« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Pennsylvania: The Holy Grail, Romney’s Insurance Policy and Axelrod’s Mustache

By: tooncesthecat (Diary)  |  November 2nd, 2012 at 08:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In the final days before the Presidential election, the Romney campaign is making a major push in the state of Pennsylvania.  They have made a $3 million ad buy in the state, pro-Romney super pacs are spending another $8 million and surrogates, including Marco Rubio, have been sent to campaign in the state in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.  Paul Ryan will be in Harrisburg Saturday.  Romney himself will make a campaign stop in a suburb of Philadelphia on Sunday.

Since Reagan carried the state, Pennsylvania has been the Holy Grail for Republican Presidential candidates.  But, Romney has a realistic chance of winning the state, while John McCain and George Bush never did.  Unlike, Ohio and the other swing states, the Democrats have not poisoned the well with millions of dollars in anti-Romney ads.  Instead, both campaigns have been relatively absent, especially considering Pennsylvania’s importance.  Obama’s War on Coal should drive voters in western Pennsylvania to the polls and turn out could tip the balance.  Key demographic groups that Romney must make inroads with are the “Reagan Democrats”, particular the steel workers in Pittsburgh, and suburban women in the Philly suburbs.  The aftermath of the hurricane may depress Obama’s turnout in Philadelphia, where Democrats have always counted on a strong showing to overwhelm Republican strongholds in the western part of the state.  The Obama campaign’s vaunted GOTV effort, which they are counting on in other swing states, has been less than active in Pennsylvania, which they long ago felt was in their column.  And voters here have every reason to be even more “bitter and cling to their guns and religion” than they were in 2008.

For Romney, Pennsylvania with its 20 electoral votes, represents an insurance policy in the event that he loses Ohio.  Romney doesn’t have to win here, but if he does, then the election could be wrapped up before we leave the East Coast.  Obama, on the other hand, has virtually no path to victory if he loses Pennsylvania.  He would have to run the table in Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire.  Romney has a reasonable chance to win those states, except for, perhaps, Nevada.

Which brings us to Axelrod’s mustache.  David Axelrod has promised to cut off his mustache if Romney wins Pennsylvania (or Michigan or Minnesota).  I’m thinking he would look a lot nicer, if he were clean shaven.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • tyman

    What if there really is a wave that polls aren’t picking up? It’s remarkable the way Romney and Smith have gained in the polls. Right after Romney’s first debate.

    Pat Toomey won the Senate race by 2 points, and Corbett won the Gov.’s office by a good bit more. I think less than 4 million voted in the 2010 election.

    I checked PA’s voter registration by party (as of 10/22), and Dems outnumber Reps by over 1 million, out of over 8 million registered voters.

    If the polling is correct, that disparity makes it even more remarkable.

    When Romney wins (with or without PA), Axelgrease is going to need a whole makeover.

  • chuckg

    We thought 2008 was an election like no other. 2012 likely will pan out as having more pre-election variables that were not considered.

    1. Bradley Effect–Since we really didn’t see a significant Bradley Effect in 2008, pollsters are taking their polls at face value that they won’t see a Bradley Effect this year. I think they could be wrong. In 2008, there was no need for whites to lie about supporting Obama because enough supported Obama to give him a 6 point victory. This 6 point victory was still below the projection of pre-election polls (Gallup 11 point final poll favoring Obama) and indicates perhaps a Bradley Effect was seen. Why I think we may see a big Bradley Effect has two main components–A. Many more whites do not support Obama and believe the perceived opinion from a poll taker is the voter may be considered racist and B. Many voters equate the polling company with the liberal media and will say what they think they want to hear. Plain and simply, I think many voters are not responding with a negative response for Obama and perhaps not taking part in the survey all-together.

    2. All the polls, regardless of the D/R/I skew, indicate a strong majority of voters believe the economy and jobs are the number one issue by a large amount. When asked who would do a better job handling the issue they care about the most by a decent majority Romney gets the nod. This could explain the Bradley Effect. When talking about job performance and who would do better with a certain issue, voters can give the nod to Romney. But when asked who are you voting for President…the respondent may feel internal pressure to say Obama.

    3. Independents have consistently said they support Romney over Obama. Democrats will say Independents are nothing more than Republicans refusing to say they are Republicans (and their may be some truth to that). But that would mean if there were no Independents and an overwhelming majority of them are Republicans, then the D/R/I mix would heavily favor Republicans. Even if the majority of self-claimed Independents are Republicans that leaves the rest of the Independents who likely split 50/50 between Democrat and Republican. But the larger number of Independents who are “really” Republicans would increase the actual Republican turnout on election day significantly–erasing the edge Democrats had in 2008 and surpassing Democrats in advantage in 2012.

    With just these three variables I see a wave election. Gallup has basically indicated such in their early voting advantage of 52-45 edge for Romney…a 49-49 split between those who haven’t voted since they polled those who voted early –but will vote early…and a 51-46 edge for Romney on those who plan on voting election day. That my friends–is a WAVE election. That is a 7 point victory for Romney…and you don’t get a 7 point popular vote win without carrying a significant amount of states with large populations. We know California, New York, and most of the rest of the North East is out..and winning Texas and the rest of the south by large margins are not enough to offset losing Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, Florida and still maintain a 7 point victory. There is no conceivable way a candidate wins by a 2-3% margin and loses the Electoral College–the odds would be incredibly unlikely.

    What is likely, is we are looking at an electorate that has been misrepresented in the pre-election polling by polling companies using terribly incorrect party affiliation models or we are seeing an electorate not being entirely truthful to the polling companies. I like what Ed Goeas from the Battleground poll said. He indicated the conditions on the ground (i.e reality) doesn’t wash with a lot of the polls (i.e. wishful thinking) and Battleground Election Model predicts a 52-45 Romney victory as well.

    It is for this reason I think we are looking at a wave election in Romney’s favor and Pennsylvania will be part of the wave.

  • congressworksforus

    What the polls are not picking up are the people who are what I term “quietly seething” over Obama and everything the leftists have done.

    Those people don’t take polls…

    • tyman

      I hope this is the case. I just don’t see how the polls show them even when Romney overwhelmingly leads when asked about the economy AND the fact that he leads among independents.

      A lot of people are truly upset about Obama’s agenda, and what he rammed through. After all, on election night ’08, he said that he would regard the Americans who didn’t vote for him. Right…

      Is “Sandy” and the upcoming storm going to affect NE Dem turnout?

  • oldtownyankee

    The Bradley effect may very well be playing a roll here. But I see whats called the ” Shy Torie effect” in play bigtime. The Shy Torie effect happened in the early 1990′s in Great Britain towards the end of the Thatcher years. During that time the British MSN as it were was beating the tar out of the conservatives, the Tories. They were all in for the labour party and did all the same nasty BS we see the MSN here the USA doing now. The tories were ravaged in every way imaginable. As a result when voters were polled either on the phone or in person in malls they were reluctant to say that they were voting for the conservative party, the Tories. They liked what the Tories stood for but rather than say that they were voting for the conservative given all the negativety in the press, they simply lied and said ” Oh yeah, I’m for the labour party”
    Folks; I have done the same thing with people at work given that I work with some really far left wing loons from Cambridge Ma, I state my opinon everyplace else but at work, the fight isan’t worth it. See how that works and can you see thaat playing out here.
    Nov 6th will be Mitts night!!

  • tetrisd85

    Yes! Great play by Romney. Gallup has had Romney at +5-7 for the last two weeks, and Rasmussen has shown him up by +2-4 as well. These are the two best polls. And their temperature of the electorate has indicated me for a very long time that Romney should be fighting for Pennsylvania.

    Romney/Ryan LANDSLIDE 2012!!!