Double polling update from the Keystone State

[Statistikhengst]

PA is not done being a battle ground. Republicans have performed very well there. Corbett is just a shitty governor.

The GOP in PA tried to suppress the vote in the east and all that did was mobilize the Dems. The rural areas will continue to vote GOP but the state as a whole will only accept moderate Republicans. The odds of a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul becoming a PA senator are slim because they would be trounced in the east. As long as the PA GOP stays away from pushing extremists it will continue to win elections but if it follows the Tea Party line it is unlikely to succeed in my opinion.

Pat Toomey was a tea party candidate and he won.

Pat Toomey was elected in 2010, in the GOP wave of that year.

The voter supression that Derideo_Te is referring to is from 2012.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The GOP in PA tried to suppress the vote in the east and all that did was mobilize the Dems. The rural areas will continue to vote GOP but the state as a whole will only accept moderate Republicans. The odds of a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul becoming a PA senator are slim because they would be trounced in the east. As long as the PA GOP stays away from pushing extremists it will continue to win elections but if it follows the Tea Party line it is unlikely to succeed in my opinion.

Pat Toomey was a tea party candidate and he won.

Pat Toomey was elected in 2010, in the GOP wave of that year.

The voter supression that Derideo_Te is referring to is from 2012.

Rick Santorum was a two term Senator there not that long ago either. The voter ID legislation pushed by the GOP in 2012 had absolutely nothing to do with Obama carrying Pennsylvania that year. Republican presidential candidates haven't won that state since 1984. When it comes to state wide races and Congressional and legislative races the GOP has performed pretty well.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Pat Toomey was a tea party candidate and he won.

Pat Toomey was elected in 2010, in the GOP wave of that year.

The voter supression that Derideo_Te is referring to is from 2012.

Rick Santorum was a two term Senator there not that long ago either. The voter ID legislation pushed by the GOP in 2012 had absolutely nothing to do with Obama carrying Pennsylvania that year. Republican presidential candidates haven't won that state since 1984. When it comes to state wide races and Congressional and legislative races the GOP has performed pretty well.

And Rick Santorum lost his re-election bid for a third term in the worst losing landslide for an incumbent in all of Pennsylvania's history. Are you aware of this fact? Plus, at that time, the Tea Party did not even exist. So, that one was kind of a big non-sequitor on your part.

But it looks like Corbett is about to break Santorum's losing record.

Now, as for congressional races, I agree with you, the GOP does pretty well because of so many sparsely populated CDs that are in the "Alabama" zone of Pennsylvania (as I described in a posting above)

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Pat Toomey was elected in 2010, in the GOP wave of that year.

The voter supression that Derideo_Te is referring to is from 2012.

Rick Santorum was a two term Senator there not that long ago either. The voter ID legislation pushed by the GOP in 2012 had absolutely nothing to do with Obama carrying Pennsylvania that year. Republican presidential candidates haven't won that state since 1984. When it comes to state wide races and Congressional and legislative races the GOP has performed pretty well.

And Rick Santorum lost his re-election bid for a third term in the worst losing landslide for an incumbent in all of Pennsylvania's history. Are you aware of this fact? Plus, at that time, the Tea Party did not even exist. So, that one was kind of a big non-sequitor on your part.

But it looks like Corbett is about to break Santorum's losing record.

Now, as for congressional races, I agree with you, the GOP does pretty well because of so many sparsely populated CDs that are in the "Alabama" zone of Pennsylvania (as I described in a posting above)

Santorum lost in a huge landslide in a Democratic wave year almost opposite of 2010 and he was also a hateful asshole that people finally got fed up with. While no tea party was around yet he certainly would have fit the mold.

Bush actually very close to winning PA in 2004. He got 49% and held Kerry to 51%.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Rick Santorum was a two term Senator there not that long ago either. The voter ID legislation pushed by the GOP in 2012 had absolutely nothing to do with Obama carrying Pennsylvania that year. Republican presidential candidates haven't won that state since 1984. When it comes to state wide races and Congressional and legislative races the GOP has performed pretty well.

And Rick Santorum lost his re-election bid for a third term in the worst losing landslide for an incumbent in all of Pennsylvania's history. Are you aware of this fact? Plus, at that time, the Tea Party did not even exist. So, that one was kind of a big non-sequitor on your part.

But it looks like Corbett is about to break Santorum's losing record.

Now, as for congressional races, I agree with you, the GOP does pretty well because of so many sparsely populated CDs that are in the "Alabama" zone of Pennsylvania (as I described in a posting above)

Santorum lost in a huge landslide in a Democratic wave year almost opposite of 2010 and he was also a hateful asshole that people finally got fed up with. While no tea party was around yet he certainly would have fit the mold.

Bush actually very close to winning PA in 2004. He got 49% and held Kerry to 51%.

The actual statistics from PA, 2004;

Kerry 50.92%
Bush (43) 48.42%
other: 0.65%

Margin: Kerry +2.50%

So, actually, Bush's % was closer to 48% than 49%, but you are indeed quite correct: Bush made the race close in 2004 and still could not win the Keystone State, thus making him the first president EVER in a time of war to not win PA in a re-election campaign.

Lincoln won PA both times.
So did Grant.
So did McKinley - and every Republican between 1860 and 1936.

The first Democrat to win PA since 1856 was FDR, in 1936.

Dewey reclaimed PA for the GOP in 1948.

Eisenhower carried PA twice.

Nixon carried PA in 1972.

Reagan carried PA twice. In order to get to a +7 win in PA, Reagan needed a +18 national margin to get there.

Bush, Sr. carried PA in 1988, he lost it in 1992.

Bush, Jr. is the only Republican ever to have lost PA both times, and that in the middle of a war.

That is how deep the deep-blue DNA of this state is at the presidential level.

The Commonwealth is undoubtedly a split-ticket state.

Your point about Santorum is indeed correct, but YOU are the one who brought up Santorum's electoral record vis-a-vis the Tea Party.

 

[william the wie]

Pennsylvania is done being a battleground anyway. The eastern parts of the state are where all the growth is and that area has been trending more and more democrat for the past 20 years. The rural central part and the Pittsburgh area are both declining in population and that's the part that's trending GOP.

Have to agree with you on this one, NY is safe too. The strange wildcards for 2016 are CA, MA and IL with IL and CA most likely to go broke prior to 2016.

CA is guaranteeing local junk bonds and combined with other contingency liabilities is going down the financial toilet. I don't know of a single source but between pensions, retirement healthcare, bond guarantees and no doubt other things I've haven't seen analyzed but there unfunded liabilities that state buildings have been used as collateral to get loans.

IL has been in default on non-bonded debt for about a decade. And the state's largest private sector employers have repeatedly explored relocation for greenmail in regards to taxes. So, while MA or even NJ could go belly up CA with known contingent liabilities about equal to German GDP and IL the state with the worst state bond rating in the US and in the lower half for native currency bonds NAFTA states, provinces and territories.

What does state governments going broke have anything to do with the presidential election??

The state political machine is the driver of the Democratic party.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Have to agree with you on this one, NY is safe too. The strange wildcards for 2016 are CA, MA and IL with IL and CA most likely to go broke prior to 2016.

CA is guaranteeing local junk bonds and combined with other contingency liabilities is going down the financial toilet. I don't know of a single source but between pensions, retirement healthcare, bond guarantees and no doubt other things I've haven't seen analyzed but there unfunded liabilities that state buildings have been used as collateral to get loans.

IL has been in default on non-bonded debt for about a decade. And the state's largest private sector employers have repeatedly explored relocation for greenmail in regards to taxes. So, while MA or even NJ could go belly up CA with known contingent liabilities about equal to German GDP and IL the state with the worst state bond rating in the US and in the lower half for native currency bonds NAFTA states, provinces and territories.

What does state governments going broke have anything to do with the presidential election??

The state political machine is the driver of the Democratic party.

it is the driver of the party in power in EVERY state. Same story in South Carolina, or Kansas.

 

[william the wie]

What does state governments going broke have anything to do with the presidential election??

The state political machine is the driver of the Democratic party.

it is the driver of the party in power in EVERY state. Same story in South Carolina, or Kansas.

D machines tend more to government civil service employees at all levels. The CS pensions go the volunteers and contributions go.

 

[Nyvin]

Pennsylvania has been consistent in giving the Democrat candidate +3% in the state's popular vote compared to the national popular vote. Even in 1988 Dukakis lost the national vote by 55%-45%...he only lost Pennsylvania by 52%-48%, a difference of +3%.

That held true in every election since 1988 too. Even in 2008, Obama won the national vote 52-45 (7%) he won Pennsylvania 54%-44% (10%), again, difference of giving the democrat a 3% boost.

It shows how inflexible Pennsylvania is, the GOP has to win the national vote by at least 3% bare minimum to win Pennsylvania.

What has changed significantly is all the moderate GOP voters in the east (philly burbs) are gone, replaced by staunch conservative voters in the west. When a state GOP candidate gets elected it's usually a lot more on the conservative side then it used to be, which is a key reason for Arlen Specter's party switch. He couldn't hold onto the moderate GOP image from eastern Penn, and couldn't appeal to conservative voters in the west. He had to appeal to the left, it was the only route for him to take.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Pennsylvania has been consistent in giving the Democrat candidate +3% in the state's popular vote compared to the national popular vote. Even in 1988 Dukakis lost the national vote by 55%-45%...he only lost Pennsylvania by 52%-48%, a difference of +3%.

That held true in every election since 1988 too. Even in 2008, Obama won the national vote 52-45 (7%) he won Pennsylvania 54%-44% (10%), again, difference of giving the democrat a 3% boost.

It shows how inflexible Pennsylvania is, the GOP has to win the national vote by at least 3% bare minimum to win Pennsylvania.

What has changed significantly is all the moderate GOP voters in the east (philly burbs) are gone, replaced by staunch conservative voters in the west. When a state GOP candidate gets elected it's usually a lot more on the conservative side then it used to be, which is a key reason for Arlen Specter's party switch. He couldn't hold onto the moderate GOP image from eastern Penn, and couldn't appeal to conservative voters in the west. He had to appeal to the left, it was the only route for him to take.

It's omewhere around 3%, but it is often more. Notice that I left the exact figure open in the OP, but you can see exact stats on that here:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Rank 20 / 32: Pennsylvania


That state bio was published in 2011 and does not yet include the stats for 2012.

In 2012, Obama won PA by +5.38%. He won nationally by +3.86%. So, PA "pulled" by only 1.52% to the left.

But when GWB won in 2004 by +2.46% nationally. Kerry won PA by +2.50%. This means that PA pulled 4.96% to the Left in the election.

The state tends to pull harder to the Left when a Republican wins the national election than when a Democrat wins the national election. That is statistical fact.

Hope that information helps.

 

[editec]

OMG

Hillary?

That's the BEST the DNC can come up with?

We're so hosed, citizens.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Udate on the Corbett (R) vs. Wolf (D) gubernatorial:

Franklin and Marshall College
502 RV, MoE = +/-4.4

http://www.fandm.edu/uploads/media_items/july-2014-f-m-poll.original.pdf

Wolf (D, challenger) 47%
Corbett (R-inc) 25%

Margin: Wolf +22

This is practically identical to the average of Wolf +21.7 that I posted almost one month ago, so nothing has changed. See: OP

 

[Derideo_Te]

Udate on the Corbett (R) vs. Wolf (D) gubernatorial:

Franklin and Marshall College
502 RV, MoE = +/-4.4

http://www.fandm.edu/uploads/media_items/july-2014-f-m-poll.original.pdf

Wolf (D, challenger) 47%
Corbett (R-inc) 25%

Margin: Wolf +22

This is practically identical to the average of Wolf +21.7 that I posted almost one month ago, so nothing has changed. See: OP

Any incumbent with less than 50% is vulnerable. Corbett would need 100% of the "undecided" votes in order to win. He is toast unless there is a massive GOP turnout and the Dems stay home.

 

[Statistikhengst]

F&M as a polling organization is well-known for it's 3-day rolling presidential polls that start in late September/early October of each prez cycle. In other words, it runs daily polls and publishes the averages of three days of polling, which is called rolling polling.

It works like this

Day 1, 2, 3 - average, first published on 4th day

Day 2, 3, 4 - average, first publishd on 5th day

Day 3, 4, 5 - average, first published on 6th day

Day 4, 5, 6 - average, first published on 7th day

etc, etc, etc...


Rasmussen does something pretty much identical with rolling presidential approval polls. It smooths out the rough bumps of huge jumps in either direction.

 

[Shanty]

Pennsylvania is done being a battleground anyway. The eastern parts of the state are where all the growth is and that area has been trending more and more democrat for the past 20 years. The rural central part and the Pittsburgh area are both declining in population and that's the part that's trending GOP.

Yes. The Eastern half of the state has had a lot of migration from NYC, Long Island and NJ. The only reason why the GOP holds the state legislature at all is from gerrymandering legislative districts. The Democrats have a registration advantage of over a million voters. That said, Democrats didn't come out to vote in 2010, and the GOP used it to rework district lines to create a majority in the General Assembly and congressional seats for their party.

 

[Shanty]

Pennsylvania is done being a battleground anyway. The eastern parts of the state are where all the growth is and that area has been trending more and more democrat for the past 20 years. The rural central part and the Pittsburgh area are both declining in population and that's the part that's trending GOP.

PA is not done being a battle ground. Republicans have performed very well there. Corbett is just a shitty governor.

The GOP in PA tried to suppress the vote in the east and all that did was mobilize the Dems. The rural areas will continue to vote GOP but the state as a whole will only accept moderate Republicans. The odds of a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul becoming a PA senator are slim because they would be trounced in the east. As long as the PA GOP stays away from pushing extremists it will continue to win elections but if it follows the Tea Party line it is unlikely to succeed in my opinion.

1994 Rick Santorum won.

2010 Pat Toomey won.

We can put our wackos into office, too. Just not as often as Texass wackos get elected.

 

[Shanty]

Udate on the Corbett (R) vs. Wolf (D) gubernatorial:

Franklin and Marshall College
502 RV, MoE = +/-4.4

http://www.fandm.edu/uploads/media_items/july-2014-f-m-poll.original.pdf

Wolf (D, challenger) 47%
Corbett (R-inc) 25%

Margin: Wolf +22

This is practically identical to the average of Wolf +21.7 that I posted almost one month ago, so nothing has changed. See: OP

Things will tighten up as the election season gets going. But, Corbett has been lagging in fundraising, though he still has a lot more in cash on hand.