Pennsylvania Registered Dems: By The Numbers

(larger version here.)

Here is an Xcel spreadsheet from the PA Secretary of State showing the final tally of registered voters for the primary.

Highlights: 4.2 million voters are registered to vote in the Democratic primary. Of those, 800,000 are in Philadelphia. 567,000 are in Allegheney (Pittsburgh.) The next biggest seem to be Delaware with 157,000, Bucks County with 185,000 and Montgomery with 248,000.

By age, 401,000 (10%)are 18 to 25; 655,000 are 25 to 34; 709,000 are 35 to 44.

58% of registered Dems are over 45. 20% of registered Dems, are in the 45 to 54 age group. And 38% are over 55.

As for new voter applications, they surged for the periods of March 24 and March 31, but dropped dramatically after that until voter registration closed April 22. In Philadelphia, 23,000 new voters registered during those weeks -- statewide almost 100,000 registered.

About 100,000 voters changed party registrations during the three weeks of March 17, March 24 and March 31.

Any number crunchers out there want to weigh in on what these numbers might mean for tomorrow's primary?

Update: County Map is below the fold

< SUSA PA Internals | The Goal Posts: PA An Elimination Game For Clinton >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Can Hillary overtake the popular vote? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Chimster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:11:47 PM EST
    In Pennsylvania, will the margin of difference in Hillary's win tomorrow be able to give her the lead in the popular vote? 4.2 million voters seems like a pretty big pool of voters to change the game. Is it possible?

    Probably not (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:26:05 PM EST
    The biggest problem is that nobody really knows what the popular vote is. How do you count "votes" in a caucus in which individual votes were not counted and nobody even kept records about how many people showed up? What about states that held both primaries and caucuses that had different results? Do you count Michigan? Florida? The numbers I've seen put her within a half million or so of Obama. This primary probably won't put her over the top. It is "make or break" in the sense that she can show that she is still competitive and maybe tone down the "Clinton should drop out before the convention" rhetoric. She can lose here, lathough she probably won't, but she probably can't win.

    You are right (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:28:49 PM EST
    that it is difficult to determine the popular vote. If you count FL and MI, I've seen estimates of Obama leading by only 100,000. She could definitely overcome that lead. Nor does she have to catch him in just this state.

    sure (none / 0) (#9)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:45:52 PM EST
    if she wins by 30%.

    I don't get that. (none / 0) (#61)
    by BostonIndependent on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:40:47 PM EST
    See RCP  Counts which has Obama by 717,086 w/out caucuses and including IA, NV, ME and WA by 827,308 which reduces to 532,536 with FL and to 204,227 with FL and MI taken into account. If 4M vote tomorrow 10% of that is 400K so a 30% offset would put Clinton up by 1.2M. Clearly that would erase all arguments but even a 10% win would give her a 400K differential which given the situation with FL/MI arguably puts her ahead. I doubt she'll make that argument or Obama will let her even if she does, but to me (and I'm sure to the SD's) the answer seems pretty clear. Do you agree w/ the RCP numbers or the incorrect?

    any breakdown on new registrations (none / 0) (#24)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:09:26 PM EST
    by age group?

    I would be curious to see if theres more new Hillary registrations than Obama. Any way to get thos figures?

    And in exit polling, how do they determine someone is "low info"?

    do they ask if you read AOL and yahoo news online and watch tv pundits for your "info"? (to me thats low info) B-:) ...but to them? what do they think is "info"? etc? what are the questions to determine low info exactly?


    I happened to hear a few minutes ago (none / 0) (#38)
    by bumblebums on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:47:50 PM EST
    that 25% of new Democratic party registrants are 18-34. Dunno about the other 75.

    100,000 new voters isn't that impressive (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:20:46 PM EST
    I had the impression that Obama's people were signing them up in dramatic numbers. 100,000 is a lot of people, but on a base of 4.2 Million it isn't that dramatic. The 23,000 in Philadelphis is even less impressive, given that it is likely that Obama focused on that area.  

    The 100,000 changing party registrations is discouraging, since a lot of those people are probably Republicans who have been convinced by Obama to cross over to vote against Clinton. I don't have evidence of this, but I know it has been happening throughout the election even though it didn't get any press.

    Altogether, though, the new Democratic numbers aren't as stunning as the hype would have indicated. They are predicting a 50% turnout, which would mean over 2,100,000 voters. If it breaks 55/45 for Clinton, this would give her a 210,000 gain on Obama in actual vote count, leaving her still well behind him. I don't think this will be enough to change the minds of the delegates. This is likely to be a good day for Clinton, but I'm not sure it will be good enough to put her back on a par with Obama.

    If she wins by double digits, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:31:57 PM EST
    Obama will still be the front runner, but it might put an end to the "she has no chance" media meme that has cost her alot of money and votes.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:32:36 PM EST
    they were too bitter to register. ;)

    Actually, the ones 'I' know who changed over (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    did it so they could vote for Hillary. And this is a big thing here. Not like Dem for a day. They all stood in line at the Court House. And they plan on voting for Hillary in the GE. My one guy neighbor is excited about tomorrow. He is PROUDLY saying, I am now a Democrat. I ran into my 19yr old neighbor geek kid at the bank. I asked him about voting. He has never done so yet. I also asked him if he was scared or nervous to go to the voting place. They hate to actually show they need help with things. He said yes. He wouldn't say that to his parents. So he will meet me after work tomorrow night and I will help him vote. He said, I am a Democrat (after me) and who are we voting for? Hillary? And I said, got that right.

    you rock! (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:06:07 PM EST
    that is a wonderful story. :-)

    Spoke to (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    a woman this weekend while knocking on doors and she was SO proud, she said "I changed by registration just to vote for your girl, you better believe that I will be down at those polls! Hillary is one tough cookie!" Also spoke to a very elderly lady who was SO happy to see folks out and about for Clinton. She said she is at home all day so she just watches tv and she is worried sick about whether or not Hillary can make it. She was also so upset about the sexism in the media. But she felt a lot better after seeing some "young girls" for Clinton!

    I didn't think of that (none / 0) (#58)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:37:43 PM EST
    It's hard not to buy the media memes, that everybody on the right hates Clinton. I personally know a woman who changed parties in California just to vote against Clinton - along with several of her friends (or so she said). I assume that people elsewhere are doing the same. I'm glad to be wrong.

    The right sometimes underestimates (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by BostonIndependent on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:47:22 PM EST
    the innate goodness of the American people. Personally speaking I didn't care much for Senator Clinton, but whenever I see the attacks against her, or the bias in the media which is pretty obvious, I must say I always go.. "gee, what has she really DONE against these people? Why are they so vicious? Has she taken food from their children's mouths or something?" LOL! And in my mind, a lot of this right-wing meme about people being "polarizing" etc. is just that -- advertising and media manipulation.

    The same is true of some of the venom I see the right directing against Senator Obama. Weird. I guess it must have worked for them in the past, so they continue doing it.


    insider adv . poll (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:45:27 PM EST
    clinton 49

    obama   39

    undecideds 12 %

    whites form the majority of undecided

    re (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:46:08 PM EST
    That poll strikes me as completely wrong (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:17:16 PM EST
    in every demo.

    as I thought (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:52:44 PM EST
    at least 16% for Clinton tomorrow, giving her less than half of the undecideds. :-)

    One thing I observed -Scranton/Wilkes Berra (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    My county, Wayne, only has 10,050 Dem and 16k GOP. I am a small towner. Ha. BUT,
    30 mins away is Scranton (Lackawanna) and next is Wilkes Berra (Luzerne). They are so close they share one airport. If you put them together, you get 205,095 total Dem votes. And both have 2-1 Dems to GOP ratio. That is why they are here so much. Like this morning, both dropped in. This is your big area of NE Penna that shows up separately and might give the impression of two small areas.

    Scranton = Clinton Country? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:49:37 PM EST
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:58:36 PM EST
    Let's see on Wed how it played out. I believe the Demographics for Scranton are 96% white. So this should give us a good example of votes against say Philadelphia or another county. I am nervous but excited. Fingers crossed. Fingers crossed. Texas/Ohio was the line in the sand. Now we just have to pull everyone else over to win the Supers.

    I wonder where Obama (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:47:31 PM EST
    targeted his ads.  Clinton is polling ahead in Pittsburgh :)  so she could benefit from turnout here.  If he targeted his ads here, it was to annoy people so they wouldn't turn out.

    I think the change in vote is 100,000 new Dems and 100,000 switched to Dem so 200,000 new registrations.

    Hopefully tomorrow night we can have a "group (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Angel on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    hug" to celebrate a blowout win for Hillary!  

    I would go for that (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    At least I am confident that it will not be a group cry.

    Will there be another win which keeps (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    the race on edge? That is my prediction.
    If Hillary wins by more than 20, then she has a big advantage. If she wins by less than 5, it's bad news. A win of 7 or 8 points is agonizingly inconclusive, IMO. That is what I expect.

    I think even if she wins as big (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    as I think she will, it won't be conclusive.

    The SD's will need to hear from WV and KY to really make sure her numbers are no fluke.

    The entire Party elite is basically in the tank for Obama, so don't expect Obama to drop out or the SD's to decide after Tuesday. It will take a big load of bricks to drop on them to make them change their minds. But...that load of bricks is coming.



    A bigger test (none / 0) (#41)
    by magster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:55:36 PM EST
    is which candidate comes out on top when NC/PA/IN are glommed together.

    If Hillary cannot cut into Obama's lead after that amount of delegates has been taken off the board, I don't see how she could continue, especially with her $$ disadvantage.


    It's my opinion that the majority of (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    "undecided" voters aren't really all that undecided.  They could be people who don't like talking to pollsters and believe that it's nobody's business how they intend to vote.

    I also think Obama underestimates the solidity of the Clinton support, and seems not to understand that every negative ad, every smirking dig he makes, just makes Clinton supporters more determined than ever to vote for her.

    And, whatever the polls show through Sunday, they cannot take into account the effect of another two days of Obama ads that are not just negative, but factually in error, right out of the GOP playbook and only undermine his message that he is an agent of change; it just might push a few fence-sitters over to Clinton on the basis that if he campaigns like politics-as-usual, there might be more that cannot be believed or trusted.  

    In a strange twist of irony, he might just be depressing the vote of those who thought he was different, but now see he is not, and who will, in exasperation, not vote for either of them.

    Could be they don't want to be perceived as racist (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:52:41 PM EST
    ... just for not supporting Obama.

    His campaign has used that smear too often, and based on gossamer, as a pressure tactic.

    White voters do vote for African-Americans, but not out of fear of being labeled racist. I doubt that TeamO's habit of denouncing white voters as such except those who support him is scuzzy.

    It's the kind of pressure tactic that wouldn't budge the ones who wouldn't vote for a black candidate -- even one who brought more to the table than Obama -- but would be more likely to offend and drive back those who'd easily pull the lever for him otherwise.

    Not just my gut talking here, but past campaign experience. Race is an "icky" matter that people often don't answer candidly (like, eg, questions about abortion) out of awkwardness. Multiply that if the button is particularly hot at the time.

    Regardless of the thrilling (for TeamObama) eleventh hour numbers closing the gap, it'll be interesting to see whether they're matched by actual votes. If they're not, Obama's a problematic candidate in the GE.

    Not race-baiting here; just bluntly stating the public relations blowback I thought would come down from slapping the rather ugly label / charges so easily on people who simply didn't deserve them. (I mean, complaining that Bill Clinton's a racist is a real stretch, given how much agg he got being FOR African-Americans.)


    Editing out some bad cache (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    I doubt that they see TeamO's habit of denouncing white voters as such except those who support as anything but scuzzy.

    Anybody willing to guess on # of R women? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    The demographic of Republican women for HRC really intrigues me.  I've got lots of anecdotal evidence that this could be a real electoral force for her (though a closed primary wouldn't be the best showcase for it).  But has anybody crunched any numbers based off exit polls or the like?  I sure hope they make up a huge number of the party switchers in PA.  My hope actually is that a big chunk of the 100k new registrants are working class women and that a big chunk of the 100k switchers are Rep. women.  We'll see tomorrow.

    R women for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by JON15 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:00:51 PM EST
    I traveled to PA this weekend ( from RI ) and
    campaigned for Hillary, in Montgomery county.
    Republican country. Met at least 3 women at head
    quaters in Norristown who in Jan. and Feb. changed
    their lifelong party affiliation to vote for Hillary, and were campaigning for her. I was told
    there were many men and woman who have done the
    same thing. Also met repugs who said they hoped
    to vote for her in November, but would vote McCain
    over Obama. I say lets all travel to NC and Ind

    popular vote advantage (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:19:24 PM EST
    According to Realclearpolitics, Sen. Obama's edge in popular vote is over 700,000 (excluding Michigan, Florida and Caucus states). So, if Pennsylvania has an 80% turnout (3.2 million votes cast) and Sen. Clinton wins by 20% then the popular vote would be approx 2.4 mil for Clinton and 1.8 mil for Obama, so Sen. Obama would still have the lead by over 100,000 popular votes.

    Then, we're back to arguing about Florida and Michigan (way to go DNC and Howard Dean!) an another agonizing six weeks until the end of primary season.

    I think she can easily get 100k+ votes (none / 0) (#32)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    as a margin out of KY/WV/PR, assuming she has some semblance of money and momentum going in late May to drive turnout.  The key for her is winning IN by a decent margin to blunt the losses in NC and OR, so that whatever margin she pulls tomorrow doesn't get eaten away.  Now I'm not sure about what kind of margin she gets tomorrow.  I doubt she gets the 600k votes in your scenario, which means she has to pull more than 100k out of the late races and she probably needs FL to get the job done.  But if she's close enough that FL puts her over the top, then that means Obama has categorically failed to close the deal on her.  I think that will give SD's pause.  I expect KY and WV to be smashes for her (and PR could be too).  That's going to be quite a strong note to go out on.  She just needs to get herself there.  Come on double digits in PA!

    So, (2.00 / 0) (#47)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:09:12 PM EST
    This is going to be a huge mess come June and going forward unless Sen. Obama loses a somewhat close race tomorrow.

    My fear is that this goes to Puerto Rico and the nomination is left to U.S. citizens who can not vote in the general election. How does Sen. Clinton spin that she was put over the top by voters who can not vote for her in the G.E.? Doesn't that negate the her claim that she should get the nomination because she wins big states?

    This would be fascinating and exciting if they were going after each other and tearing each other apart (yes, they both are doing it).


    Well what about FL and MI? (none / 0) (#51)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    Can't we just substitute in the PR voters that will count for all the mainlanders who voted in FL and MI and didn't count because they got shafted out of their vote by the DNC with a late assist by BO?  Would be kinda poetic if Clinton went over the top with PR and the Obamabots started whining about unfair roolz.

    No, we want our votes to count on their own. (none / 0) (#57)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:15:54 PM EST
    Besides, the PR vote can be in lieu of the "Dems for a Day" that will vote for McCain in the GE, after they switched to vote for Obama in the primaries.

    I Am Sending Hillary Money Right Now & Ask (none / 0) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:33:24 PM EST
    That You Do The Same If You Can....even if it is $1.00.  

    If Hillary wins at all after being outspent (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by kempis on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:26:36 PM EST
    ...dramatically outspent, then I can't imagine how sane people in the party don't see that Obama has a serious electability problem.

    If he outspends her 3 to 1 and has the media behind him--but he STILL loses to "nasty ol' Hillary," then  how is he going to beat McCain in the general election?

    If she wins by one point, that's the message that her campaign and her supporters should hammer--and it's really the truth. It amazes me that Obama's electability problem (losing big states even though he's outspending her by large margins and has the media in the tank) isn't more of a topic of discussion in the MSM than Hillary's inability to overtake him in pledged delegates.

    That is a very good argument, but (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:29:37 PM EST
    will Hillary be able to make it stick?

    Not until (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:32:56 PM EST
    WV and KY have had their say, IMHO.

    Repetition (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by nashville on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:34:21 PM EST
    is one way.  

    At some point we Democrats need to realize that the Republicans really know how to win elections.  Repeating the same thing over and over again as fact, even when it is not, makes some believe it is true.  

    Not saying this argument is not true because I think it is.  Just saying let's get some heavy hitters out there in the media saying it over and over again.


    You're correct. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jen on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:24:49 PM EST
    But without Corporate Press behind us, it's hard to be heard.

    I would really like to see (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Iphie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:35:58 PM EST
    a cost/vote breakdown. My feeling is that there will be a very stark difference, and depending on how dramatic the difference is it could be a very powerful bit of info for Clinton to highlight.

    They are both spending way too much $$$ (none / 0) (#53)
    by wasabi on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    Wish it could have gone to down ticket races.

    Cookies v. Brownies v. Broccoli (none / 0) (#45)
    by magster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:00:35 PM EST
    Just because you might prefer Cookies over Brownies for dessert doesn't mean you'd pick Broccoli for dessert in a later choice if Cookies weren't on the menu.  (Saw that analogy on AmericaBlog).

    Dems won't vote for McCain-Broccoli, although I understand that the Clinton-Cookie crowd might skip dessert in November.


    Keep it up... (none / 0) (#54)
    by wasabi on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:01:52 PM EST
    Just makes me want to jump right to your team.

    Broccoli is at peak season (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:13:17 PM EST
    just bought 4 bunches. YUM!!! Making a nice dip so I can munch after dinner . . . I actually prefer Broccoli to most cookies. Heh, and I'm a HUGE fan of brownies. Too bad your food analogy doesn't play out as I intend to write in the one type of cookie I would prefer over brownies  ;)

    That's a silly argument (none / 0) (#48)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:11:32 PM EST
    "Elect me because I raise less money than my opponent and my campaign is is debt". Yeah, that's inspiring.

    Don't forget that Sen. Clinton came into this race with more name recognition (because of her husband's presidency) than most candidates. How much money is that worth???

    Sen. Clinton can win this, but lets stick to issues and not with silly arguments.


    I would agree if... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kempis on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:27:37 AM EST
    that was my argument. But it isn't.

    "Elect me because I raise less money than my opponent and my campaign is is debt". Yeah, that's inspiring.

    But that's not what I'm saying. It's more like "Elect me because my opponent outspent me 3 or 4 to 1 in PA, has obvious media fanboyz, and I still beat him."

    I can't believe that Hillary supporters are going to let the Obama campaign set the goalposts for victory in PA. A win is a win. Saying that it's not really a  win if it's by less than 5 is nuts.  Yeah, she started out with a huge advantage, but so what? With all his money and all his support in the media and from party leaders, Obama STILL can't beat her. He outspent her 2 to 1 on advertising alone and STILL can't beat her.

    What this shows is his alarming vulnerability among key demographics. No amount of money, no ads, no glowing press can make him connect with these voters. And he's supposed to be nominee against McCain?



    Tomorrow will be . . . (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Doc Rock on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:47:36 PM EST
    . . . the only PA primary poll that matters!

    another comparrison (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by AlSmith on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:48:51 PM EST

    New Registrations:
        Phil: 41K  41%
        Allegheny: 21K   21%

        Total: 63%

    Reg Flips:
        Phil: 18K  18%
        Allegheny: 15K   15%

        Total: 33%

    If we assume that Obama causes a disproportionate part of the action in Philly and Pittsburgh, and HRC elsewhere then Hill is slightly ahead just on that basis.

    However a person who actually goes out and registers is probably twice as likely to vote as a  new registrant. Someone who re-registered to vote for you in a primary (because they dont need to for the general election) is practically money in the bank.

    For new registrants who your volunteers dragooned at the food court or street fair you might be lucky to get a 50% convert rate.

    So my swag is that HRC is +20K-50K votes in this which might be 2% on her total.

    absent an extraordinary event, (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:41:45 PM EST
    sen. clinton should thrash sen. obama in PA, everywhere but the philly area. of the total PA AA population, 50% is concentrated in philly (per the 2000 US census). next largest is allegheny county, constituting roughly 11% of the county's population. it declines dramatically from there.

    unless sen. obama picks up a huge % of the caucasion vote, sen. clinton will trounce him. given his recent gaffes and other negatives, i just don't see a tidal wave of caucasion votes washing his way tomorrow.

    Centre County (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Maggie Mae on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:38:16 PM EST
    According to the email I received from Centre County Democrats, we have the the #1 spot for the most new registered Democrats in the state.  It isn't just students, from PSU, either.  I wish I would have kept the email, but it's gone to the cyber graveyard.

    do we have a breakdown of (none / 0) (#5)
    by TalkRight on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:31:07 PM EST
    how many AA and white Voters (among registered and the ones that changed the registration)

    Probably a net Clinton Plus (none / 0) (#14)
    by AlSmith on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:49:54 PM EST

    At the beginning of the year party reg changes were about even. They go 4:1 R->D after Super Tuesday I.

    However after Super Tuesday II and a call for a "Rush effect" (if there was one) they are now 20:1.

    The week of 3/24 some of the really disproportionate numbers are from places like Bucks, Lancaster, Montgomery, Chester (50:1). Based on the Party reg table these look fairly Republican.

    So I'll assume that these are mostly Rush Effect related and therefor a net Clinton plus.

    Is there a scheme to the color coding? (none / 0) (#21)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:02:28 PM EST
    I did not see one and since they have Lackawanna and Luzerne as different colors and both are Dems 2-1, I am thinking it is just a nice way to differenate the counties. Am I right?

    March 24th (none / 0) (#30)
    by joanneleon on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    was the deadline for changing party registration in PA.  (In your article it mentions something about April 22.)

    good observation (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:39:08 PM EST
    >>>As for new voter applications, they surged for the periods of March 24 and March 31, but dropped dramatically after that until voter registration closed April 22.

    The only thing that makes any sense (none / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:58:04 PM EST
    to me is that while March 24th was the cutoff to be able to vote in the primary, those new registrations after that date are still valid, will enable the registrant to vote in the general election, and therefore are part of the statistical analysis.

    I would guess that anyopne who filed to change party after March 24th will not be able to vote in the primary of their "new" party.


    wish we knew the stats (none / 0) (#60)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:40:02 PM EST
    for pre and post March 24 registration.

    3/24 was the cutoff (none / 0) (#64)
    by Makarov on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:50:59 PM EST
    although they processed change requests and registrations received afterward if they were postmarked on or before 3/24.

    I recall reading an article (probably from AP or the Inquirer) that the number processed after 3/24 wasn't very impressive - something on the order of 10K statewide.


    Off topic to an extent, but... (none / 0) (#44)
    by outsider on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:59:18 PM EST
    ... since this is a thread about HRC's likely performance tomorrow:



    Is this a problem?  Will KO ask about it?  How should she respond?

    She will give an answer (none / 0) (#55)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:12:13 PM EST
    That will probably make a lot more sense than the ones Sen Obama gives when asked. And no, it won't make a difference. I'd say at this point most voters have all the information they need.