GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
SurveyUSA Pennsylvania General Election Poll, conducted May 16th-May 18th, 2008
- Barack Obama 48%
- John McCain 40%
Sample consisted of 600 registered voters and has an MoE of 4.1%
Here are the numbers when the potential Veeps are included:
- Obama/Edwards 50%
- McCain/Huckabee 40%
- McCain/Huckabee 45%
- Obama/Sebelius 42%
- Obama/Rendell 47%
- McCain/Huckabee 40%
- McCain/Huckabee 42%
- Obama/Hagel 33%
- Obama/Edwards 52%
- McCain/Romney 37%
- McCain/Romney 41%
- Obama/Sebelius 40%
- Obama/Rendell 48%
- McCain/Romney 39%
- Obama/Hagel 42%
- McCain/Romney 41%
- Obama/Edwards 52%
- McCain/Pawlenty 35%
- Obama/Sebelius 41%
- McCain/Pawlenty 38%
- Obama/Rendell 49%
- McCain/Pawlenty 37%
- Obama/Hagel 42%
- McCain/Pawlenty 36%
- Obama/Edwards 50%
- McCain/Lieberman 38%
- Obama/Sebelius 42%
- McCain/Lieberman 41%
- Obama/Rendell 48%
- McCain/Lieberman 39%
- McCain/Lieberman 41%
- Obama/Hagel 40%
May 20th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Wow…that surprises me that the VP choice would make such a difference, especially for the democrats. Let’s hope Obama doesn’t pick Edwards as far a Penn goes. But would that be detrimental elsewhere? Hmmmm…
May 20th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Ouch. Obama +8 in Pennsylvania?
May 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Everyone still so sure they don’t want Hillary to be the nominee? Including the risk of what the next 4 years would be like should the Democrat win?
May 20th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Here’s what I don’t like about this poll- it is meaningless unless Ridge and Rudy are included in the polling.
What would McCain/Ridge vs. Obama/Sebelius look like? How about McCain/Giuliani. This poll leaves the biggest questions unanswered.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Metro,
I’ve wanted Hillary to be the nominee for months now, even though I think she has a better shot of beating McCain. I don’t fear for my country if she was President, but the thought of a President Obama scares the hell out of me.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Kavon,
Yeah. Also, how many people really know who Kathleen Sebelius is? I mean, I live and breathe politics and I didn’t really have any idea until she endorsed Obama a few months back.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Note the voter breakdown in this poll is 55/34/10 D/R/I. There’s no way that’s the breakdown on election day.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
That voter breakdown is not credible. In fact with those baseline numbers I’m surprised it’s that close.
We’ll see what happens.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
This is pretty consistent with the New Mexico breakdowns, once accounting for Obama having higher base numbers, Rendell being the Governor, and Lieberman being from the NE. Huck gives biggest boost, then Mitt and Lieberman are roughly neutral (move up for Joe), Tpaw drags. Edwards biggest booster for Obama, followed closely by Rendell, then Hagel and Sebelius drags.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Wait a minute - look at the crosstabs of this poll.
Supposedly Obama is winning southwest PA 46-44 and northwest PA by 48 to 34.
Yeah. Freaking. Right.
Interesting thing is that 31 percent of West-Central PA is “undecided”.
This stuff is utterly useless until the Fall.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
And here I thought Survey USA was the best pollster. *sigh* Can anyone be trusted anymore? Gallup maybe?
May 20th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
It doesn’t look much like this state will be used that much for who helps most, because we’re going to lose it!
May 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
IL Guy,
We might well lose it. We did in 2000 and 2004. But if we do it’s not going to be by 8 points and it’s not going to be by losing the western half of the state.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
#7 - Interesting. Does anyone actually know off-hand approximately what the demographics of PA, in terms of voter reg is? I know in NY that breakdown would be closer to accurate, perhaps with more D’s (closer to 65-70)…but in PA, I’d think the numbers would be closer than that.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Again, I don’t think it’s remotely fair to see Pawlenty “drags”. At best, 10% of Pennsylvanians have even heard of Pawlenty. He drags no more then Sebellius, and in fact, McCain gets within 3 points with a McCain/Pawlenty vs. Obama/Sebellius matchup. I’m not prepared to attribute this to Pawlenty utterly wowing those 10% that have heard of them; instead I think it’s mostly a factor of McCain having stronger support and Obama having more hardened opposition. A certain percentage of voters goes undecided when unknown VP’s are mentioned; that percentage is much larger in Obama’s tent, because folks are less decided on him, whereas alot of McCain’s support is fueled by hardened opposition to Obama.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Yeah, I agree Adam…..this whole polling thing is difficult because the people being interviewed are getting a lot thrown at them, and half of the names, they’ve never heard of in their lifetime.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Matt, a lot of what you say is true. We’ve said all along that name recognition will be low, even Pawlenty, who has been mentioned a lot on tv as a possible, is still not known well.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Adam, because the crosstabs of a poll might look a little questionable, that does not mean the poll as a whole is irrelevant. The margin of error is much higher in the crosstabs because fewer people are sampled. For example, let’s say you sample 400 Pennsylvanians and 200 are for McCain and 200 are for Obama. If those are likely voters, that is probably a pretty accurate representation, and it probably means it’s a close race. However, in the crosstabs, you might only interview 50 people from Southwest Pennsylvania. Since that’s such a small group, the margin of error may be much greater. The margin of error might be only 4% statewide but 20% for Southwest Pennsylvania. If the margin of error is 20%, that means if you have Obama leading 60-40 in that section, he could actually be behind 60-40, and the poll would still be accurate! Does that make sense?
May 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
MattyN,
In 2006, the breakdown was 43-38-20 in the Rendell/Swann matchup. 43-38-19 in the Casey/Santorum matchup. In 2004, it was 41-39-20. But, I’m loathe to say that the breakdown isn’t “credible”. It seems to me that Republicans are making a fairly categorical mistake in assuming that this election is bound to be monumentally different from the 2004 election. 2004 was about turning out the base, so goes the narrative, while 2008 will be about expanding the universe. Or winning over moderates. Or centrists. What have you. But, I’ve seen poll after poll with these huge party disparities, that weren’t close to mirrored even in the depths of 2006. And I can’t help but believe it’s because we’ve nominated John McCain, and that all the universe expansion in the world isn’t going to help, if John McCain remains such an odious pill to so many Republicans. Cue the “Lieberman is a disastrous idea” sirens.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Clarence,
It makes sense. I can buy that. The 55/34/10 thing is not right though. At best it’s going to be 50/40/10 on Election Day in favor of the Dems - and a good chunk of that 40 are conservative Dems that voted for Bush
May 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
In fact, I just checked, statewide, the margin of error is 4.1% and 600 people were interviewed. However, only 39 were interviewed from West-Central PA, so if the numbers are off, it’s not surprising at all. The number for the Northwest was even smaller, at 29 people, 14 for Obama, 10 for McCain, 5 undecided, therefore the percentages mean little for that one section. Southwest PA had 125 people, so they would be a little more accurate. Southeast PA had 248 people, or 41% of the state, so their numbers would be far, far more reflective of reality than the 29 people interviewed from the Northwest.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Or to put it another way, we have no way of determining whether SurveyUSA and every other polling company, is just stacking the D/R breakdown against McCain, in some nefarious plot. It seems quite a bit more likely that lots of Republicans who are just steaming mad about MCcain’s nomination, simply aren’t participating in these polls. So don’t be surprised if Mac wins 85% of Republicans, 25% of Democrats, and 53% of independents, and still loses, because the D/R breakdown is something like 50/30 nationwide. You need both base turnout and universe expansion.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
So then if we assume that the 248 in Southeast PA is correct (it seems plausible), then what of the 600-248 or 352 leftover? The MoE on that 352 is going to be very high as well. So if we cut out southeast PA its safe to say we don’t know what the margins will be in the rest of the state without a bigger sample size. That’s a problem when you have a large group of people clustered into a small geographic area.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Well Adam, that makes it even better for McCain then. If it’s 55/34 and he’s down 8 points, that is very, very good. If it gets down to 50/40, that means he’ll probably win. To put this in perspective, I checked the exit polls from past elections. I think SurveyUSA tries to push Independents one way or the other, which the exit polls don’t, but in 2006, on the day Santorum lost to Casey, the numbers in PA were only 43/38 Democrat. In 2004, it was only 41/39 Democrat. In 2000, it was tied at 40/40.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Adam, you could manually add up all the votes from the rest of the state and calculate it, SurveyUSA has it by raw numbers too.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Matt,
Or it could be that there is a “silent majority” phenomenon like we’ve seen in exit polling. McCain supporters are less inclined to shout their support from the hilltops. Exit polling underestimated McCain’s numbers throughout primary season.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Also even setting aside party registration I have problems with this poll. The ideology of those questioned shows the following:
Moderate 48 %
Conservative 22%
Liberal 20 %
Conservatives and liberals are NOT that similar in terms of population percentage in PA. And that’s based on all 600 asked.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Adam, I just did a calculation. Among the 352 voters in the regions other than the Southeast John McCain leads Barack Obama (without Veeps) 44-42 with 14% undecided. The poll shows in the Southeast region Obama leads 58-33 with 9% undecided. The fact there are more undecided voters in the Republican parts of the state is a good sign.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Matt,
Point taken on base turnout. But I have a hunch that Obama is going to mobilize base turnout for the GOP as the campaign season kicks into high gear.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Clarence,
Agreed. The “undecided” in Appalachia (which is everywhere EXCEPT southeast PA)aren’t likely to break towards Obama.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Adam, the conservative liberal thing looks pretty close to right. In 2006, it was 29% conservative to 25% liberal in the exit polls. In 2004, the gap was wider with 30% conservatives to only 22% liberals. I do think this poll slightly oversamples left of center people, and Obama is probably not really ahead by 8 points. It is probably somewhere between a tie and a 5 point Obama lead.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Adam, I don’t know what state you’re from, but you seem familiar with Pennsylvania. How do you think John McCain will play in the three suburban counties that Bush just barely lost to both Gore and Kerry, Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery counties. Do you think McCain will win them? Or do you think he’ll barely lose them but he’ll run up the score so big in Appalachia that it won’t matter? I had expected Obama to take all three counties. He only took one, and Hillary took two.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Well anyway I’m pretty sure we’re all going to pull our hair out with these polls for the next six months and I’m equally sure that they’re going to change a million times both ways until November. I guess we can take solace in the fact that the electoral map is pretty darned close in a year that it has no business being this close.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
If the non-Southeast is currently 44-42, let’s say Obama only improves by 1 point come election day, that means McCain would win the non-Southeast portion of the state 57-43, a huge margin that gives him lots of wiggle room in Philadelphia, which he’ll need with the big African-American turnout.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Adam, I agree, I’m not worked up about any poll showing one candidate a little ahead or behind. If the poll showed Obama leading by 20 in Pennsylvania, totally different story! Mike Dukakis actually led by 20 nationally at this time. I saw McCain leading by 3 in the national Rasmussen poll today, but it looks like this is back to 2000 and 2004 all over again. It looks more likely than not that we will not know who the winner will be the day before the election, and it will be a nerve-wracking night for both sides. It’s not since 1996 that we’ve known the day before the election who was going to win. In both of the last two elections, I did NOT feel good about our chances the day before the election, and Bush came through for me both times. I felt even worse in 2004 than in 2000.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Clarence,
That’s the $64,000 question. I grew up in Northeast PA in Scranton (Lackawanna County). This is blue collar, socially conservative, economically populist Democrat coal country. I have never seen such hostility to a Democrat before in this part of the state (I live in upstate NY now but travel to PA often). Part of it is becuase of race but a lot of it is just a cultural disconnect.
As for southeast PA it’s an enigma. Obama supporters were really gung ho about doing exceptionally well in the Philly burbs in the days before the PA primary but their guy underperformed. The reason it’s hard to get a good read of the situation is because I’m not sure if his poor performance in Bucks and Montgomery Counties is becuase of hostility to Obama (like it is in the rest of the state) or if it’s just support for Hillary at the suggestion of wildly popular ex-mayor of Philly Ed Rendell. If it’s the former then that is going to be VERY good for us. If it’s the latter then we’re probably going to lose the state in November.
The truth is probably somewhere in between. Your guess is as good as mine. What do you think?
May 20th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
The textbook says that endorsements don’t typically carry a lot of weight (just look at Massachusetts). While Rendell probably helped some, it is probably more to do with a disconnect with Obama. Obama is not helping himself by scolding people about their thermostats either.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Mr. Obama is not well liked in the western half of the state. We have a real shot at PA, while we probaly won’t do as well in PA as OH, PA could be easier to win than the Upper Mid West. A PA win will also take care of some loses in the West.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Adam, even in NH, which you would think of as a high tech state, in the few towns where poverty is high, Hillary Clinton just creamed him. In one of the poorest NH cities, Berlin, Obama even came in third behind Edwards with Hillary running away with first.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
And when I say “hostility” i mean “hostility”. The St. Patrick’s Day in Scranton is literally almost as much of a big deal as Christmas. The handful of Obama supporters at the rally saw their signs burned by an intoxicated mob. I’m not kidding.
It was written about in WaPo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html
May 20th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Adam, as far as the suburbs, Hillary voters there are much more likely to go for Obama in the fall than Hillary voters in Scranton, but I’m still not sure it was because of Rendell. He probably helped a little bit. Maybe some people in the suburbs weren’t crazy about Obama, but they probably will stick with him in the fall. The only thing is he won’t get any Republicans.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Adam,
My mom’s family is from just outside East Stroudsburg. Monroe County. George Bush won the County by 4 votes in 2004, apparently. The family members I know up there aren’t too keen on Obama, though admittedly they tend to lean Republican. Racism probably does play a part for alot of folks. I didn’t see my grandparents until I was like 5, because they couldn’t get over my mother marrying a black guy. Of course, this was in the early 80’s, so I’m sure alot has changed, but I still don’t feel entirely comfortable at family reunions. I’ve seen much more under the surface racial hostility in PA then I’ve ever seen in NJ.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I think one reason Hillary Clinton was able to win the Philadelphia suburbs, just like she won New Hampshire, is because even though she’s considered the more moderate candidate, she’s not like Zell Miller or something. She’s still pretty liberal, so she cuts into some of the liberal, suburban vote, especially among women, and then gets just about all of the lower income vote.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I think the winning strategy for PA for the GOP is to run AGAINST Obama. The Republicans need to exploit the differences on cultural issues wherever possible and draw stark constrasts between him and McCain. That’s our only shot. That way everyone that has right-leaning tendancies will be on the same page.
We’ll have a better idea how doable it is by later in September. If McCain is up by 3 or 4 in Ohio then we just might be able to pull off PA. If McCain is only slightly ahead (or god forbid, worse - behind) in Ohio by then PA is probably just out of reach.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Matthew Miller, I know two white women in New Hampshire who are alright with voting for a black person, but they don’t think a woman should be President because women are too moody, and they know because they are one. So there are all kinds of prejudices out there.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Matt - I don’t like that. It’s wrong. I wish it was’t that way. But you know EXACTLY what it’s like if you spent time in Monroe County. I don’t like talking negatively about my hometown but it’s exactly this sort of under the surface hostility that makes me think that in the end Obama has less of a chance in the state than Kerry or Gore.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Adam, yes, Ohio almost always votes more Republican than Pennsylvania. I’m not sure they’ve ever voted more Democratic than PA in fact. They do have to run against Obama, but I’m concerned John McCain is not willing to do that. His wife kind of said that.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Pop quiz: without looking it up, can anyone guess the last time the Democratic nominee got a higher percentage in Ohio than in Pennsylvania? Answer in a few minutes.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
But, anyway, alot of this poll looks like nonsense to me. If Obama beats McCain among whites, by 10 points in Penn, even with the Silky Pony on the ticket, I’ll eat my hat. It’s unfathomable.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Mathew:
To a degee, Ohio has some racial issues to. One time, in a local race I voted for an African American lady because she was the best candidate in the GOP primary, like many other Republicans in my neighborhood, I had her lawn sign up. A GOP lady in the neighborhood asked my wife “why are you and so many Repeblicans putting up Democrat lawn signs?” After my wife explained that we were all actually backing a Republican. The lady replied “Oh, I assumed that there were no Black Republicans.”
May 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Clarence,
I think in the end it’s going to depend on just how much Obama is willing to tweak him. In the last few days McCain has had no problems saying exactly what he thinks of Obama on foreign policy. You’re right though - McCain himself probably won’t delve into the cultural stuff. But independent groups will.
In any case Limbaugh and O’Reilly and company are going to make people wise to Obama’s liberalism. Bush was far less effective against Kerry than the Swift Boats were. I honestly don’t have a clue what is going to happen.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
1948.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Adam, we have to be realistic….right now huge numbers of Hillary voters are swearing and polling they will not vote for Obama. If she puts her support behind him, as she most surely will, those numbers go way down…and we’ll have a really tough time winning Pennsylvania, no matter what. However, I realize lots of things can change, so we’ll see as time gets closer.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Only because Dewey was a New Yorker.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
IL,
I don’t think it’s a lock. Just to be clear. I think whether we win or lose the state it’s going to be within 3 or 4 points.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Illinoisguy:
I think you are right that most Hillary supporters, however, I do know several Pro-Clinton voters in PA who will just not vote for Mr. Obama.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Adam, you are correct it was the Dewey race. I have a question though. Why does Rush attack Obama so much, and why did he want people to vote for Hillary to keep the race going? I thought Rush wanted McCain to lose so we could get a “real” conservative in four years. If Rush wants McCain to lose, he should have been telling people to vote for Obama so the Democrats could settle the nomination earlier, unify their party, and beat McCain.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I think Rush just wanted to feel relevant. He tried to derail McCain and Huckabee and the two remaining candidates were McCain and Huckabee. So he noticed that the Democrats were fighting an extremely close race and sought to regain relevance by trying to influence the outcome after stories surfaced that Rush was losing control of his audience. Rush is pretty sincere in his beliefs but I think he cares about his ego even more.
I don’t think Rush really wants to lose. I think he genuinely wants a Republican president to counterbalance a Democratic congress. He’ll stomach McCain because I sincerely believe he thinks Obama is just too radical.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
If Rush will stomach McCain in the end, he should not have said he wanted McCain to lose. That is the difference between people who mean what they say and people who are big talkers and say a lot of things they don’t mean. Rush definitely falls into the second category. I hate to be divisive in this otherwise civil discussion, but for all the talk about how horrible of a candidate Romney is, he really is not showing himself to be a drag on the ticket, whether it be Pennsylvania or New Mexico. He does better than Pawlenty or Lieberman. McCain wins with him on the ticket against Sebelius. I am not saying Mitt would be the best choice for VP, but I don’t think you can say with any seriousness that he’d make the ticket unelectable either.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I also wonder if Obama will give Edwards any consideration.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Quite honestly, if Bush had been able to replace Stevens with a conservative, I wouldn’t feel so bad about losing.
With us only one vote away and Stevens turning 89 next year and Ginsburg turning 77, the stakes are too high.
What were the odds that Stevens was going to last from 80-88 and stay on the Court back in 2000? Bush should have gotten 3, not 2.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I feel a little dirty saying this, but it is possible Huckabee would make a better VP pick than Romney for two reasons. He would energize Evangelicals far more than Romney would in states like Ohio. Plus he might peel off more moderate Democrats than Romney would. Democrats tend to like Huckabee better than Romney. I know it’s counterintuitive since Huckabee is a minister, but that seems to be the way it is.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I was talking to a woman I know who supported Obama. This was last November I was talking to her. She is a stereotypical liberal. She is a Unitarian, member of Mensa, she’s been divorced four times and is now married to her fifth husband, she’s a retired schoolteacher who is on disability since she broke her back. She was telling me last fall how much she liked Huckabee. She thought it was “so cool that his father told him he might never meet a Governor again and then he became one”. Then she went on to say how much she can’t stand Romney. She said, “He’s just a pretty boy with a religious background.” I scratched my head because she had just said how much she liked Huckabee who was an EVANGELICAL MINISTER of all things. But liberals like the fact he grew up poor and resent the fact that Romney is rich. Some of them give Huckabee a pass on the religious stuff. Most liberals liked McCain and Huckabee better than Romney and Rudy.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
There might be something to that. Reagan and Clinton had huge followings with the regular folks. Its no accident that they were both broke earlier in their lives. Bush and Kerry could never command that sort of respect among the working class.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Of course there’s something to that Adam. Biography matters. It’s the reason why Tim Pawlenty also resonates with working class voters. Because he can say “my dad was a truck driver. And times were tough. One year, my dad lost his job, just months after my mom died. So we learned the value of good honest, hard work. I was the first person in my family to go to college. Heck, most of my brothers and sisters work in factories or other blue-collar jobs”. Romney had a potential biographical ploy that could appeal to working class voters; the Mormon work ethic and modesty is legendary. But, he stayed away from the biography stuff, because he didn’t want to A.) Put on the focus on the fact that he was another son of a powerful political figure, and B.) Make too much reference to his Mormonism.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Romney’s dad grew up in dirt floor houses….their family knows something about working class too. Its just that they jumped through the classes really fast, and we shouldn’t hold that against him for working his butt off and being born really smart.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Why would Ridge or Rudy be included? Didn’t McCain all but say anyone who is pro choice would not be selected? Also Rudy should just retire from politics after his dismal performance in the primaries.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Romney probably also didn’t want to draw attention to the various people who were laid off as a result of his buyouts and takeovers. Not a plus in this environment.
I thought Huckabee’s “guy you work with, not the guy who laid you off” summed that up fairly well. It’s no surprise Huck does better with the folks than Romney.
I think he’d be a decent choice for VP, and his pull with Church groups and the evangelical community should not be taken lightly. It could be a real plus for McCain in driving turnout.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
IllinoisGuy,
That makes Mitt’s dad a guy can relate to the working man, not Mitt. You don’t get much benefit from how successful (or not successful) your grandfather was.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Sean,
Are you of the impression that Joe Lieberman is not pro-choice?
For pro-life voters, at least Rudy, unlike Lieberman, opposes PBA and supports parental notification.
For economic conservatives, Giuliani, unlike Joe, supports supply-side, pro-growth, low taxation policies.
Perhaps a Republican can’t win the GOP nomination without calling for the overturn of Roe, but it is also very likely that, if Huckabee beat McCain in South Carolina, Crist and Martinez would’ve stuck with Giuliani, and we would’ve gone into Super Tuesday with a two-man race between Rudy and Romney.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Jim, you just have to rub Mitt’s nose in it, don’t you? The jobs Mitt saved were far, far more than those laid off……so that was not a subject he had to stay away from.
Secondly, you can’t tell by a couple states polls who would be best. They were both well within the margin of error, and one state looked as if we couldn’t win there no matter who was VP, so that state shouldn’t be used. Out west will show a different story. You may not remember that Huckabee could barely buy a vote out West. And, we really didn’t need the reminder that he is a religious bigot, and a #1 jerk.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
This proves one thing: Huckabee is the best choice.
Thank you Clarence for that nice anecdote.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Interesting anecdote indeed. Two polls are not enough, but from the people I talk to, I imagine that Mr. Huckabee would be a good choice for states like Ohio too, he can gain a few Conservatives without losing many liberals. I am still not sure that Mr. Huckabee is the very best choice, even though I voted for him, but he clearly is more electable than most people and he does little harm in the swing states.
I must say that Mr. Romney did a little better than I expected him to in PA and New Mexico. Strategically, it becomes an east west competition. Mr. Romney would gain us votes in the west, but cost us a few in the east. Right now, the battle ground states are in the east. Unless the map changes, OH and PA are going to easier to win than Colorado against Mr. Obama.
In reality, I doubt that Mr. McCain can choose either Mr. Romney or Mr. Huckabee because it would unfortunately cause a civil war. Half the base would be angry in either case, thus somebody like Mr. Pawlently will most likely be chosen as a compromise. If we were fighting Mrs. Clinton it would be a different story, but a compromise candidate for VP is probably what is needed to fight Mr. Obama.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Ohio - Why are the polls not reflecting that civil war? I will be highly displeased if its Huckabee, but strictly from a polling analysis, I don’t think we can say that we see a civil War.
I am a forgiving person, and if Huckabee were to apologize to the LDS religion, I would forgive him, and hold my nose and vote for McCain with him on the ticket. The apology he gave before was certainly not heartfelt, and he repeated the same thing over and over after his so-called apology.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Furthermore, I think it was terrible that he plastered his web site with anti-Mormon, untruthful links. He is a very flawed candidate, but I may vote for him if I have no better choice, which it appears I won’t.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
“Right now, the battle ground states are in the east.”
Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Michigan?
Want to correct what you just said?
I guess you could call NH a swing state - though that is also where Romney should help.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Huckabee has swung higher than Romney on intrade today… That’s downright sickening!
May 20th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Back in the 1980s, I saw a computer game that was based on simulating a political campaign. I think it had all the prominent candidates from 1968 to 1984, and you could simulate a campaign between any of them in any year, and switch their parties if you wanted. So if you wanted to have, say, Jimmy Carter run as a Republican against Richard Nixon as a Democrat in 1984, you could play that. It was kind of fun, unless you tried to play as an independent candidate, in which case you might run out of money in mid-campaign and the game would hang up because you couldn’t take any more actions.
Well, this poll has Hagel as a Democratic vice presidential nominee and Lieberman as a Republican vice presidential nominee. In other words, it’s about as realistic as that computer game.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
With regards to the potential civil war, the polls do not show it because people who have a party affiliation tend to stick with the party, raising money and campaigning are different stories. The Democrats are now experiencing such a war to a degree.
I think that I am comfortable enough with Mr. Romney now to vote for him on either end of the ticket. He is a good man and basically a good mainstream Conservative. I disagreed with him on a few issues and did not support him in the primary, but it was what it was.
While both Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Romney represented slightly different parts of the Conservative movement, it was ashame that things got out of hand on both side. Since I do not know much about the Mormon faith I did not pick up on every insult that may have been sent that way. I agree, that Mr. Huckabee is not a perfect candidate, but I did not think there were any perfect candidates. I even had some minor disagreements with Mr. Thompson. Anyways, I do not know Mr. Huckabee personally, so I do know what is in his heart. He appeared sincere to me and again while, I am aware, that various things were said by various people against Mormonism during the campaign, I do not appreciate the nuances. BTW, it was my understanding Mormonism and the LDS are actually two slightly different religions, but you seem to interchange these terms, so I am sorry that I do not know much theology about your faith. My friend said that Mormons visited him the other day and said that they were nice and interesting people. There just are not many Mormons in this part of the country. I believe that most people did not vote on religion, but unfortunately some did. Much of the division was separate from religion, but it was division nevertheless. Hopefully the party can unite, but in 2008 it could be dangerous to choose either Mr. Romney or Mr. Huckabee as VP. However, it is positive that both appear to be doing well in the polls.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
On thing about the polls that might have it tilt alittle towards Obama way is that 65+ crowd is out number by 18-34 year olds. That will not happen in Penn on election day.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
ACT:
New Mexico is a unique case, as of now, we have lost Colorado and Washington, but won Nevada. These are not swing states. Michigan is hardly a western state, but perhaps Mr. Romney could help there somewhat. As of now we have won New Hampshire, so I take your point that it is not a swing state, I also take your point about Mr. Romney helping us in that state. However, geographically, as of now, there are not many swing states in the west, we either win them or lose them. Outside New Mexico, few are close.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Is Rendell that hated that him as VP is negative - compared to Edwards?
PA is hardly full of former POTUS & VP’s. They haven’t had any in the last 100 years.
Rendell is a good pick for Obama. He reassures the Jewish vote, helps with Clinton supporters (particualrly blue-collar), locks in PA & helps Ohio.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Even though biography matters, I always find it to be a plea for sympathy when they brag about how poor they were, but I guess it sells. I think it sells more with Democrats than Republicans however.