All sorts of interesting polling data here, a Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania voters. The takeaway points are:
1) Rudy still has a sizable lead, although Thompson does eat a little into his support. A staggering majority of voters admit they need to learn more about Thompson, so his potential influence is still unknown.
2) Giuliani is still the only potential GOP candidate reliably polling ahead of potential democrat opponents.
3) Clinton is consolidating support in the democrat field, as acknowledged in the summary. Look closely, though: Conventional wisdom is the Philadelphia suburbs are key in our elections. Urban voters and upstate voters are pretty predictable. The Philadelphia suburbs have a large concentration of potential swing voters, though. Rudy still beats Hillary here. Interestingly, though, Obama beats Rudy here. This is despite the fact the statewide trend is the reverse, in that overall Clinton shows better against Giuliani than Obama. I believe the trend in the Philadelphia suburbs is the one that will prevail in the state overall.
Finally, Quinnipiac’s summary says Pennsylvania voters appear uninterested in moving up our Commonwealth’s primary. This is an odd analysis on their part, as the poll shows 42 to 28 preference for moving the primary up, with 36% of voters saying they would be more likely to vote in a primary if it were moved up. How can this be interpreted as “Voters show little interest in moving up primary”?
over 77% of registered voters say they have voted in the primary despite its irrelevancy. If most of them don’t say they are “more likely” to vote in a primary because they are already pretty certain they’ll vote in it anyway, how many additional people have to become more likely to participate in order to show support according to Quinnipiac’s analysis?
Besides, this begs the question. I don’t care if less people than can fit in my powder room vote in our relic of a primary. I still want the primary to actually matter!