From the Quinnipiac Poll:

Florida: Obama up 49 - 43 percent pre-debate and 51 - 43 percent post-debate;
Ohio: Obama up 49 - 42 percent pre-debate and 50 - 42 percent post-debate;
Pennsylvania: Obama ahead 49 - 43 percent pre-debate and 54 - 39 percent post-debate. Pre-debate surveys ended at 8 p.m. Friday with post-debate surveys Saturday-Monday.

Note that in Florida and Ohio, Obama's gains largely came from undecideds, whether Democrats coming home or Republicans finally willing to defect and independents deciding to commit. In Pennsylvania, only one percent of Obama's gains came from undecideds. Four percent, an eight percent swing, came from people who were McCain supporters before the debate, including a landslide of independent voters: "Independent voters shift from leaning 45 - 44 percent to McCain September 11 to 59 - 29 percent for Obama."

Obama's favorables are now higher than Biden's (who actually saw his favorability go down! possibly because of gaffes), which means it's not our third Senator who's swinging the state. It's the economy, the debate, Sarah Palin -- who despite touring the state during the week and ordering a cheesesteak from Tony Luke's, saw her favorability numbers continue to free-fall -- and Obama himself.

Despite all the pundits and partisans who think Obama should have split open McCain's chest and eaten his heart out, Obama connected with voters on the economy, showed himself to be much more in line with American mainstream opinion AND tradition on foreign policy, and found a way to be brutal with McCain without losing his civility or humanity.

This is the most progressive Democrat to be nominated for President in our lifetimes (at least for the younger folks in the room). And he's going to be President of the United States.

Very little faith in that wide of a lead.
But I can say that Clean Water's calls in the suburbs and around Lehigh Valley (to our members, granted, but we have a LOT of members) have been very, very promising.
Also, NPR said this morning that the trend among people who are saying that the Economy is their number one issue are progressively going more and more for Obama.
Good times are for Friedman.
Bad times are for Keynes.
Vote D.

---
This Too Will Pass, for the guts in your cerebrum.

In 2004, more than one poll had John Kerry ahead in PA by 7-12% going into October.

Exit polls (despite what you think, historically the most telling polls) showed that those who made their decision in October chose Kerry over George Bush 60-40.

Yet Kerry ended up eking out a win in PA by a razor thin 2%.

Here are some real vote numbers to mull:

In Philadelphia, Kerry beat GW Bush 542,205 to 130,099. That was an historically very significant feat.

Kerry got nearly 100,000 more votes out of Philly than Al Gore did just four years before (Gore beat Bush 449,152 to 100,959). Gore's Philly total itself was an improvement over Bill Clinton's Philly votes in 1996 and 1992 (412,988 and 434,756 respectively) although not as high as Mike Dukakis' Philly vote in 1988 (455,948). What's funny, and revealing, is that Dukakis got so many votes here and still lost the state in '88, the last time a Democratic presidential candidate lost PA, on the road, obviously, to losing the whole election.

The key is the spread. Sure, Dukakis got more than 450,000 votes out of Philly, a feat that neither Al Gore nor Bill Clinton could match; but Dukakis only beat GHW Bush by 222,000 votes in Philly, (GHW Bush got 223,246 Philadelphians to vote for him, or nearly 1 out of 3) and that was not enough to offset Ye Olde Bush's victories in the rest of PA (the N.R.A. was very active in Bush's campaign that year). By comparison, Clinton beat that same Olde Bush by 300,000 votes in 1992 (434,948 to 133,311) and plain old Bob Dole by more than 325,000 in 1996 (412,988 to, yikes, 85,345). Gore kept the upward trend going in 2000 by winning here by nearly 350,000 votes.

But Kerry's spread was head and shoulders above that: more than 412,000 votes!

That (recent) record victory was no doubt helped mightily by a solid jump in Democratic voter registration before the 2004 election. The number of registered Dems jumped by a nice 40,000 over the total for the 2000 presidential election, despite the city's losing population over those four years.

So here's the thing to mull: a lot of folks I talk to believe Barack Obama will just naturally continue these trends. They point to the record turnout Obama enjoyed in the April primary, which lest we forget, he lost to Hillary Clinton by 9 (but not 10)% statewide. And, yes, Obama did indeed get a record turnout and vote from the city...for a primary.

But if you think Obama got more people to vote for him than voted for Kerry, think again. Obama barely got half.

In fact, if EVERYBODY who voted Obama in the primary (280,147) votes for him in November and EVERYBODY who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary (149,686) votes for Obama, that total still would fall more than 100,000 votes shy of Kerry's 2004 total (542,205 to 429,833).

That's how big Philly came up for Kerry in 04. Matching or improving on that is quite a challenge.

Now, we can hope that the ongoing voter registration drives will result in another big bump in Democratic voters; but as of the primary -- before which there was a significant voter reg drive -- the numbers are more or less flat. When Kerry ran in 2004, 798,894 Philadelphians were registered Democrats; when Obama and Clinton ran in April, 799,381 were Democrats.

Remember too, before you relax, that Kerry's 412,000 vote Philly plurality was added to victories in Montgomery County, Delaware County, and Bucks County...but after all the votes were counted statewide, he barely won by 2%.

Can Obama count on winning the suburban counties, as Kerry did? In the primaries against Hillary Clinton, he won only Delaware County. The latest polls are hopeful, but Bush ran ahead of many PA polls in 04 and nearly pulled out the state.

Can Obama keep enough 04 Kerry voters onboard (especially those who supported Clinton in April) in the city, so that the new and non-traditional voters he attracts will allow him to match or expand on Kerry's Philly plurality?

Many of us, Philly For Change included, are keeping our heads down and working to deliver the best possible Philly vote for Obama, knowing that history says we will have to make a mighty effort just to match the 2004 numbers. We may NEED a bigger victory than 2004 in Philly, especially if Obama does not get the same support from the suburbs that Kerry got -- and needed -- to eke out his 2% victory.

Reminder: PHILLY FOR CHANGE MEETUP is tonight at 7 @ Tritone, 1508 South St.

Our PHILLY AGAINST McCAIN campaign is moving its successful persuasion canvass from South Philly to Northeast Philly this Sunday. On Saturday we'll canvass Fairmount before the Springsteen event on the Parkway.

All interested can can contact me at samuel.durso@gmail.com or at (267) 307-8821.

Today FiveThirtyEight points out that Obama is at 269 EC votes with states that he's leading McCain in by 5-6 points or more. So even without Florida or Ohio, New Hampshire or Nevada, Virginia or Indiana or North Carolina, where his leads are soft, or Indiana where he's tied, Obama can send it to the House as a tie.

Now that 269 includes the Kerry states less New Hampshire, plus Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado. McCain's people have all but given up in Iowa, cranky editorial board interviews notwithstanding. Pennsylvania is probably the softest Kerry state.

So as long as we hold up our end, Obama will win; if the trends in the battleground states continue, he will win big.

However, if Pennsylvania for whatever reason breaks for McCain, it all falls apart. The math tips deeply in McCain's direction. I can't see Obama winning Ohio, Florida, or Virginia or Colorado without winning Pennsylvania.

So Pennsylvania has to hold. We aren't necessarily a toss-up or even a battleground state, but we are the firewall.

Yes, if things continue with their current momentum, Obama should win enough votes in enough states to take the election. Please note, though, that the goal is no longer to merely win more votes than the GOP candidate, but to beat him by enough to put the election out of stealable range. I'm not sure that this is the case in many swing states- Missouri to be sure; Ohio, Virginia, + Pennsylvania potentially.

I've said it regarding PA, + it applies to the other swing states as well: Obama has to crush McSame in urban at least as badly as Kerry did Shrub in Philly for him to make this election truly difficult to steal. I won't say 'impossible;' after the past 2 Presidential elections, I won't put anything past the GOP's operatives.

Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you,
-Z