Pennsylvania's new Democrats could mean Obama Win

[Perky]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

The final numbers still aren't in for voter registration in Pennsylvania, which closed on March 24, but according to the spreadsheet (.xls) http://www.dos.state.pa.us/elections/lib/elections/055_voter_registration_statistics/currentstats/currentvotestats.xls the Secretary of State is maintaining, the numbers could make a real difference in the primary.

There have been 102,113 new Democratic registrations this year, and another 132,688 voters who switched their affiliation to Democrat.

The Obama campaign has been running an all-out registration effort there, and Jay Newton Small reported recently (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1725397,00.html) that the highest registration appears to be in Obama's core. Registration also accelerated dramatically in the days leading up to the March 24 deadline.

An Obama aide told me recently that the campaign believes it added more than 200,000 supporters through the process, a number that could, at the least, narrow Clinton's margin substantially in a contest where the highest estimates of turnout run between 1.5 million and 2 million.


Let's consider that math Let's say 75% of Obama's new registrants turn out for him That is 150,000 voters

If the Turnout is 1.8 Million before the new folks and he is down by 7%. 7% of 1.8 M is 125,000

This thing is going to be really really close if Clinton maintains the current polling. If He gets any closer....He could win.

[Perky]

1. Kicking for subject line change

[phrigndumass]

2. I was guessing a turnout of 1.6 million, so that's close!

Senator Clinton needs a Pennsylvania turnout of more than 2 million to put a dent in the "popular" vote lead the Obama campaign has (read: "popular" vote in primaries-only, an unfair way to count votes). But if Senator Obama comes within 10 points of Senator Clinton in Pennsylvania, there's absolutely no legitimate way that Senator Clinton can claim a "popular" vote lead, no matter how it's sliced and diced.

:thumbsup:

[jody]

3. IMO "new Democrats" is not a valid phrase. Most such voters are in it for BO and have no

intention of working with the Democratic Party to elect Democratic candidates particularly other than president.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties experience this activity just before presidential elections.

Perhaps political parties should charge a party membership fee, say $1,000 to become a party member thereby qualifying to vote in a party's primary for the party's candidate for president. :sarcasm:

[Perky]

4. I note your sarcasm, but that would be a poll tax and that would be unconstitutional

[jody]

5. I don't believe a party membership fee is a poll tax for primary elections. GE yes but maybe someone

can cite a court decision holding that a party membership fee and party membership as a requirement to vote in a party election is a poll tax.

[Perky]

6. I;d think the key is proabaly who runs the election process from registration forward.

If the state secretary of State runs it. It would get very murky. Because the state would in effect be saying you can not vote unless the party tells us you have paid this fee.

[Tellurian]

8. The largest PA newspaper calls Obama meanspirited and a race baiter..

I doubt he'll get 75% of new democrats. We're funny like that. We don't like race baiting or lying about who did what, when.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20080330_Obama_was_the_first_to_play_the_race_card.html

[cali]

19. WARNING: This is patently false. How slimy can YOU get? Nevermind I

know the answer to that. You are linking to an opinion piece NOT an editorial. And it's an opinion piece by thoroughly dishonest Sean Wilentz, who did NOT reveal that he is a close family friend of hill and bill. Or that he long ago endorsed his dear old friend.

[TexasLady]

36. I never seem to have the inclination to scout out anything

rude that is written about Hillary. But, hey, we are all good at something.

[jody]

10. Don't some states require and enforce party membership to vote in primaries? I know that must not be

enforced because exit polls from states with primaries show Repugs and Independents voting for Dem candidates in this years Dem primary debacle.

That bothers me because IMO only Dem Party members should be allowed to vote for the Dem Party candidate.

[JayFredMuggs]

26. Your opinion?

How about a freedom to vote as one chooses?

Oh, only if it's a vote for Hillary, right?

[jody]

30. My opinion is for the Dem Party, neither BO nor HC. I believe only true party members should vote

to choose the party's candidates.

I oppose back-room power brokers and caucuses that can be stacked for choosing a party's candidate.

I also oppose primaries that allow non-party and quasi-party voters to vote for a party's candidate.

[SoCalDem]

16. I'm sure if he's the candidate, they will heed his advice

and be sure to mark their ballot for other democrats in November

[jody]

20. Perhaps you're right but many BO & HC supporters on DU say they will not vote in the GE for the

other Dem candidate. That pattern may be present in the GE for "new Democrats" devoted to one candidate.

[SoCalDem]

22. All I can say is that from what I have seen, read & heard

the "new" ones who signed up for Obama are interested in being democrats..

The "new" ones for Hillary..well.. they sure didn;t show up for her in Texas pt3, did they?

The Rushbots for Hillary only want to screw with our primaries and Texas was a bit too much for them to understand, but in other states, they only have to show up once, vote for her, and then they'll vote for McCain in Nov..

just sayin'..

which ones will help the party long-term..and which ones will not..

[jody]

25. You are more optimistic than I. "When all is said and done, more is said than done." n/t

[wowimthere]

7. I just hope that the fat cats don't try to rig the elections for you know who

GOBAMA!

[Tellurian]

9. Lets hope Obama doesn't play the race card once again..

[wowimthere]

11. Let's hope the words "gender "and "race" don't calculatedly slip out of Clinton's mouth

[Cha]

31. Yeah, they better keep their

lying hands off the votes.

[BenDavid]

12. what the hell is a new democrat? is that akin to obama needing

a spiritual advisor. Just what is it about you condesending obama people that makes you think you are so superior because you support obama. Are you telling us you are better because you support the "black" candidate and we that do not are in your view, bigots and racist? Is this the case?

Well, I would be willing to bet the obama campaign has more semi bigots then hrc'. Wanna know what a semi bigot is? It is someone that would never support anyone black but sees obama as one of the "good ones" They see obama not like Jesse or Al that stirs up trouble. Obama does not touch the race issues as Jesse would. What makes obama one of the "good ones" so semi bigots can vote for him? Obama did not have time to involve hisself in the Duke rape case. Nor did obama have time to involve hisself in the Jena6 issue. He is not that kind of issues man.....So, yes the semi bigot vote will go to obama, but when the general election rolls around those semi bigots will turn tail and become the bigots they truly are and vote for McCain......

[PA Democrat]

15. It's the title of the article the OP quotes.

Why does everything have to be turned into an ugly attack?

[Perky]

17. I know it sux that new people who don't like your candidatee get to vote.

but I guess if your candidate could get the unengageed off their asses you might feel better.

[wowimthere]

13. Speaking of baldfaced lying... Tuzla, NAFTA, and Ireland anyone? Wait, the war vote...

No! How about yet another lie... that Clinton didn't race bait in the run up to Nevada or Texas to secure her Hispanic support since she singlehandedly lost the African American support by injecting race into the SC primaries.

Or wait... how about the "He's not a muslim... as far as I know" smear.

Race? Injecting race pales in comparison to her vote for war and the subsequent lies about that vote afterward.

GOBAMA!

[NJSecularist]

14. That spreadsheet hasn't been updated with final registration counts, correct?

And does that spreadsheet contain only Democratic registration counts only?

[Perky]

18. I gotta bleive they are what the SOS is aying have been registered to date

You's have to go back in the link to find out what it entails for sure

But I copied the ling from Ben Smith;s blog.

I would love to have coparison data from say the first of the year.

[NJSecularist]

34. Found the website where the link can be found

http://www.dos.state.pa.us/elections/cwp/view.asp?a=1310&q=446974&electionsNav=|

Content Last Modified on 3/31/2008 12:21:53 PM

[Perky]

37. HERE'S A BREAKOUT BY COUNTY OF WHO IS NEW AND WHO SWITCHED

County Name ….. Count of Dem Voters ….. Switch ….. New ….. % Due to Switch ….. % Due to New ….. Jan 1 ….. Change
CUMBERLAND ….. 48,614 ….. 4495 ….. 1,809 ….. 9% ….. 4% ….. 42,310 ….. 15%
DAUPHIN ….. 79,499 ….. 5017 ….. 3,869 ….. 6% ….. 5% ….. 70,613 ….. 13%
LEBANON ….. 24,824 ….. 2027 ….. 673 ….. 8% ….. 3% ….. 22,124 ….. 12%
DELAWARE ….. 149,489 ….. 10762 ….. 5,379 ….. 7% ….. 4% ….. 133,348 ….. 12%
CHESTER ….. 106,688 ….. 7993 ….. 3,508 ….. 7% ….. 3% ….. 95,187 ….. 12%
WAYNE ….. 10,042 ….. 674 ….. 353 ….. 7% ….. 4% ….. 9,015 ….. 11%
PERRY ….. 7,688 ….. 594 ….. 190 ….. 8% ….. 2% ….. 6,904 ….. 11%
UNION ….. 7,298 ….. 477 ….. 245 ….. 7% ….. 3% ….. 6,576 ….. 11%
YORK ….. 104,132 ….. 6,147 ….. 3,060 ….. 6% ….. 3% ….. 94,925 ….. 10%
WYOMING ….. 7,028 ….. 371 ….. 211 ….. 5% ….. 3% ….. 6,446 ….. 9%
LEHIGH ….. 100,775 ….. 5131 ….. 3,176 ….. 5% ….. 3% ….. 92,468 ….. 9%
CENTRE ….. 34,831 ….. 1600 ….. 1,134 ….. 5% ….. 3% ….. 32,097 ….. 9%
MONROE ….. 48,104 ….. 1928 ….. 1,793 ….. 4% ….. 4% ….. 44,383 ….. 8%
WARREN ….. 11,137 ….. 651 ….. 205 ….. 6% ….. 2% ….. 10,281 ….. 8%
BUCKS ….. 179,384 ….. 8910 ….. 4,338 ….. 5% ….. 2% ….. 166,136 ….. 8%
MONTOUR ….. 4,868 ….. 193 ….. 166 ….. 4% ….. 3% ….. 4,509 ….. 8%
BRADFORD ….. 12,115 ….. 604 ….. 263 ….. 5% ….. 2% ….. 11,248 ….. 8%
SNYDER ….. 5,505 ….. 253 ….. 140 ….. 5% ….. 3% ….. 5,112 ….. 8%
SUSQUEHANNA ….. 9,785 ….. 422 ….. 269 ….. 4% ….. 3% ….. 9,094 ….. 8%
BLAIR ….. 28,202 ….. 1283 ….. 667 ….. 5% ….. 2% ….. 26,252 ….. 7%
FRANKLIN ….. 26,261 ….. 1142 ….. 642 ….. 4% ….. 2% ….. 24,477 ….. 7%
MONTGOMERY ….. 233,388 ….. 10467 ….. 5,295 ….. 4% ….. 2% ….. 217,626 ….. 7%
BERKS ….. 113,856 ….. 4490 ….. 3,100 ….. 4% ….. 3% ….. 106,266 ….. 7%
CLINTON ….. 9,659 ….. 311 ….. 307 ….. 3% ….. 3% ….. 9,041 ….. 7%
ERIE ….. 95,297 ….. 3705 ….. 2,177 ….. 4% ….. 2% ….. 89,415 ….. 7%
NORTHAMPTON ….. 95,792 ….. 2898 ….. 2,977 ….. 3% ….. 3% ….. 89,917 ….. 7%
LUZERNE ….. 105,799 ….. 3278 ….. 3,144 ….. 3% ….. 3% ….. 99,377 ….. 6%
PIKE ….. 15,666 ….. 478 ….. 464 ….. 3% ….. 3% ….. 14,724 ….. 6%
TIOGA ….. 7,897 ….. 307 ….. 167 ….. 4% ….. 2% ….. 7,423 ….. 6%
LYCOMING ….. 25,612 ….. 942 ….. 567 ….. 4% ….. 2% ….. 24,103 ….. 6%
SCHUYLKILL ….. 38,915 ….. 1391 ….. 846 ….. 4% ….. 2% ….. 36,678 ….. 6%
CARBON ….. 19,357 ….. 598 ….. 502 ….. 3% ….. 3% ….. 18,257 ….. 6%
LANCASTER ….. 88,803 ….. 2912 ….. 2,051 ….. 3% ….. 2% ….. 83,840 ….. 6%
FOREST ….. 1,470 ….. 40 ….. 38 ….. 3% ….. 3% ….. 1,392 ….. 6%
MCKEAN ….. 8,659 ….. 252 ….. 205 ….. 3% ….. 2% ….. 8,202 ….. 6%
MIFFLIN ….. 8,883 ….. 298 ….. 169 ….. 3% ….. 2% ….. 8,416 ….. 6%
HUNTINGDON ….. 10,190 ….. 335 ….. 177 ….. 3% ….. 2% ….. 9,678 ….. 5%
PHILADELPHIA ….. 784,958 ….. 14353 ….. 23,093 ….. 2% ….. 3% ….. 747,512 ….. 5%
CAMERON ….. 1,574 ….. 55 ….. 18 ….. 3% ….. 1% ….. 1,501 ….. 5%
LACKAWANNA ….. 98,425 ….. 2576 ….. 1,910 ….. 3% ….. 2% ….. 93,939 ….. 5%
SULLIVAN ….. 1,764 ….. 48 ….. 32 ….. 3% ….. 2% ….. 1,684 ….. 5%
NORTHUMBERLAND ….. 23,634 ….. 637 ….. 417 ….. 3% ….. 2% ….. 22,580 ….. 5%
JUNIATA ….. 4,933 ….. 139 ….. 80 ….. 3% ….. 2% ….. 4,714 ….. 5%
BEDFORD ….. 11,551 ….. 297 ….. 214 ….. 3% ….. 2% ….. 11,040 ….. 5%
POTTER ….. 3,589 ….. 102 ….. 55 ….. 3% ….. 2% ….. 3,432 ….. 5%
CLARION ….. 9,604 ….. 209 ….. 205 ….. 2% ….. 2% ….. 9,190 ….. 5%
ADAMS ….. 19,664 ….. 262 ….. 562 ….. 1% ….. 3% ….. 18,840 ….. 4%
VENANGO ….. 12,955 ….. 312 ….. 196 ….. 2% ….. 2% ….. 12,447 ….. 4%
ALLEGHENY ….. 560,302 ….. 10651 ….. 10,147 ….. 2% ….. 2% ….. 539,504 ….. 4%
WESTMORELAND ….. 133,861 ….. 2392 ….. 2,361 ….. 2% ….. 2% ….. 129,108 ….. 4%
BUTLER ….. 44,588 ….. 758 ….. 808 ….. 2% ….. 2% ….. 43,022 ….. 4%
MERCER ….. 38,960 ….. 734 ….. 610 ….. 2% ….. 2% ….. 37,616 ….. 4%
INDIANA ….. 23,949 ….. 365 ….. 457 ….. 2% ….. 2% ….. 23,127 ….. 4%
ELK ….. 11,063 ….. 171 ….. 196 ….. 2% ….. 2% ….. 10,696 ….. 3%
CLEARFIELD ….. 23,007 ….. 415 ….. 346 ….. 2% ….. 2% ….. 22,246 ….. 3%
CAMBRIA ….. 55,657 ….. 803 ….. 1,005 ….. 1% ….. 2% ….. 53,849 ….. 3%
BEAVER ….. 68,469 ….. 1061 ….. 1,157 ….. 2% ….. 2% ….. 66,251 ….. 3%
COLUMBIA ….. 19,251 ….. 211 ….. 371 ….. 1% ….. 2% ….. 18,669 ….. 3%
CRAWFORD ….. 25,218 ….. 296 ….. 464 ….. 1% ….. 2% ….. 24,458 ….. 3%
SOMERSET ….. 22,913 ….. 369 ….. 303 ….. 2% ….. 1% ….. 22,241 ….. 3%
ARMSTRONG ….. 20,088 ….. 338 ….. 223 ….. 2% ….. 1% ….. 19,527 ….. 3%
FULTON ….. 3,447 ….. 47 ….. 49 ….. 1% ….. 1% ….. 3,351 ….. 3%
JEFFERSON ….. 11,455 ….. 153 ….. 139 ….. 1% ….. 1% ….. 11,163 ….. 3%
LAWRENCE ….. 33,927 ….. 276 ….. 546 ….. 1% ….. 2% ….. 33,105 ….. 2%
WASHINGTON ….. 86,250 ….. 662 ….. 1,038 ….. 1% ….. 1% ….. 84,550 ….. 2%
GREENE ….. 16,994 ….. 142 ….. 177 ….. 1% ….. 1% ….. 16,675 ….. 2%
FAYETTE ….. 61,651 ….. 478 ….. 658 ….. 1% ….. 1% ….. 60,515 ….. 2%
Totals: ….. 4,119,213 ….. 132,688 ….. 102,113 ….. ….. ….. 3,884,412 ….. 6%

[Barack_America]

21. Hard to believe the final numbers are known.

Some registrations are probably still coming in by mail (post-marked on or before 3/24).

And it will take them weeks to get through the forms they already have. I'm sure they've done rough counts of the stacks of forms they've got, but I wouldn't trust any final numbers yet.

[NJSecularist]

35. You are probably right.

Hopefully we get the final registration numbers within the next week or two.

[JayFredMuggs]

23. I'm LOVING THIS NEWS!!!

:beer:

[Barack_America]

24. I'd like to know how polls in PA are being conducted.

Are they cold-calling people or are they going based off of lists of registered voters? The difference being that these newly registered voters would not yet be on those lists.

[democrattotheend]

27. Nevermind

[BlooInBloo]

28. Despite what Drudgico says, it ain't likely.

[olkaz]

29. I hate the term "new democrat" ugh

But if it means Obama ends up on top, whatever.

Lord I loathe the DLC.

[LulaMay]

32. May just be Republican's in Democrats clothing, to interfere in our primary.

we'll see.

[Perky]

39. NOT LIKELY

Obama claims 200,000 of those registrations. I am sure they only canvass in areas they view as target rich.

[grantcart]

33. That makes me perky

what are the odds that these folks get polled?

[Texas Hill Country]

38. by new democrats, do you mean republicans that were given the forms to switch back?

[mdmc]

40. could be

:~)

[ORDem]

41. kick

:kick: