Is it possible that we will lose Pennsylvania in '04??

[CMT]

It is a swing state, but we have carried it three times in a row. But a new Quinnipiac University Poll shows that Bush is still quite popular there--much higher than his national ratings in recent weeks.

The poll indicates that Bush approval is 60-35 percent, compared nationally to the 53-55 percent he has been of late. This is down since May but only marginally. In May Bush had a 64/31 percent approval rating.

Furthermore in trial heats he is whipping our candidates by margins of 16-points and up. The poll indicates that against Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, and Dean Bush would pull between 22-26 percent of the Democratic vote.

One bit of good news is that on the Senate race they asked if residents were inclined to re-elect Specter and by 46-40 percent they said "yes" which is encouraging. They didn't put Bush vs. a generic Democrat--I'm sure that would have been closer too.

Here are how the Democratic primary race is shaping up at the moment in Pa:
Lieberman 26% (also had 26% in May--one state where Lieberman has shown no erotion)
Gephardt 14% (down from 17% in May, not good considering the Steelworkers just endorsed him).
Kerry 15% (down slightly from 16% in May)
Dean 9% (up from 3% in May)
Edwards 6% (no change since May)
Mosley Braun-6%
Graham 3%
Sharpton 3%
Kucinich 1%

We cannot afford to lose Pa against Bush in '04 and while it is still early and no real campaign has yet been waged, I worry about Bush's stubbornly high approval ratings in this state.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x660.xml (click on Pennsylvania polls)

[lcordero]

1. Nope

Pennsylvania has a lot of Veterans and Union people. Both groups have an axe to grind with shrub*.

[JVS]

5. We used to have lots of union people

but then industry shut down, moved south or abroad.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. There are still plenty of union families in Western PA

But many of them have been voting for Republicans in recent years, mostly due to gun control and abortion. These people are economically liberal but socially conservative.

[JVS]

20. I'm from Pittsburgh

The number is smaller than it used to be by far.
On edit:
You are right though. Economically liberal socially conservative.

[cjbuchanan]

2. Do not pay attention to these types of polls

The reason is most people are not paying attention to this race yet. Also, until there is a Dem nominee, people do not know what the alternative to Bush & Co. is.

Yes we need to work hard in every state starting right now, but don't be upset by these types of polls. It is still a long way to Election Day.

[JVS]

3. It could happen

Bush keeps working the state for more support. Our new Democratic governer, Rendell, keeps cutting funding for almost everything and it is pissing people off.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Oh sure and Bush will restore that funding

NOT!!! try again. BTW: I believe Bush would cut funding to the very same groups and agencies that are responsible for mine safety- as in the Quecreek 9.

[JVS]

10. It doesn't matter if Bush will or won't restore funding

The Democratic party has to offer something. If Democrats run on a just like the other guy but not religious platform there will be no success. I voted for Rendell but I still think he sucks ass.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. Every state is in trouble right now

don't blame it on Rendell. If he sucks ass, then Bush sucks the biggest ass of all.

[JVS]

21. Yes Bush sucks ass and Rendell sucks ass

[bearfartinthewoods]

32. Rendell has a 51% approval rating as per the radio yesterday

i don't think your opinion is the majority.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. 51% is the majority

did I miss something?

[JVS]

45. 51% isn't exactly wildly popular either

[PROGRESSIVE1]

8. QUESTION???

If Rendell cuts funding, they get upset, if he raised taxes to keep these programs they will be upset. This is what is happening across the country and in California. You can't make the damn sheeple happy. Maybe this is why the Greeks opposed the right for the masses to vote. Let's be honest, the people, DUers excluded, are very feeble. They vote but most do not understand what they are voting for. In America they vote for a face and a personallity. They don't vote for ideas! If the did then Al Gore should have won a 2-1 landslide over the Shrub!

People want all these entitlement programs but at the same time they want lower taxes. How the HELL can this be done??? It CAN'T!!!!!! Maybe the masses shouldn't be allowed to vote? What do you think????

[JVS]

19. State income tax is flat here

which means a tax hike hurts the poor more than the rich. That is why a tax hike would be unpopular. Perhaps if there were a progressive income tax, it wouldn't make people so mad. There is also the matter of stupid spending in the past when things were somewhat better. For instance in Pittsburgh a plan to have the city build two stadiums for privately owned sports team was voted down by Allegheny county voters. So Mayor Murphy-D decided to go with plan B which built the stadiums at public cost spread over the whole state. When important programs must be cut but the public is still paying for huge gifts to private companies people get mad.

On edit: I think your idea that the masses shouldn't be allowed to vote is terrible. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[West Coast Democrat]

4. Look at the Polls for Connecticut....

Bush has a strong lead against all of the Dem candidates in Connecticut as well...even Lieberman. Do I think Connecticut will go to Bush? No way! It's too early, and these polls mean nothing!

[CMT]

9. well against Lieberman it is a virtual dead heat

47-44 percent but your point is well taken. Also according to the archives for Connecticut Bush was ahead of Gore in the state in October, 1999 by 52/37. but for a big state with lots of unions and senior citizens (like Pa) I would have thought that Bush would not have such a high approval rating.

[jiacinto]

7. Yes

But if we are losing PA we are losing 49 states.

PA, more often than not, will vote Dem in a presidential race.

And I think, if the race is even REMOTELY competetive, PA will be in our column.

[GOPBasher]

28. I don't know about that.

I'm not sure about Penn being a Dem state. Gore won it by only 4%, and Clinton won it by 9% in his 1996 landslide. It's definately a swing state. You said that if we lost PA, it means we're losing 49 states nationally. I don't think that's true. Dukakis lost that state in '88 and still managed 111 eV's. I don't consider PA part of our base. I think our base consists of NY, CA, MA, VT, RI, CT, NJ, IL, MD, DE, DC and HI for a total of 168 eV's. Now if we have to even fight for any of those states, then we're definately losing a huge landslide.

PA, I think, is definately a swing state. I think if we're comfortably ahead there, we're winning in a landslide.

[jiacinto]

29. Well

PA will vote Dem all things considered. Even in the Reagan landslides of the 1980s it was one of the worst GOP states even though they carried in the three elections of that decade.

[GOPBasher]

43. That's true.

Here are the numbers for Pennsylvania:

1980: Reagan: 49.59%
Carter: 42.48%

1984: Reagan: 53.34%
Mondale: 45.99%
(This was much, much closer than the national result, where
Reagan won by 18%.)

1988: Bush: 53.37%
Dukakis: 45.65%
(This was actually about the same as the national election,
where Bush won 54% - 46%. That seems strange given the '84
results.)

1992: Clinton: 45.15%
Bush: 36.13%
Perot: 18.20%
(Clinton did a little better in PA than his national numbers.)

1996: Clinton: 49.24%
Dole: 40.71%
Perot: 8.40%
(About the same as the national numbers.)

2000: Gore: 50.60%
Chimp: 46.43%
(Gore did a little better here than his national average,
which was a narrow victory.)

So I guess you're right, it does lean more Democratic than the nation. Still, it's not locked up like our base states that I mentioned in my first post. It's still a major swing state. I mean, we'd lose PA before we'd lose NY, MA, CA, IL, NJ, etc.


Source: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html

[NewYorkerfromMass]

44. 1988/ Dukakis lessons

DUKE was portrayed as "soft on crime" (WILLIE HORTON-GATE) and "weak on defense" (TANK-GATE).

The fact PA reflected EXACTLY the national vote in '88 says volumes about the hot button issues the Dem nominee needs to be smear proof on this year. I firmly believe PA is THE state we need to focus on. For as PA goes, so goes the Dem.

[John_H]

11. It's possible we'll lose every state

so get to work.

[cap]

12. safety is a big issue here with bucks county women voters

we had a number of people die on 9-11 in Manhattan. These women are scared. Bush does speak to their fears. We need a candidate who can reassure these women.

[CMT]

16. these "security moms" are the new "soccer moms"

I've seen it and it is true. Our nominee will need to speak to their fears and explain that Bush has diverted from the real war on Terrorism by going into Iraq and allowing Bin Ladden and his followers to strengthen. We need to come up with a real program dealinig with Terrorism and security and give the states the $$ they need for this. Bush can be vulnerable on security if we get this message across.

[RobinA]

37. I'm From PA

and this is my experience as well. The WTC and the Pentagon weren't in PA, but we are close enough. We know people who work in NYC, work with people who travel frequently to both cities. When the dust settled, it didn't happen here, but it happened next door to people we know.

Interestingly, I was in Montana for 9/11. The reaction out there was quite different from the reaction I learned about when I returned home to PA. People here were scared while it was happening and felt like it was happening to them. Like the next plane would crash into their house. Heck, one plane did crash in PA. It was personal to many Pennslvanians, especially in the east. In Montana it was horrendous, but out there we watched it happen to somebody else. It wasn't personal except in an American sense.

I will be very surprised if the Dems take PA in 2004, especially if 9/11 continues to determine people politics.

And I've been quite unsuccessful explaining to people that the state (i.e. Rendell) must cut funding because it is hurting financially due to what I propagandistically call "tax givebacks." Bush is Bush and Rendell is Rendell. Bush is cutting taxes so welfare mothers won't be able to fund their six kids and so people will be "accountable." Rendell is cutting programs people like. Never the twain shall meet.

[blm]

13. Wait till the campaign starts...

heck...this is so damn early that 2/3 of the electorate don't know who's running.

We won't lose Pa. They have the largest number of veterans there. There will be a full blown vet outreach in play by December.

[LynneSin]

14. You're joking on this thread right?

Gore and the Unions went out in a major force in Philadelphia and into the Urban area. If you get a high voter turnout in Philadelphia then no republican can win that state.

Ed Rendell used that knowledged to upset Bob Casey Jr. in the PA Democratic Primary race for Governor. He had voter turnout in Philadelphia during a midterm primary that riveled voter turnout during Nov presidential elections. Poor Bob Casey won the rest of the state except maybe a few other urban counties and was still slaughtered by Rendell by like 15 points.

And Bethlehem Steel/Universal Health Care is going to be a major issue in 2004 with both Pennsylvania and Maryland. Both states had over 100k people lost their retirement benefits and pensions and these union people (including my stepfather) are being loud and vocal. Rick Sanatarium should be damn greatful he isn't running for another couple of years because these guys are protesting at his office and Rick is doing squat! (And Central PA Union guys usually are republicans). BTW, Bethelem Steel isn't the only one jumping on the Universal Health Care bandwagon. I went to one of these rallys with my stepfather and I counted at least 3 other Unions with members there!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. Hmmm....the Philly factor eh?

a little Pittsburgh there and you've got a winner. :)

[CMT]

22. I hope you are right

but Bush has been working the state hard and while Gore did carry it he did only narrowly. Historically Pa is a swing state since Nixon ('72) Reagan (80/84) and Bush (88) also won it. But I think we can do it too but it may not be a piece of cake.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. PA has alot of rural areas that are socially conservative.

That's why it sends reactionaries like Rick Santorum to Congress.

[West Coast Democrat]

25. Gore Carried PA by 4%

That's not very narrow

[diplomats]

24. I live in Pennsylvania

and I know it's early but this poll is depressing. The only thing that bucks me up is that Bush was at 53 percent in February before the Iraq war so he'll probably be back down in that range by the fall. I mean, he's at 53 percent in Michigan, and I think the margin in Michigan was closer in 2000 than it was in PA.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

27. Every Dem draws 34 to 38% without even campaigning yet

I'd say this is good news.

"Bush easily beats any possible Democratic challenger:

•54 -- 38 percent over Lieberman;
•55 -- 37 percent over Kerry;
•56 -- 36 percent over Gephardt;
•57 -- 34 percent over Dean."

[CMT]

31. thats true

the voters don't really know our candidates yet and we are getting more than a third of the vote. But the Democratic vote needs to really be firmed up--bush is getting 22-26 percent of the Dem vote while carrying over 90% of the GOP vote. We need our people to be as solid as his.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

42. Yep. And Kerry (or Dean) could solidify it

It's good news I say.

[liberalpragmatist]

26. It'll be competitive, but I think we'll win it

The Philly and Pittsburgh metro areas are responsive to us, as will many of the unions and lower-income citizens.

Plus, we have a few other things in our favor that WE didn't have in 2000 when we WON Pennsylvania:

1) Ed Rendell: Popular, Democratic governor, and they say that in a close state, the governor makes a 2 or 3 pt difference, esp. if they're popular.

2) Theresa Heinz: Ok, so this may only be a factor if Kerry is the nominee (I'll admit, he's who I'm rooting for) -- the Heinz family is EXTREMELY well respected in Pennsylvania, as is she.

[JVS]

30. Kerry would really benefit from the connections of his wife

Especially in Pittsburgh

[bearfartinthewoods]

33. maybe in pittsburg but in the middland, Kerry was viewed about as kindly

as aristotle onasis when he married the 'widder Heinz. it's been a long time though. maybe it's been forgotten.

[RobinA]

39. OK, I Amend My Post

If it's Bush v. Hein...er, Kerry, I've gotta go with Kerry. He may be the push over the top for Dems in PA. I think this state is very swingy in the past years. Gore was more or less the Dem incumbent in '00. I think Reagan is a more applicable for comparison. Didn't Reagan win in '80 when unemployment was, like, 10% and the Steelworkers were hemorraging mortally? For the blue collar and union vote, Bush brings out the Go America crowd

[kwolf68]

35. Ill soon be a Pennsylvanian

Presently, I live in Virginia, but will be moving to Southern, PA next year so count one more vote against Bush.

I believe Pennsylvania along with Ohio and Florida are possibly the most important states.

[blm]

36. Harrisburg area?

We're selling a house there.

[kwolf68]

40. No, but close

No it will be in the Waynesboro area.

[jiacinto]

38. Where in PA are you moving to?

I lived in Cumberland County for four years.

[kwolf68]

41. I am moving to

Waynesboro, PA.

In fact, we are looking at a great house this weekend that is across from the YMCA on Route 16 (the main street that goes through).

I work in D.C. and I have already time out 2 routes that gets me to my office within and hour and 15 minutes.