin.  The other key region for Obama was the Mid State/Harrisburg region (Adams, Dauphin, Cumberland, York, Lancaster, Lebanon, Berks and Perry), where Democrats tend to be more affluent, white collar and up-and-coming professionals, and therefore more like Southeastern PA Democrats and less like the blue collar, culturally-conservative Democrats you get in the Northeast and the West.  Obama only split these counties 50/50 with Clinton.  As expected, he won Philadelphia by a 2:1 margin, and also carried Chester, Delaware, Lancaster, Dauphin, Centre and Union Counties, but it wasn’t enough to overcome Clinton’s home-grown advantages and institutional support in the state, even with the unprecedented turnout of more than 2 million votes cast, up from 1.2 million in 2002 which was the last time the Democrats had a contested statewide election between Rendell and Casey for governor. 

          So, the significance of a Clinton win in Pennsylvania really brings to light Obama’s potential problems in key industrial states like PA, Ohio and Indiana as the Democratic nominee in the fall and that’s important because many insiders believe that the candidate who wins two out of the three states of PA, Florida and Ohio, usually wins the White House which has been the traditon the last several presidential elections. Obama’s problems attracting support from white, working-class voters may not go away easily, and national polling showed that following Clinton’s win in PA, favorable impressions for Obama dropped 5 points, while the percentage of Americans who viewed him as unfavorable jumped 9 points, a 14 point swing, with the highest negative ratings coming from Independents, seniors, blue collar workers, rural and small town voters and even suburban women, the last of which have given Obama some of his strongest support in past contests.  In PA, our poll just released this past week shows the state is much more of a lock for the Democrats with Hillary as the Democratic nominee because if the election were held today she would beat McCain by a 49/38 margin, which is an 11-point lead.  However, with Obama against McCain the race is tighter, with Obama winning by a 7-point, 46/39 margin. Even though Obama is winning with 46% of the vote, what does it say about a guy who just spend a record amount of money in the state – upwards of 9 million dollars – which we think is the most in the state’s history and compared to McCain who hasn’t spent a dime here yet, even after all this, he still can’t crack fifty percent in the polls here?

          Probably the most important region in the poll is the Southwest region or the Pittsburgh media market, where if Clinton was the nominee she would lead McCain by a 17-point margin there, but with Obama as the nominee it actually flips to McCain by a 11-point margin, or a swing of 28 points. This is important because we’re talking about those same types of voters we mentioned earlier that proved critical to Clinton’s margin in the PA primary as well as in Ohio and more recently in West Virginia – namely Catholics, blue collar “Reagan Democrats” and white, working class voters, most of whom are culturally conservative on social issues like guns, abortion and gay marriage and who in past elections have given Republicans key victories at the statewide level.  All other areas of the state showed both Clinton and Obama’s leads against McCain virtually the same, so the real battleground in PA, and we would argue maybe even the entire nation if you believe the notion that the whoever wins PA helps elect the next president, comes down to the fluidness of the vote in the Southwestern part of the state.  It is precisely these types of voters Obama will need to appeal to if he is going to win the presidency and at the current time, he still has a lot of work to do. 

          Let’s shift to the general election between McCain and either Obama or Clinton.  For tons of reasons, this should be the Democrats’ year to capture the White House.  Approximately 75% of Americans say the country is on the wrong track, a sentiment which historically works against the party occupying the White House.  A majority of Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake and not worth the sacrifices we have made, and most Americans and most Pennsylvanians for that matter, think we are currently in a recession, or headed for one in the next several months.  And with record gasoline and food prices, mortgage foreclosures through the roof and problems in the credit market, people are simply looking for change.  The president’s approval rating has been flat lined at 30% for literally almost two years now, which is near Nixon levels, and all these factors have contributed to such a black mark on the Republican Party that according to polls, when you ask Americans which party they want to win the White House, by a 10-point margin they say the Democrats. When you ask Americans which party they belong to, fewer and fewer Americans identify as being Republican, which is near historic lows.  And according to a Wall Street Journal poll released last week, only 27% of voters nationwide now have favorable views of the Republican Party, the lowest level for either party in the survey’s near two-decade history.  And if this doesn’t convince you, just look at the last three special elections for Congress that have been held in recent months in Illinois, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The Democrats won all three of them in districts that were largely considered safe seats for the Republicans for decades, and this clearly shows that the negative political environment against the GOP is coming home to roost. And you don’t have to look at statistics or these special elections to feel the energy the Democrats have had this year with record turnouts in the primaries, huge advantages in fundraising where the Clinton and Obama campaigns have raised twice and three times as much money as McCain or the Republicans have, and hundreds of thousands of new voters registering to vote for the first time.  Just in PA alone, the Democrats have increased their voters by 8% recently, giving them more than 4 million voters on the rolls which is unprecedented – and even flipped 5 counties from Republican to Democrat in registration (Centre, Clinton, Bucks, Montgomery and Clearfield). Even here in Dauphin County, the increase in Democrat registration was the highest of the state, a 38% increase adding 20,000 new Democrats to the rolls, giving the Republicans now a less than 2,000 voter registration advantage in a county that Republican candidates have carried in the past by huge margins.

          Despite all this, McCain is still in a statistical dead heat with both Clinton and Obama in national polls and in Pennsylvania as we said earlier is trailing both candidates but still considered competitive enough to keep PA in play.  McCain’s resilience can be attributed to many factors:  as someone who has been willing to buck the Republican Party establishment, his maverick-style image has made him attractive to Independent voters, moderates and Hispanics.  Plus, polls show he has strong appeal to senior citizens and veterans, and is fairly well liked by most voters, and the WSJ poll I referred to earlier showed that among all three presidential candidates, Americans gave the highest marks to McCain on “values and background”, which the survey identified as things like honor, trustworthiness and patriotism.  In fact, McCain scored higher than Obama and Clinton among most key demographic groups on these issues including with men, seniors, independents, suburbanites, small town voters and rural voters.  More recently, a key series of focus groups were conducted in the key battleground state of Virginia with Independent voters – and these were focus groups done by Democratic pollsters – it showed that these Independent voters actually leaned towards McCain in November and had serious reservations about Obama because they just aren’t sure they know enough about him, some thought he was a Muslim, and others wondered if more surprises are still to come.  All this means McCain’s appeal is more based on personal traits and his maverick image more so than his positions on issues, which can work to his advantage given his controversial positions on the Iraq war, and the perception by many that he lacks the credentials to grasp economic issues and turn the economy around. 

Also, with McCain as the GOP nominee the entire electoral map of which states are competitive in November gets turned upside down.  For instance, because of his appeal to Reagan Democrats, the McCain campaign believes they put states like Michigan and PA in play for the general election, and his popularity with Independents may put Minnesota, New Hampshire and even Wisconsin in play.  Also, the bitter primary between Obama and Clinton is giving Democratic Party leaders heartburn, since they are concerned about what impact this will have on the nominee in the fall, and if the Clinton voters will vote for Obama and vice versa in a general election. Polls show up to 1 in 4 Democrats may not vote for either Clinton or Obama if the other candidate wins the nomination. 

Ultimately, I think the general election for president will be closely contested, and I think a lot of it has to do with how successful the GOP is defining Barack Obama if he is the nominee, something Clinton has really not had the luxury of doing since she can’t afford to alienate the same base she’ll need to rely on in November if she’s the nominee.  For McCain, he can win if he’s able to continue to win traditional Red states, but also pick up a few blue states due to his appeal to moderates, Independents and Hispanics. He also needs to shore up his Republican base since the true conservatives in the party have despised his positions for years on positions like immigration, voting against the Bush tax cuts, his support of a campaign finance bill which many 2^nd amendment groups found to be obscene because it violates their right to free speech, as well as his support for global warming and opposition to drilling for oil in ANWAR.  And if you followed the recent primary in PA, even though McCain was virtually uncontested in the Republican primary, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul still were on the ballot and combined got 27% of the vote against McCain even though they weren’t actively campaigning, and turnout was very low on the GOP side because few races were contested so these were the party faithful that turned out, so it just shows that McCain still has work to do to get the GOP base energized for him in November.  However, in a year when this should be a slam dunk for the Democrats given all the negative indicators, the only saving grace for the GOP, which is really the most ironic part, is that despite all the bitching, name calling and outright hostility that Republicans, yes Republicans have shown to John McCain over the years, he is probably the only nominee that could have given them a prayer this year because he’s the only candidate who has the potential to have any separation from the low GOP brand because he has built his entire reputation on his maverick, independent image as someone who has been willing to buck the party.   All the other nominees, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, even Rudy Giuliani, would probably have been sunk by now and been dragged down by the same political environment that is killing these Republican candidates in congressional races that are playing out across the country.

For Obama, he can’t win in November if he doesn’t win traditional blue states the Democrats have always relied on, like Michigan and Pennsylvania, so the first step for him is to some how get Democrats in these states, most of whom voted against him in the primary, to vote for him in the fall.  In addition, because of Obama’s appeal to new types of voters, look for his campaign to try to win some reliably Republican states, like Virginia, which recently has elected two consecutive Democratic governors, or others in the Midwest like Colorado, New Mexico or Nevada which Bush carried by very close margins in 2004.  Obama will probably even make a play for Southern states he’s done well in just recently in the primaries, states like North Carolina, Mississippi or Georgia – all of which he’s won due to high turnout from the black community.   And Obama will need to again rely on a new paradigm of voter turnout – by increasing turnout among first time voters, young voters, college students and higher black turnout primarily in the state’s urban centers.

Now, turning to education issues for a few minutes…Thank you for your time

A new statewide poll released Friday, May 9, with Pennsylvania likely voters conducted by Harrisburg-based Susquehanna Polling and Research, Inc., shows Hillary Clinton beating John McCain in a hypothetical general election match-up by a 49/38 margin if she is the Democratic nominee, while Barack Obama leads McCain by a closer 46/39 margin.  The current poll was conducted May 1-6 with 800 registered likely voters and has a margin of error of 3.4% at the 95% confidence level; the calls were made from our telephone call center in downtown Harrisburg using live survey interviewers.   

          “Both Clinton and Obama lead McCain at this stage of the game, but the fact that Obama’s margin over McCain is 7 points compared to 11 points for Clinton shows how much more competitive the state is for McCain with Obama as the Democratic nominee,” said President Jim Lee.  The key difference in the poll seems to be Clinton’s strength in the Southwest region of the state, where she leads McCain by a 51/34 margin, but with an Obama ticket in November McCain leads 45/34, which is a 28-point swing in support.  This means the Southwest region of the state, where Democrats are more culturally conservative on social issues like gun control, abortion and gay marriage and have voting patterns similar to so-called “Reagan Democrats”, can really be the deciding factor in November because this is an area that in past elections has been reliably good for Republicans at the statewide level for both former and current President Bush, former US Senator Rick Santorum and others.  

Most other areas of the state don’t show much of a disparity whether Obama or Clinton is the Democratic nominee.  For instance, both Clinton and Obama beat McCain in the Southeast and Philadelphia by near equal margins, while the Northeast and “T”/Central parts of the state are dead heats regardless of who is the Democratic nominee.  However, McCain leads both Clinton and Obama in the conservative, Republican South Central/Harrisburg region which includes counties like Lancaster, Cumberland, Perry, Adams and York.

Clinton also does better against McCain with white, working class voters than does Obama, a point she has stressed all along in key battleground states, which is a core demographic group in the Southwest and accounts for 43% of all voters polled in the survey.  For instance, among all white voters in the poll with no college degree, Clinton beats McCain 47/41, whereas in an Obama/McCain match-up McCain holds an impressive 47/33 lead with these same voters, a swing of 20 points.  Among whites with a college degree or more, McCain and Clinton are nearly tied at 44/43, respectively, while Obama leads significantly over McCain by a 49/39 margin with this same group.  This means Obama has a lot of work to do to repair his image with white, working class voters before he can put Pennsylvania in the win column, Lee added.  Check out our website for the top line results and cross-tabulations showing support among various key demographic groups.

          Good afternoon. Let’s first talk about the status of the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama from a national perspective.  Even with Hillary Clinton’s win in PA two weeks ago, it’s still unlikely she can legitimately claim the rights to the nomination unless she convinces more super delegates to vote for her.  Obama is winning with pledged delegates, approximately by 154 at last count, leads with the total number of states won (31 of the 46 so far), and leads with the popular vote by approximately 500,000 nationwide not counting Florida or Michigan and also not counting the imputed results from the four caucus states of Iowa, Maine, Nevada or Washington.  Clinton would have to win 2/3 of the remaining pledged delegates in the 9 remaining states yet to hold contests for her to tie him in the delegate count, and that is unlikely to happen because of the complex way the Democratic Party rules award delegates.  A good example of this is Nevada, where Clinton carried the state in the popular vote, but Obama was awarded one more delegate because of how his vote was dispersed.  And in Texas, which had both a caucus and a primary, Obama was awarded more delegates because of his strong showing in the caucus despite Clinton’s win with the popular vote.

          Clinton’s main strategy has been to convince super delegates that she is the only candidate that has and will continue to win the big, “delegate-rich” states the Democrats need to win in November to beat John McCain. She points to her wins in New Jersey, New York, Ohio, even Michigan and Florida, and of course PA.  It’s an argument she’s hoping that the super delegates respond to, and at the current time she still leads in the super delegate count by approximately 15, but her lead has been significantly diminished over the last two months as more party leaders think it’s inevitable Obama will win the delegate race after all states have voted by June 3.  So the key is, can the results of the remaining states really make that much of a difference – starting with Indiana and North Carolina both of which hold primaries today, and moving on to West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico.  Obama’s strategy needs to be to keep these remaining states close so that no one gets a decisive lead with the remaining pledged delegates yet to be awarded, and keep the pressure on the super delegates to not vote against the will of the people, something party leaders including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are increasingly signaling would be a major mistake to do.

          However, according to some political analysts, Clinton may also be contemplating making an argument that she should be the nominee because she is really the “choice of the people” if she can overtake Obama in the popular vote.  She can do this by first counting her win in Florida, where she beat Obama by close to 300,000 votes, because Obama was on the ballot there, but not Michigan where he wasn’t on the ballot.  If she does decent in North Carolina where polls show her trailing but closing the margin, wins Indiana decisively, and gets big margins in West Virginia and Kentucky as she’s likely to do, this could erase Obama’s popular vote lead particularly if Obama doesn’t get big wins in Oregon, South Dakota or Montana where he is expected to do well.  Clinton may also be counting on big numbers in Puerto Rico, where polls suggest she’s doing well partly because her home state of New York has the biggest population of Puerto Ricans of any state in the country.  And undermining this argument will be Clinton’s suggestion that Obama’s lead with pledged delegates isn’t as legitimate as her lead with the popular vote, because close to two thirds of his “pledged” delegate lead comes from delegates elected in caucuses, which were chosen by so few people in comparison to the states that held primaries.  For example, approximately 1.5 million voted in caucuses compared to 30 million in states that had primaries.  It’s probably a risky strategy to make, but the Clintons have obviously shown they aren’t afraid to play hard ball.

          Now, let’s turn to a quick recap of the race in PA.  Clinton’s win in PA was projected for weeks, with the real debate more focused on whether it would be a narrow victory or a 10-point win like in Ohio and New Jersey.  Her 10-point margin in the state proved once again she has a much broader base of support than Obama in these key battleground states.  She won 60 of the 67 counties, and exit polling showed big margins for her with Catholics, females, blue collar “Reagan Democrats”, super voters and senior citizens.  She even won narrowly among white males, which have tended to be up for grabs in the past. Undecided voters broke for Clinton by a near 60/40 margin in the remaining 7 days of the race, a clear indication she had stopped his momentum in early April stemming from both self-inflicted wounds about his comments about how people in small towns in PA “cling to guns, religion, etc.” when they are bitter about their economic anxieties, as well as a poor debate performance on 4/16 in Philadelphia when tough questioning from the media kept him on the defensive.

       For Obama, exit polls showed his strengths primarily among voters 45 years and under, affluent and white collar voters and black Democrats. Among those who registered to vote for the first time, exit polls showed they voted for Obama by a 62/38 margin. Obama needed a big win in the Southeast counties  of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery, where polls showed he was neck-and-neck with Clinton; he ended up narrowly losing these counties collectively by a 52/48 margin.  The other key region for Obama was the Mid State/Harrisburg region (Adams, Dauphin, Cumberland, York, Lancaster, Lebanon, Berks and Perry), where Democrats tend to be more affluent, white collar and up-and-coming professionals, and therefore more like Southeastern PA Democrats and less like the blue collar, culturally-conservative Democrats you get in the Northeast and the West.  Obama only split these counties 50/50 with Clinton.  As expected, he won Philadelphia by a 2:1 margin, and also carried Chester, Delaware, Lancaster, Dauphin, Centre and Union Counties, but it wasn’t enough to overcome Clinton’s home-grown advantages and institutional support in the state, even with the unprecedented turnout of more than 2 million votes cast, up from 1.2 million in 2002 which was the last time the Democrats had a contested statewide election between Rendell and Casey for governor. 

          However, the significance of a Clinton win in Pennsylvania really brings to light Obama’s potential problems as the probable Democratic nominee in the fall.  Obama’s problems attracting support from working-class, white voters may not go away easily, and national polling shows that favorable impressions for Obama have dropped 5 points this month, while the percentage of Americans who view him as unfavorable jumped 9 points, a 14 point swing, with the highest negative ratings coming from Independents, seniors, blue collar workers, rural and small town voters and even suburban women, the last of which have given Obama some of his strongest support in past contests.  In PA, our recent polling in Democratic-leaning districts shows that if Clinton is not the nominee, some Reagan Democrats are more comfortable with McCain than Obama, while others may simply stay home.  For instance, our polling in three key regions of the state where support from Reagan Democrats is crucial, those being the Southeast, the Johnstown/Altoona market and the Northeast – showed Clinton either beating or narrowly losing to McCain, but McCain besting Obama by anywhere from 13 to 25 points in these same districts. In one district, even 11% of Democrats said they would not vote for either McCain or Obama, which means Reagan Democrats may not be particularly enamored with either candidate, but also means the Democrats may have a turnout problem in November if Obama doesn’t repair his image with this critical swing group. 

          Let’s shift to the general election between McCain and either Obama or Clinton.  For tons of reasons, this should be the Democrats’ year to capture the White House.  Approximately 70% of Americans say the country is on the wrong track, a sentiment which historically works against the party occupying the White House.  A majority of Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake and not worth the sacrifices we have made, and most Americans and most Pennsylvanians for that matter, think we are currently in a recession, or headed for one in the next several months.  All these factors have contributed to such a black mark on the GOP that according to polls, when you ask Americans which party they want to win the White House, by a 10-point margin they say the Democrats. When you ask Americans which party they belong to, fewer and fewer Americans identify as being Republican, which is near historic lows.  And according to a Wall Street Journal poll released last week, only 27% of voters nationwide now have favorable views of the Republican Party, the lowest level for either party in the survey’s near two-decade history.  And you don’t have to look at the statistics to feel the energy the Democrats have had this year with record turnouts in the primaries, hundreds of thousands of new voters registering to vote for the first time, and huge advantages in fundraising where the Clinton and Obama campaigns have raised twice and three times as much money as McCain or the Republicans have.  Just in PA alone, the Democrats have increased their voters by 8% recently, giving them more than 4 million voters on the rolls which is unprecedented – and even flipped 5 counties from Republican to Democrat in registration (Centre, Clinton, Bucks, Montgomery and Clearfield). Even here in Dauphin County, the increase in Democrat registration was the highest of the state, a 38% increase adding 20,000 new Democrats to the rolls, giving the Republicans now a less than 2,000 voter registration advantage in a county that Republican candidates have carried in the past by huge margins.

          Despite all this, McCain is still in a statistical dead heat with both Clinton and Obama nationally, and in Pennsylvania is trailing both candidates but still considered competitive enough to keep PA in play.  McCain’s resilience can be attributed to many factors:  as someone who has been willing to buck the Republican Party establishment, his maverick-style image has made him attractive to Independent voters, moderates and Hispanics.  Polls show he has strong appeal to senior citizens and veterans, and is fairly well liked by most voters, and the WSJ poll I referred to earlier showed that among all three candidates, Americans gave the highest marks to McCain on “values and background”, which the survey identified as things like honor, trustworthiness and patriotism.  In fact, McCain scored higher than Obama and Clinton among most key demographic groups on these issues including with men, seniors, independents, suburbanites, small town voters and rural voters.  This means McCain’s appeal is more based on personal traits and his maverick image more so than his positions on issues, which can work to his advantage given his controversial positions on the Iraq war, and the perception by many that he lacks the credentials to grasp economic issues.

Also, with McCain as the GOP nominee the entire electoral map of which states are competitive in November gets turned upside down.  For instance, because of his appeal to Reagan Democrats, the McCain campaign believes they put states like Michigan and PA in play for the general election, and his popularity with Independents may put Minnesota, New Hampshire and even Wisconsin in play.  Also, the bitter primary between Obama and Clinton is giving Democratic Party leaders heartburn, since they are concerned about what impact this will have on the nominee in the fall, and if the Clinton voters will vote for Obama and vice versa in a general election. Polls show up to 1 in 4 Democrats may not vote for either Clinton or Obama if the other candidate wins the nomination.  Ultimately, I think the general election for president will be closely contested, and I think a lot of it has to do with how successful the GOP is defining Barack Obama if he is the nominee, something Clinton has really not had the luxury of doing since she can’t afford to alienate the same base she’ll need to rely on in November if she’s the nominee.  We can discuss more about how the GOP will try to define Obama if time permits.

The PA Congressional Races

          There is one open seat in the 5^th District represented by retiring Congressman John Peterson, and the Republican nominee, G.T. Thompson, should be the favorite to win over Democratic nominee Mark McCracken since he won the primary relatively unscathed given that the two front runners for the race, Derek Walker and Matt Shaner, really suffered the brunt of all the negative campaigning.  Democratic incumbents are defending 9 seats in the fall elections.  Two to watch are freshman incumbents Chris Carney, who represents the 10^th District formerly held by Don Sherwood.  This is the best chance for the GOP to win back a seat because this district gave Bush his highest vote of any district in the last presidential election; the GOP nominee is Chris Hackett.  Another seat to watch is the 11^th District held by Paul Kanjorski, who is being challenged by Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who is benefiting from his popularity as the first mayor in the nation to pass an ordinance cracking down on illegal immigrants which makes him an instantly credible challenger. In the spirit of disclosure I should also mention that we are the pollster for Barletta. Other freshman Democrats like Jason Altmire who represents Allegheny/Beaver Counties, Joe Sestak, who represents Delaware County, and Patrick Murphy, who represents Bucks County, will be uphill climbs for the Republicans.

          On the Republican side, GOP congressmen are defending 7 seats.  Two to watch are Congressman Phil English, based in Erie, who faces a tough challenger from Kathy Dalhkemper in a district that recent elections show is trending more Democrat, and Congressman Tim Murphy, who represents Allegheny County. Allegations have surfaced against Murphy relative to his staff’s involvement in questionable campaign activities, so this seat bears watching if these allegations materialize before November; the Democrat nominee is Steve O’Donnell.  Two other seats that Republicans are defending are Jim Gerlach in the 6^th District in the Southeast and Charlie Dent who represents the Lehigh Valley. Both districts are trending Democrat in voting patterns but the Democrats have not recruited good candidates in these seats, so it’s unlikely either incumbent will be defeated.

Statewide Row Office Elections

          There are three statewide row office elections up this year for Attorney General, State Treasurer and Auditor General.  In the auditor general’s race, our March polling shows Auditor General Jack Wagner with a 40/21 lead over Republican Chet Beiler, and this race will be a tough uphill climb for the GOP, as will the treasurer’s open seat race which currently shows that by a 44/33 margin, voters would vote Democrat if the race was held today; the Democratic nominee is businessman Bob McCord and the GOP nominee is former Montgomery County Commissioner Tom Ellis.

          The attorney general’s race is most interesting however, between Attorney General Tom Corbett and Democrat District Attorney John Morganelli from Northampton County.  And let me first ask this question: Does anyone remember who Melissa Hart was?  Melissa Hart was a former GOP congresswoman from Allegheny and Beaver Counties who lost her seat in the 2006 elections primarily because Reagan Democrats went home to the Democratic Party, an election which was largely viewed as a referendum on the Iraq war and dissatisfaction with the Bush Presidency.  It wasn’t that M.H. was involved in a scandal, or was viewed as out of touch with the voters, or did anything sinister.  M.H. ultimately became the 4^th incumbent GOP congressperson in PA defeated in the 2006 elections, and wasn’t even on the target list of the national Democrats until October when they realized how big the anti-Republican tidal wave sweeping the country was. 

I bring this up because in our estimation Tom Corbett could be the Melissa Hart of the ’08 cycle. In our March polling, Corbett is only winning by a slim 37/29 margin, and this is important because if you remember what I said before about the race for state treasurer, where a “nameless” Republican candidate is only getting 33% of the vote, Corbett is only polling 4 points ahead of a nameless GOP candidate, which means he is dangerously close to being swept out with the tide if he doesn’t get any separation from the lousy political environment that the GOP is facing this year.  To win, Corbett needs to rely on a big vote in the Harrisburg region where our polls shows his support is the strongest partly due to his investigation into bonuses paid to House/Senate staffers, and as well as big numbers out West in his home area and at least do decent in the Southest.  For Morganelli, if he has at least some money to communicate a message that he is qualified to run from his service as a DA, then between that and the higher surge in Democratic registration, it could be enough to get the job done.  If Corbett wins, he probably wins this race 52/48, but I could envision a scenario where Morganelli wins by a much bigger margin.

State House/Senate races

The GOP margin in the state senate, currently 29R/21D, will continue to stay strong.  In the State Senate, six state senators have announced their retirement – three Republicans and three Democrats – so expect lively races to fill these open seats, but none are likely to produce seats that swap from R to D or vise versa.  One potential seat in question is State Sen. Bob Regola (R-39, Westmoreland), who is being investigated due to the accidential shooting death of his son’s neighborhood friend, who died from an apparent self-inflicted gun shot wound from a gun owned by Sen. Regola, which court documents say was obtained from Sen. Regola’s house.  This is a Democrat seat in voter registration, but has trended Republican in recent years due to support from Reagan Democrats.  Sen. Regola’s personal reputation in the district will be the deciding factor, and if he can rehabilitate his image and at the same time, convince voters his opponent, Tony Bompiani, is not a viable alternative, he may be able to win reelection.  

In the state House, House Democrats regained the majority last election cycle for the first time since 1994 by one vote. This year, pending write-in candidates which have yet to be certified, up to 94 incumbents- which is slightly less than 50% of the entire House – have completely free rides and face no primary or general contests, which is a huge increase from 2006 when the legislative pay raise from 2005 brought hundreds of candidates out of the wood work.  This year, it seems as if we are back to the old days when most incumbents will probably get reelected, particularly if you take into account how handily the candidates for judicial retention at the statewide level last year won by near 2:1 margins, which said to us the animosity from the pay raise has definitely lost its shine. All this means that most of the competition for House races will be in 19 open seats.

The strategy for the Democrats will be to hold onto seats they snatched away from Republicans in 2006, at the same time, pick up a few “insurance” seats primarily by focusing on several open seats formerly held by Republicans in the Southeast that are trending Democratic in voting trends. 

The strategy for the GOP to reclaim the majority will be to hold open seats in the Southeast due to GOP retirements, and more importantly, defeat incumbent Democrats in marginal seats where Republican performance is strong.  Our early polling indicates that if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for president, more Democratic incumbents, particularly in rural and Western PA districts will be in play given how well McCain is polling in these same districts. In some cases, our polling shows McCain 20 points or more ahead of Obama in competitive House districts, while a McCain/Clinton match-up is a dead heat. This means the straight ticket vote for the Democrats will be minimized, and GOP candidates will be able to win more McCain votes down ballot from both Republicans and conservative Democrats.  Or, with an Obama ticket, more Democrats in these districts might stay home on Election Day. This means most GOP candidates should prey for an Obama ticket in November to help their prospects, and this gives the House Republicans a much-needed lift in their prospects to reclaim the majority, which we think is probably a 50:50 chance of happening. However, an Obama ticket is probably the best chance the GOP has. 

          Clinton’s win in PA was projected for weeks, with the real debate more centered about whether it would be a narrow victory or a 10-point win like in Ohio and New Jersey.  Her near 10-point margin in the state proved once again she has a much broader base of support than Obama.  She won 60 of the 67 counties, and exit polling showed big margins for her with Catholics, females, blue collar “Reagan Democrats”, super voters and senior citizens.  She even won narrowly among white males, which have tended to favor Obama in past polling. Undecided voters broke for Clinton by a near 60/40 margin in the remaining 7 days of the race, a clear indication she had thwarted his momentum in early April stemming from both self-inflicted wounds about his comments about how people in small towns in PA “cling to guns, religion, etc.” when they are bitter about their economic anxieties, as well as a shabby debate performance on 4/16 in Philadelphia when tough questioning from the media kept him on the defensive for most of the evening. 

       For Obama, exit polls showed his strengths primarily among voters 45 years and under, affluent/white collar voters and black Democrats. Among those who registered for the first time, they broke for him by a 62/38 margin, but it wasn’t enough to overcome Clinton’s home-grown advantages and institutional support in the state, even with the unprecedented turnout of more than 2 million votes cast, up from 1.2 million in 2002 which was the last time the Democrats had a contested statewide election between Rendell and Casey for governor.  Obama needed a big win in the Southeast counties (Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery), where our polls showed he was up by 5 points, but with a big enough undecided to affect the outcome; he ended up narrowly losing there 52/48, which meant probably Clinton scored big with soccer moms, Jewish voters and Rendell’s influence.  The other key region for Obama was the Mid State/Harrisburg region (Adams, Dauphin, Cumberland, York, Lancaster, Lebanon, Berks and Perry), where Democrats tend to be more affluent, white collar and up-and-coming professionals, and therefore more like Southeastern PA Democrats and less like the blue collar, culturally conservative Democrats you get in the West.  Obama split these counties 50/50 with Clinton.  As expected, he won Philadelphia by a 2:1 margin, and also carried the counties of Chester, Delaware, Lancaster, Dauphin, Center and Union. 

          However, the significance of a Clinton win in Pennsylvania really brings to light Obama’s problems as the probable nominee in the fall, unless the delegate math changes enough to deny him the nomination which is unlikely to happen.  Obama’s problems attracting support from Reagan Democrats in the primary will not go away easily, and our recent polling in Democratic-leaning, congressional and legislative races in the state shows that if Clinton is not the nominee in the fall, Reagan Democrats are more comfortable with McCain than Obama, while others may simply stay home.  For instance, our polling in three key regions of the state where support from Reagan Democrats is crucial, those being the Southeast, the Johnstown/Altoona market and the Northeast – all Democratic leaning areas in voting patterns – showed Clinton either beating or narrowly losing to McCain in a hypothetical match-up race for the fall, but McCain besting Obama by anywhere from 13 to 25 points in these same districts. In one district, even 11% of Democrats said they would vote for neither McCain nor Obama, which means blue collar Reagan Democrats may not be particularly enamored with either candidate, but also means the Democrats may have a turnout problem in November if Obama doesn’t repair his image in the state with this critical swing group. 

McCain is able to make inroads with these voters partly because they are comfortable with him, he has strong ties to veterans and senior groups, and polling nationwide shows he is fairly likeable among voters of all stripes, including a very low negative except among staunch, conservative Republicans.  Also, we suspect that because voters are familiar with McCain’s long and distinguished record of service, they can literally visualize him as president sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, while perceptually they still don’t have the same comfort level with Obama.  This is why polling shows casting a vote for president is as much about liking the person as it is about their positions on issues, which is why Democrats are favored to win the White House when voters are asked “generically” which party they want to see win in November, but when faced with a McCain/Obama or McCain/Clinton match-up more directly the nationwide polls show a much tighter race.  Clinton’s key argument that she is the only candidate who can win the key battleground states like Texas, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Michigan and now Pennsylvania, is now a more powerful argument the super delegates can no longer afford to ignore, because an Obama ticket puts Pennsylvania back in play, a state the Democrats have had the luxury of taking for granted for years because it hasn’t voted for a Republican for president since, well, you guessed it….Ronald Reagan.

          Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Jim Lee, President of Susquehanna Polling and Research.  Let’s first talk about the status of the race between Clinton and Obama from a national perspective.  Even if Hillary Clinton wins PA next week, it’s still unlikely she can legitimately claim the rights to the nomination unless she convinces the super delegates to vote for her.  Obama is winning with the pledged delegates, approximately by 164 at last count, leads with the total number of states won, and leads with the popular vote by more than 700,000 nationwide.  Clinton would have to win 2/3 of the remaining delegates in the 10 remaining states yet to hold contests for her to tie him in the delegate count, and that is unlikely to happen because of the complex way the Democratic party rules award delegates based on proportional representation, where delegates are based on the winner of the popular vote in each congressional or legislative district.  A good example of this is in the state of Nevada, where Clinton carried the state in the popular vote, but Obama was actually awarded one more delegate then she was because of how his vote was dispersed throughout the state. 

          Clinton’s main strategy has been to convince super delegates that she is the only candidate that has and will continue to win the big delegate-rich states the Democrats need to win in November to beat McCain. She points to her wins in New Jersey, California, New York, Ohio, even Michigan and Florida, and of course PA is vital to this argument.  It may be an argument that the super delegates respond to, and at the current time she still leads in the super delegate count by approximately 30, but her lead has been significantly diminished over the last few weeks as more and more party leaders start to think it’s inevitable that Obama will win the delegate race when all the states have voted.  So the key is, can the results of the remaining states yet to hold contests really make that much of a difference – starting with PA, and moving on to Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota, Guam and Puerto Rico.   Obama’ strategy needs to be to keep these remaining states close so that no one gets a decisive lead with the remaining pledged delegates yet to be awarded, and keep the pressure on the super delegates to not vote against the will of the people, something party leaders including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, are increasingly signaling would be a major mistake to do.

          Now, let’s turn to the race in PA.  This state was always considered Clinton’s to lose because of her family ties to the Northeast and the fact that this state, similar to Ohio which she won by 10 points, was tailor-made for her because of its strong emphasis on blue collar Reagan Democrats, older voters and culturally conservative Democrats.  Our polling in early March and almost all the other polling conducted, showed Clinton with a double-digit lead.  However things began to change when Obama started outspending her 3:1 on the airwaves here, something he did not have the luxury or time to do in Ohio because of the compressed election schedule.  As of today, the polls show a tightening lead for her, with her margin now 40-37 with 18% still undecided according to our recently completed statewide poll just released this week.  Clinton is still wining with Catholics, blue collar Reagan Democrats, senior citizens, lower income voters, and females.  From a regional perspective, her lead is mostly concentrated in the Northeast, the Southwest and the Central PA/Johnstown-Altoona market.  However, Obama has made gains in these areas and now wins in the Southeast region of the state including Philadelphia, and in the Harrisburg region, where Democrats in this region tend to be more white-collar, affluent and more like Southeast PA Democrats and not like the culturally conservative Democrats you tend to get out west and in the Northeast.  He also leads with more affluent and higher income voters, younger voters, and among black voters.

          The key to this race in the remaining days will be voter turnout, and how the undecided voters break. Because Clinton continues to hold a lead, Obama may be able to pull an upset if he can get turnout up substantially among black Democrats in Philadelphia where he is winning by huge margins, as well as the Southeast counties of Chester, Bucks, Delaware and Montgomery Counties where he has pulled ahead, and strong turnout among younger voters particularly on college campuses like State College, where the new voter registration figures show that for the first time in probably 50 years, Centre County now has more Democrats than Republicans.  As you may know, Obama recently held a rally in State College and drew an estimated 20,000 people.

          For Clinton to win she needs to win the Southwest and Central parts of the state probably by 2:1 margins, and hold her own in the Southeast where Obama’s support has been increasing.  Also, the senior citizen vote is absolutely critical in this race, where Clinton still has a big lead.  In the last competitive statewide election the Democrats have had, which was the ’02 primary between Rendell and Casey for governor, seniors made up 53% of all votes cast on Election Day.  That’s a huge advantage for Clinton, and one reason why Obama needs to jack turnout up so much to help dilute the influence of seniors because his support is much stronger with younger voters, particularly those 45 years old and younger.  The last key to this election is where the undecided voters go.  Last weekend, Obama created a firestorm of controversy with comments that suggested that voters in small towns in PA cling to religion, guns and their anti-immigrant sentiments when they are frustrated with their economic anxieties.  If this continues to play out, it could create a backlash against Obama in precisely these areas of the state where the latest polling has shown he was starting to make gains, but still behind.  Our prediction is that Clinton will win the race in PA, but that her margin will be less than the 10-point margin she won Ohio by.

          Let’s shift to the general election for president between John McCain and either Obama or Clinton.  For tons of reasons, this should be the Democrats’ year to capture the White House.  Approximately 70% of Americans say the country is on the wrong track, a sentiment which historically works against the party occupying the White House.  A majority of Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake and not worth the sacrifice we have made in troops, and most Americans and most Pennsylvanians for that matter, think we are currently in a recession, or headed for one in the next several months.  Even 70% of economists surveyed by the WSJ say we’re in a recession, even though they admit that technically we haven’t satisfied the definition of a recession with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.  All these factors have contributed to such a black mark on the GOP that according to polls, when you ask Americans which party they want to win the White House, by a 10+ margin they say the Democrats. When you ask Americans which party they belong to, fewer and fewer Americans are even admitting to being Republican, which is near historic lows.  And you don’t have to look at the statistics to feel the energy the Democrats have had this year with record turnouts in the primaries, hundreds of thousands of new voters registering to vote for the first time, and huge advantages in fundraising where the Clinton and Obama campaigns have raised twice and three times as much money as McCain or the Republicans have.  Just in PA alone, the Democrats have increased their voters by 8% recently, giving them more than 4 million voters on the rolls which is unprecedented – and even flipped 5 counties from Republican to Democrat in registration (Centre, Clinton, Bucks, Montgomery and Clearfield). Even here in Dauphin County the Republicans only have a less than 2,000 voter registration advantage in a county that Republican candidates have carried in the past by huge margins – which has to be a concern for elected officials like Sen. Jeff Piccola who is running for reelection this year.

          Despite all this, McCain is still competitive with the Democrats both nationally and in Pennsylvania, and polling shows he either ties or is only slightly behind both Obama and Clinton if the general election were held today.  McCain’s resilience can be attributed to many factors:  as someone who has been willing to buck the Republican Party establishment, his maverick-style image has made him attractive to Independent voters, moderates and Hispanics.  He has strong appeal to senior citizens and veterans, and is fairly well liked by most voters, and for the most part people are comfortable with John McCain and can actually visualize him as president sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office because he comes across as very presidential.  Also, with McCain as the GOP nominee the entire electoral map of which states are competitive in November gets turned upside down.  For instance, because of his appeal to Reagan Democrats, the McCain campaign believes they put states like Michigan and PA in play for the general election, and his popularity with Independents puts Minnesota, New Hampshire and even Wisconsin in play.  Also, the increasingly bitter primary between Obama and Clinton is starting to give the Democratic Party leaders heartburn, since they are concerned about what impact this will have on the nominee in the fall, and if the Clinton voters will vote for Obama and vice versa in a general election. Polls show up to 1 in 4 Democrats may not vote for either Clinton or Obama if the other candidate wins the nomination.  Ultimately, I think the general election for president will be closely contested, and I think a lot of it has to do with how successful the GOP is defining Barack Obama if he is the nominee, something Clinton has really not had the luxury of doing since she can’t afford to alienate the same base she’ll need to rely on in November if she’s the nominee. 

          And how will the Republican attack machine define Obama?  They’ll try to make the case that he is more liberal than most Americans.  They’ll remind people the National Journal, a respected Washington think tank, rated him the most liberal senator in 2007.  They’ll remind people he opposes a ban on partial birth abortions, something most Americans want abolished.  They’ll remind people he supports drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, something even Hillary Clinton says she opposes, I think…?  They’ll point to the fact that he favors a repeal of the defense of marriage act, which protects the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, something polls show most Americans support. And they’ll try to paint him as soft on terror, since he supports undoing some of the tough tactics President Bush has used to interrogate suspected terrorists.  And lastly, many people are starting to believe that his recent comments about small towns America just gave the Republicans their “Ah-hah!” moment, which is to say: “See, we told you all along he was an elitist, out-of-touch liberal!”

The PA Congressional Races

          There is one open seat in the 5^th District represented by retiring Congressman John Peterson, and a lively 9-person field on the GOP side for this seat which should stay Republican in the Fall.  Democratic incumbents are defending 9 seats in the Fall elections.  Two to watch are freshman incumbents Chris Carney, who represents the 10^th District formerly held by Don Sherwood.  This is the best chance for the GOP to win back a seat because this district gave Bush his highest vote of any district in the last presidential election.  Another seat to watch is the 11^th District held by Paul Kanjorski, who is being challenged by Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who has the benefit of his popularity as the first mayor in a nation to crack down on illegal immigrants which makes him an instantly credible challenger.  Other freshman Democrats like Jason Altmire who represents Allegheny/Beaver Counties, Joe Sestak, who represents Delaware County, and Patrick Murphy, who represents Bucks County, will be an uphill climb for the Republicans.

          On the Republican side, GOP congressmen are defending 7 seats.  Two to watch are Congressman Phil English, based in Erie, who faces a tough challenger in a district that is trending Democrat and which polls show is economically distressed, and Congressman Tim Murphy, who represents Allegheny County, who may end up facing former Auditor General Barbara Hafer’s daughter if she wins the primary. Allegations have surfaced against Murphy relative to his staff’s involvement in illegal campaign activities, so this seat bears watching if the issue stays on the media’s radar screen.  Two other seats that Republicans are defending are Jim Gerlach in the 6^th District in the Southeast and Charlie Dent who represents the Lehigh Valley. Both districts are trending Democrat in voting patterns but the Democrats have not recruited good candidates in these seats, so it’s unlikely either incumbent will be defeated.

Statewide Row Office Elections

          There are three statewide row office elections up this year for Attorney General, State Treasurer and Auditor General.  In the auditor general’s race, our March polling shows Auditor General Jack Wagner with a 40/21 lead over Republican Chet Beiler, and this race will be a tough uphill climb for the GOP, as will the treasurer’s open seat race which currently shows that by a 44/33 margin, voters would vote Democrat if the race was held today.  There is currently a 3-way primary for treasurer on the Democratic side, the winner to face Republican Tom Ellis in the fall, a former Montgomery County Commissioner.

          The attorney general’s race is most interesting however, between Attorney General Tom Corbett and Democrat District Attorney John Morganelli from Northampton County.  And let me first ask this question: Does anyone remember who Melissa Hart was?  Melissa Hart was a former GOP congresswoman from Allegheny and Beaver Counties who lost her seat in the 2006 elections primarily because Reagan Democrats went home to the Democratic Party, an election which was largely viewed as a referendum on the Iraq war and dissatisfaction with the Bush Presidency.  It wasn’t that M.H. was involved in a scandal, or was out of touch with the voters, or did anything sinister.  M.H. ultimately became the 4^th incumbent GOP congressperson in PA defeated in the 2006 elections, and wasn’t even on the target list of the national Democrats until October when they realized how big the tidal wave sweeping the country was developing. 

I bring this up because Tom Corbett could be the Melissa Hart of the ’08 cycle. In our March polling, Corbett is only winning by a slim 37/29 margin, and this is important because if you remember what I said before about the race for state treasurer, where a “nameless” Republican candidate is only getting 33% of the vote, Corbett is only polling 4 points ahead of a nameless GOP candidate, which means he is dangerously close to being swept out with the tide if he doesn’t get any separation from the lousy political environment that the GOP is facing this year.  To win, Corbett needs to rely on a big vote in this region where our polls shows his support is the strongest partly due to his investigation into bonuses paid to House/Senate staffers, and big numbers out West in his home area.  For Morganelli, if he has at least some money to communicate a message that he is qualified to run from his service as a DA, then between that and the higher surge in Democratic registration, it could be enough to get the job done.  If Corbett wins, he wins this race 51/49, but I could envision a scenario where Morganelli wins by a much bigger margin.

State House/Senate races

The GOP margin in the state senate, currently 29R/21D, will continue to stay strong.  In the State Senate, six state senators have announced their retirement – three Republicans and three Democrats – so expect lively races to fill these open seats, but none are likely to produce seats that swap from R to D or vise versa.  One potential seat in question is State Sen. Bob Regola (R-39, Westmoreland), who is being investigated due to the accidential shooting death of his son’s neighborhood friend, who died from an apparent self-inflicted gun shot wound from a gun owned by Sen. Regola, which court documents say was obtained from Sen. Regola’s house.  This is a Democrat seat in voter registration, but has trended Republican in recent years due to support from Reagan Democrats.  Sen. Regola’s personal reputation in the district will be the deciding factor, and if he can rehabilitate his image and at the same time, convince voters his opponent is not a viable alternative, he may be able to win reelection.  Expect this race to get ugly if Regola stays in the race, since the GOP will need to define the Democratic nominee in a very unfavorable light to keep the seat in GOP hands.

In 2006, House Democrats regained the majority in the lower chamber for the first time since 1994 by one vote. This year, a total of 94 incumbents- which is slightly less than 50% of the entire House – have completely free rides and face no primary or general contests, which is a huge increase from 2006 when the legislative pay raise from 2005 brought hundreds of candidates out of the wood work.  This year, it seems as if we are back to the old days when most incumbents will probably get reelected, particularly if you take into account how handily the candidates for judicial retention at the statewide level last year won by near 2:1 margins, which said to us the animosity from the pay raise has definitely lost its shine. All this means that most of the competition for House races will be in 19 open seats.

The strategy for the Democrats will be to hold onto seats they snatched away from Republicans in 2006, including Rep. Tim Seip (D-125, Schuylkill), Rep. Rick Taylor (D-151, Montgomery), Rep. Chris King (D-142, Bucks), Rep. David Kessler (D-130, Berks), Rep. Scott Conklin (D-77, Centre), Rep. Bryan Lentz (D-161, Delaware), Rep. Barbara McIlvaine Smith (D-156, Chester) at the same time, pick up a few “insurance” seats primarily by focusing on several open seats formerly held by Republicans in the Southeast that are trending Democratic in voting trends. 

The strategy for the GOP to reclaim the majority will be to hold open seats in the Southeast due to GOP retirements, and more importantly, defeat incumbent Democrats in marginal seats where Republican performance is strong.  Our early polling indicates that if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for president, more Democratic incumbents, particularly in rural and Western PA districts will be in play given how well McCain is polling in these same districts. In some cases, our polling shows McCain 20 points or more ahead of Obama in competitive House districts, while a McCain/Clinton match-up is a dead heat. This means the straight ticket vote for the Democrats will be minimized, and GOP candidates will be able to win more McCain votes down ballot from both Republicans and conservative Democrats.  Or, with an Obama ticket, more Democrats in these districts might stay home on Election Day. This means most GOP candidates should prey for an Obama ticket in November to help their prospects, and this gives the House Republicans a much-needed lift in their prospects to reclaim the majority, which we think is probably a 50:50 chance of happening. 

Harrisburg, PA (Monday, April 14) – A new statewide poll conducted by Harrisburg-based Susquehanna Polling and Research, Inc., in the upcoming PA Democratic Presidential Primary Election shows Hillary Clinton with a slight 40/37 lead over Barack Obama with just one week remaining before the April 22^nd Primary Election.  Eighteen (18) percent remain undecided, while 4% said they would vote for neither candidate; 1% refused to answer.  This represents a significant drop from her 14-point lead in our last poll conducted March 5-10, where Clinton led by a 45/31 margin. The current poll was conducted April 6-10 with 500 likely Democratic voters and has a margin of error of 4.3% at the 95% confidence level; the calls were made from our telephone call center in downtown Harrisburg using live survey interviewers.

“Clinton’s 3-point lead is within the poll’s 4% margin of error, so this race is now a virtual toss-up,” said Jim Lee, the firm’s president, who conducted the poll for public dissemination.  “Obama has a strong 62/19 favorable to unfavorable ratio in name ID (better than 3:1), and has succeeded in building up his positive image in the state, something he said all along he was capable of doing if voters had more time to get to know him.  At the same time, Clinton’s name ID shows a higher negative than Obama, with 25% having an unfavorable opinion of her compared to 61% who view Clinton as favorable,” Lee added.

Clinton still leads in the culturally conservative Southwest (57/17), the Northeast (44/26) and Central “T”/Johnstown-Altoona media market (40/32), but her leads in these areas has narrowed in comparison to March when she was winning with bigger margins.  Perhaps most surprising is Clinton’s shrinking margin in the Northeast, her natural strength given her family ties to the area, where her 38-point, 56/18 margin over Obama in March has now shrunk to 18 points (a swing of 20).   Meanwhile, Obama has strengthened his lead in the Harrisburg/South Central region (now 39/29), and surpassed Clinton in the 4 suburban counties surrounding Philadelphia (now 45/40), whereas Clinton led in March by a 42/35 margin; Obama’s 50/30 lead in Philadelphia is unchanged from our earlier poll.  “Obama’s media efforts are clearly paying off, he’s holding his base in the socially liberal areas of the state, and at the same time, has chipped away at her lead in areas where he knows he can’t win, but can at least have a respectable showing, namely in Central and Western PA, where Reagan Democrats are still key to a Clinton victory,” Lee said. 

Because voter turnout is expected to be near historic levels, this race will be decided by whether or not Obama can turn out the vote among new voters, those least likely to have voted in past primary elections and black Democrats, all of whom historically have been less likely to vote in primaries.  For instance, Clinton holds a 48/34 lead with senior citizens and a 42/35 lead with voters who have the strongest primary vote history based on past primary elections (i.e., 3 or 4 of the last 4 primaries), while Obama holds a near 2:1 lead with voters under 45 years old and a 50/30 lead with black Democrats; among those with less vote history in the poll it’s a 39/38 dead heat.  If Obama succeeds in turning out the vote among new registrants, younger voters on college campuses and in the African-American community, he may be able to pull off an upset victory.  However, still the undecided vote is still relatively high (at 18%), this vote is now even more up for grabs given Obama’s recent comments which the media is reporting are generally thought to be insensitive to voters in small towns, and may help stimulate turnout for Clinton in rural parts of the state if Obama isn’t able to give a more satisfactory explanation.

Endorsements by Governor Rendell and U.S. Senator Casey, Jr., for Clinton and Obama respectively don’t seem to be having much influence, however.  Eighty-one (81) percent of voters said Rendell’s endorsement would have “no impact” on their vote for Clinton, while 8% said it would make them “more likely” to vote for her compared to 10% who said it would make them “less likely”.  Similarly, 85% said Casey’s endorsement for Obama would have “no impact”, while 7% said it would make them “more likely” to vote for him while 8% said “less likely”.   “This suggests people are making up their own minds, and endorsements by either of the state’s top Democrats don’t seem to carry much weight.  However, this is probably more troubling for Clinton, who needs a big win in PA to stay in the race and has been counting on popularity from Governor Rendell to deliver the vote particularly in the Southeast where he is most popular.”

The minutia of population and geography has been Steve Dull’s world for a lifetime so it comes as no surprise that he brings those talents to his new role as senior advisor to Susquehanna Polling and Research.

“I’ve watched the evolving nature of the state for three decades now,” said Dull, who recently retired as director of mapping and reapportionment for the state House Republican Caucus.

“I’ve watched the Philadelphia suburbs change from solid red Republican to shades and even big streaks of blue,” the Gettysburg College graduate said. “At the same time, I’ve watched south-central Pennsylvania change. York County where I grew up went from a 5,000-voter registration edge for Democrats in 1972 to a 50,000-vote Republican advantage in that time”

Jim Lee, president of Susquehanna Polling and Research, said Dull joined the firm in February and will be involved in the firm’s polling activities throughout what promises to be an exciting political year.

“Steve is widely viewed as an expert in Pennsylvania’s demographics and voting patterns,” Lee said. “He will be a wonderful addition to the efforts for our clients and the continued success of the firm.”

Dull said Pennsylvania is definitely a slow growth state rising from just 11.8 million residents to 12.3 million residents between the 1990 and 2000 U.S. censuses.

Still, population growth has been heavy in arc through the state that starts at Franklin and Adams counties on the Maryland border all the way “through the Poconos and the exurbs of Philadelphia, including the Lehigh Valley.”

“Franklin and Adams counties are very Republican while there is a Democratic trend in the Poconos with Monroe County now having a higher Democratic registration than Republican. Still, he said, most growth centers in the state are trending Republican.

Asked to pick a bellwether for the state, Dull identified the Lehigh Valley, especially the congressional seat now held by U.S. Rep Charlie Dent, R-Lehigh. It has been held by both parties in recent times.

Dull said that area is the best predictor of how the state will likely vote in a fall presidential contest, emulating the statewide results in the last several presidential elections.

Dull said he and Lee began to have discussions about his joining the firm as he was closing out his state government career. The two worked together in polling and other areas. “Jim liked to pick my brain especially about census data from the 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses,” he recalled.

A 1972 graduate in political science from Gettysburg College, Dull got his first exposure to state government in 1971 as an intern to then House Speaker K. Leroy Irvis, D-Pittsburgh.

“It was a tumultuous time in the Legislature as Gov. Milton Shapp was trying to pass the state’s first income tax and the issue was hard fought,” Dull said. “I wasn’t yet 21 so I couldn’t vote but I liked the political environment.”

The Legislature was far different then too, he noted. Only those in leadership had staff assigned to them while four or five rank-and-file members generally shared one secretary in Harrisburg. Soon afterward, the House turned from Democratic to Republican control and both chambers began to move to more full-time status.

After graduation, Dull applied for a job with the state House through then-state Rep. Percy Foor, R-Bedford, who was the chairman of the House Consumer Protection Committee at the time, and he was assigned to Bob Butera, who then was the state House majority leader.

When Butera left to run unsuccessfully for governor in the 1978 GOP gubernatorial primary, Dull began to get involved with reapportionment gearing up toward the 1980 census. He remained in that role until his retirement.

In drawing state House districts every census after the once-every-decade population data was in hand, Dull would work with his Democratic counterpart. But to redraw the state’s congressional districts, it was a joint effort that included the Senate and all four caucuses and needed to be approved as a new law passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor.

“In 1990, we had a divided Legislature with a Democratic governor (Bob Casey Sr.) and a Democratic House but a Republican Senate whereas by the 2000 census, Republicans controlled all three of the legs of the stool,” he said.

That one-party control allowed the creation of a number of congressional districts that helped state senators, such as Jim Gerlach of Chester County and Tim Murphy of Allegheny County, to run for the U.S. House.

Indeed, Gerlach won the seat after it was first created in 2002 but by smaller margins than anticipated. What happened, Dull said, is that despite the carefully drawn Republican-dominated district, the trending of the Philadelphia suburbs to often vote Democratic regardless of a district’s party registration has given Gerlach tough general election opponents. As a result, he has had narrow wins in each of his re-election efforts in 2004 and 2006.

Dull is married and has no children. He and his wife, Gail, now reside in East Pennsboro Township. Cumberland County.

Welcome to the launch of our new polling blog in which we hope to enlighten and entertain you as well as share some of the knowledge we garner from the many public opinion surveys we conduct each year.  I started Susquehanna Polling and Research in 2000 when Harrisburg had no polling or survey firm based right in the state capital. In fact, we established our headquarters right across the street from the Capitol building to make it convenient for clients.

From our early start with mostly political polling, primarily for Republican candidates, we have branched out to doing survey work for lobbying and communications firms, trade associations (both state and national), non-profit organizations and business groups.

We also started with just me and my wife and a handful of part-time interviewers. We have grown in the past eight years to four full-time associate, 30 survey research interviewers and a team of political consultants.  Also, starting with a local market, we now conduct polling in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Nevada and nationwide.

In the political arena, we have been the primary pollster for the Pennsylvania Republican House Campaign Committee since 2000 and also for the Republican State Committees in Pennsylvania and Delaware. (For a full list of our clients and staff biographies, visit our website at Susquehannapolling.com)

My own interest in politics began at Lycoming College where I majored in political science and graduated in 1990. My first job out of college was with Pennsylvanians for Effective Government (PEG), a pro-business advocacy group, where I coordinated the organization’s political action committee programs.  From 1993 to 1996, I was a Special Projects Field Coordinator for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives where I managed and coordinated incumbency programs for state lawmakers. From 1996 to 2000, I worked for the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry as a lobbyist for business interests and also as the director of the Chamber’s Political Action Committee, designed to help lawmakers who were helping the business community.

Since starting Susquehanna Polling and Research, I have frequently been asked to be an analyst or speaker before several political action groups including Capitol Blue Cross, PA State Education Association, PA Association of REALTORS and others. And, most recently, I have become the primary political analyst and official pollster for WHTM-TV, Channel 27, and the ABC affiliate in the Harrisburg/south central Pennsylvania television market. I’m happy to share the insights and other trends I observe day in and day out from continually probing the minds of Pennsylvanians from all four corners of the Commonwealth.

On a personal level, I am married to Kelly Lee, the firm’s office manager, and we have a daughter, Ava, and are expecting our second daughter later this spring.

Please enjoy this blog, share it with others, feel free to comment (as long as its professional and “above board” and hopefully the information we share will help you in whatever public policy decisions you have to make, be it in the private or public sector.

All the best,

Jim Lee

For the three state row offices up for election this year, two are currently held by incumbents who may use their 2008 re-election bids to booster their political careers by running for governor or U.S. Senate in 2010.

Corbett, a Republican, is seeking re-election as attorney general and is opposed by Democrat John Morganelli, the district attorney of Northampton County. This race has to be the top protect seat for the Republican State Committee, Lee said.  In our March statewide poll, Corbett is only beating Morganelli by a slim 37/29 margin, an ominous sign for the GOP because Corbett is only polling 4 points ahead of the “generic” ballot for Republican candidates running for other statewide offices (i.e., state treasurer).  Since Corbett is the incumbent and has had four years to build his stature as the state’s top cop, he is dangerously close to being swept out with the tide and may become the “Melissa Hart” of the ’08 cycle if he can’t get any separation from the lousy political environment.  This race will be decided by a very close 51/49 margin if he’s reelected in our opinion.  [If you recall, Melissa Hart was a GOP congresswoman in Western Pennsylvania defeated primarily because Reagan Democrats went back to the Democratic party in 2006, and not because she had necessarily lost touch with her district.  Our polling in that race for the Pittsburgh Tribune Review showed a high sentiment for change, and a dead heat between Hart and now Congressman Altmire on the ballot test (polling, by the way, which at the time was criticized by Hart’s pollster as inaccurate and biased).  Corbett’s best area of strength in the current poll is the Harrisburg region, where his high-profile investigation into the ”bonusgate” scandal has gotten him plenty of earned media, so he’ll need a strong turnout in the mid state to offset losses in Southeastern and Northeastern PA where his support is soft.  If he can raise the funds necessary to cut through the clutter of all the presidential ads, he may be able to hang on. 

Two other statewide row office elections are also in play.  Democrat Auditor General Jack Wagner will seek a second term and will be opposed by Republican Chet Beiler, a businessman from Lancaster County.  Our polling in March shows Wagner winning with a near 2-1 margin. State treasurer is an open position. Four Democrats are vying for that nomination and one Republican. If that contest were held today, 44 percent of those surveyed said they would vote for the Democrat while 33 percent said they would vote Republican and the remaining 22 percent were undecided.  This suggests a difficult climb for the GOP nominees in these races, Lee said.

The GOP margin in the state senate, currently 29R/21D, will continue to stay strong.  In the State Senate, six state senators have announced their retirement – three Republicans and three Democrats – so expect lively races to fill these open seats, but none are likely to produce seats that swap from R to D or vise versa.  One potential seat in question is State Sen. Bob Regola (R-39, Westmoreland), who is being investigated due to the accidential shooting death of his son’s neighborhood friend, who died from an apparent self-inflicted gun shot wound from a gun owned by Sen. Regola, which court documents say was obtained from Sen. Regola’s house.  This is a Democrat seat in voter registration, but has trended Republican in recent years due to support from Reagan Democrats.  Sen. Regola’s personal reputation in the district will be the deciding factor, and if he can rehabilitate his image and at the same time, convince voters his opponent is not a viable alternative, he may be able to win reelection.  Expect this race to get ugly if Regola stays in the race, since the GOP will need to define the Democratic nominee in a very unfavorable light to keep the seat in GOP hands.

In 2006, House Democrats regained the majority in the lower chamber for the first time since 1994 but only by the thinnest margin of one vote. But now the so-called “Bonusgate” investigation by the state attorney general is putting that majority in jeopardy. So far, there have been no actual indictments related specifically to the probe, which involves allegations that state-funded bonuses were given to some House Democratic staffers for work performed on political campaigns rather than state duties. Bonuses for staffers in the GOP House and Senate caucuses are also being investigated.

The strategy for the Democrats will be to hold onto seats they snatched away from Republicans in 2006, including Rep. Tim Seip (D-125, Schuylkill), Rep. Rick Taylor (D-151, Montgomery), Rep. Chris King (D-142, Bucks), Rep. David Kessler (D-130, Berks), Rep. Scott Conklin (D-77, Centre), Rep. Bryan Lentz (D-161, Delaware), Rep. Barbara McIlvaine Smith (D-156, Chester) at the same time, pick up a few “insurance” seats primarily by focusing on several open seats formerly held by Republicans in the Southeast that are trending Democratic in voting trends. 

The strategy for the GOP to reclaim the majority will be to hold open seats in the Southeast due to GOP retirements, and more importantly, defeat incumbent Democrats in marginal seats where Republican performance is strong.  Our early polling indicates that if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for president, more Democratic incumbents, particularly in rural and Western PA districts will be in play given how well McCain is polling in these same districts. In some cases, our polling shows McCain 20 points or more ahead of Obama in competitive House districts, while a McCain/Clinton match-up is a dead heat. This means the straight ticket vote for the Democrats will be minimized, and GOP candidates will be able to win more McCain votes down ballot from both Republicans and conservative Democrats.  Or, with an Obama ticket, more Democrats in these districts might stay home on Election Day. This means most GOP candidates should prey for an Obama ticket in November to help their prospects, and this gives the House Republicans a much-needed lift in their prospects to reclaim the majority, which we still think is less than a 50:50 chance of happening. However, an Obama ticket is probably the only chance the GOP has. 

Jim Lee, president of Susquehanna Polling and Research, has a message for political junkies throughout Pennsylvania – Rejoice! Election year 2008 promises to be one of the most exciting electoral years in recent memory. So get out the popcorn and the peanuts and settle down for a long ride, first to the April 22 primary and then to the November election.

 “Pennsylvania has been a hard-fought state in general elections now for a long time,” Lee said, “but this is the first year that we are also important in a primary for President at least on the Democratic side. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to spend heavily in this state and make more appearances than we’ve ever seen before,” Lee said.

Susquehanna’s survey in early March was the first to show Clinton’s lead here widening over Obama. The polls showed Clinton with a 14-point lead over the Illinois senator 45-31 percent with 19 percent of 500 Democrats surveyed undecided. Subsequent polls found the same pattern. The state primary, which will have national media attention and focus during April, is set for April 22. SPR’s recent poll conducted 4/6-4/10 is due out shortly.

Lee believes Clinton is the favorite to win, given her strong margins with Catholic voters, blue collar “Reagan Democrats”, senior citizens and middle income households.  Plus, the poll showed Clinton beating Obama in virtually every region of the state but for Philadelphia, where the city’s black population is high, and South Central PA, where Democrats are more “Obama like-minded” because they tend to be more affluent, more liberal on social issues, and less like the Reagan Democrats you get in Western PA.

In the fall election, Lee does not rule out a possible John McCain victory in Pennsylvania.  “He is still in the hunt,” Lee said, based on the results of his latest poll. It tested the strength of both Democrats against the Arizona senator and presumptive GOP nominee. He was within the margin of error in both cases – only a 3 to 4 percentage difference. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she would beat Sen. McCain by a narrow 47-44 margin in Pennsylvania among all voters. But Sen. McCain bested Sen. Obama in the same general election quiz by a 45-41 margin.  This proves the state is again a battleground, especially when you consider the fact that despite the very favorable political climate for the Democrats, McCain is still running neck-and-neck with both Obama and Clinton in the general election match-ups.

For now, McCain seems to have safely positioned himself away from President George W. Bush who continues to score poorly among Pennsylvanians. The President’s disapproval rating was 64-29 percent. However, Lee believes McCain has a much better chance to win the state for the GOP if Obama is the nominee, which he is likely to be, since McCain wins support from the same type of voters that Obama appeals to – moderates and independents. 

In some of our polling in legislative races this year, McCain’s margin over Obama is 20 points, compared to a dead heat against Clinton. Clearly, most GOP candidates should pray for an Obama ticket in November, Lee said.

This is the new Voter Survey Service (VSS) blog, a division of Susquehanna Polling and Research, Inc. where we offer you insights and analysis on the political landscape both nationwide and in Pennsylvania. 

When Governor Rendell renamed the state’s logo, the “State of Independence”, it’s probably wasn’t meant to be a pun.  While Democrats have widened their party registration advantage over Republicans in the state in recent years, the real untold story is the rapid increase of new registrants with neither the Republican nor Democratic Parties.  From 1996 to 2007, the percentage of Pennsylvania residents registering as either Independent or with another third party went up a whopping 43%, currently 984,349, and poised to hit the one million mark this year.  In comparison, Republican registrations increased 10%, while Democrats increased their numbers 14% in the same period.  One can most likely attribute this independent surge to the dissatisfaction many Pennsylvanians feel towards the current two-party system.  Our polling indicates that a majority of Pennsylvania voters believe the state is not headed in the right direction.  Voters are anxious to change the status quo and the first step is to disassociate with the establishment.  The recent trend of the state becoming more independent has the potential to fundamentally alter to political landscape in Pennsylvania.

One need only look to neighboring New Jersey to see the potential impact a strong independent block can have on the electoral process, where Independent and so-called “undeclared” voters are already the dominant party.  Our polling in New Jersey continually shows that these Independent-type voters are really the “swing” voters who can break for either Republican or Democrat candidates depending on the kind of election year.  For instance, in the 2006 midterm congressional elections in New Jersey, Independents voted mainly Democratic and helped contribute to Republican losses that trickled down to the elected officials at the county level, while in the 2007 municipal and state legislative elections, Independents voted Republican in Republican-leaning areas, and Democratic in Democratic-leaning areas, and thus helped preserve the status quo in many cases and even helped Republicans increase their majorities in some instances.  In Pennsylvania, our polling shows that Independent voters definitely align more with the Democratic Party on most issues.  Similar to trends among Democrats, Independent voters disapprove of the job President George W. Bush is doing by a 62/20 margin, but approve of Governor Rendell’s job approval by a 54/29 margin.  When asked if they would be more likely to vote “Republican” or “Democrat” in the next election for governor, Independents lean Democratic by a 30/18 margin, a clear sign they’ll be much more approachable for the Democratic nominee for governor.  In addition, our polling shows Independent voters care most about issues like the economy, healthcare and education, all issues Democrats are typically viewed as credible on, in comparison to Republican voters who care more about things like reducing taxes and controlling illegal immigration.

However, the silver lining for the GOP may be that Independent voters have very low vote frequency, and at present get inspired to vote mainly in presidential election years, so their impact at the polls is minimal similar to the lack of influence younger voters have.  According to voter files, more than one-third of all Independents, or 37%, has absolutely no vote history in general elections from 2003 to 2006, while only 20% voted in at least two of the last four general elections.  So the real challenge is getting these voters to the polls, or they risk being labeled a paper tiger.   With the rising anti-incumbent sentiment both at the state and federal level, and the increasing ability of third-party good government groups to communicate and organize via the internet, the “blogasphere” and other ways, it behooves elected officials in both parties to show reverence to these voters, and work more aggressively to cultivate them.  For the Democrats, it may be a long way off before these voters could make the difference in national elections, but a simple bump in voter turnout from these voters could definitely mean the difference in elections down ballot, particularly at the state legislative or county level. For the GOP, it means they run the risk of further alienating these voters if they appear too strident on the cultural issues of the day, which can ultimately lead to GOP nominees becoming perceived as more unelectable in general elections.