PA-PPP: Obama Romney tied at 45%

[krazen1211]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/obama-struggling-in-pennsylvania.html

45-45 Obama/Romney
53-35 Obama/Cain
49-43 Obama/Gingrich
46-42 Obama/Paul
51-38 Obama/Perry

Obama and Romney are tied at 45% each but if you dig in on the undecided voters only 24% of them approve of Obama's job performance to 70% who disapprove. They may not be completely sold on Romney yet but for the most part if you don't approve of the incumbent President, you're not going to vote for him. If those folks really had to make a decision today it's likely they'd move in Romney's direction and hand him the state.



Pennsylvania whites are certainly not happy with obama.

[Devils30]

This is a mild outlier, 46% of PA voters are not conservatives

[King]

What are you talking about krazen? He's up 6 to 18 percent with actual contenders for the nomination.

[Beet]

Ron Paul is only 4 points behind.

[NVGonzalez]

What are you talking about krazen? He's up 6 to 18 percent with actual contenders for the nomination.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Gingrich is doing surprisingly bad for a native of that state.  Santorum ain't doing too hot, either.

[memphis]

How many polls does the GOP base need to realize that their only winning option is Romney? Or would they prefer to lose the whole election with one of the clown candidates? What is so terrible about Romney that you'd rather keep Obama? Does it hurt your feelings that he won't do the John Wayne cowboy act?

[Franzl]

How many polls does the GOP base need to realize that their only winning option is Romney? Or would they prefer to lose the whole election with one of the clown candidates? What is so terrible about Romney that you'd rather keep Obama? Does it hurt your feelings that he won't do the John Wayne cowboy act?

The vast majority of Republican voters doesn't look at polls like this....and likely believes that the way a Republican loses is by being insufficiently conservative.

[King]

This is not the Republicans fault, Franzl.  Conservatism is a pretty rural ideology.  When have to go 50 miles to meet a Democrat, you just assume the nation is mostly like this.

[krazen1211]

This is a mild outlier, 46% of PA voters are not conservatives

Uh, its the same as the last couple PA polls. Toomey/Sestak is probably Romney's ceiling in most counties.

[memphis]

This is not the Republicans fault, Franzl.  Conservatism is a pretty rural ideology.  When have to go 50 miles to meet a Democrat, you just assume the nation is mostly like this.

I don't think many folks in San Francisco think that a moderate Dem would lose becuase he would be insufficiently liberal. They may not like his stance on everything, and may vote for the less electable Dem in the primary out of principle, but they above statement doesn't make any sense. But I have heard the standard GOP talking point that they win when the go super conservative. And I think it's going to work out for me swimmingly next year. So maybe I ought to just keep my big mouth shut for a change.

[King]

Does San Fran vote for the more moderate sounding of the two Dems in primary? No. Never.

[Lambsbread]

46-42 Obama/Paul

Well alright.

[memphis]

Does San Fran vote for the more moderate sounding of the two Dems in primary? No. Never.

Fair enough. They may vote out of principle and not strategically. But they don't do it or even justify it by saying that the more liberal candidate is more likely to win the general. That is what doesn't make any sense.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is a mild outlier, 46% of PA voters are not conservatives

Uh, its the same as the last couple PA polls. Toomey/Sestak is probably Romney's ceiling in most counties.

There was a slight homefield advantage for Sestak in Delco that Romney could erase. He might also perform a few points beyond even that threshold, and in Montco. But I doubt he would win either. He might outperform Toomey enough in the SE to counteract the likely increased Democratic turnout. The trick is to, like Toomey, win the blue collar voters in the Lehigh valley and SW PA simultaneously. Doing this Reagan style balancing act between rich and working class conservatives is the key to winning Pennsylvania, and Michigan for that matter.

[Keystone Phil]

The trick is to, like Toomey, win the blue collar voters in the Lehigh valley and SW PA simultaneously. Doing this Reagan style balancing act between rich and working class conservatives is the key to winning Pennsylvania, and Michigan for that matter.

Bingo. The Toomey strategy is the best plan for victory here.

[California8429]

Gingrich is doing surprisingly bad for a native of that state.  Santorum ain't doing too hot, either.

lol

I was born in New York but I highly doubt I'd ever win it if running for President.

[Devils30]

the 2010 exit polls had 35% identify as conservatives in PA, whereas this one has an absurdly high 46%. Dems shouldnt ring the alarm bells over one poll. That said, at least PPP is a generally good pollster and with only 11 months to go im sure PA will be polled another dozen times.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

the 2010 exit polls had 35% identify as conservatives in PA, whereas this one has an absurdly high 46%. Dems shouldnt ring the alarm bells over one poll. That said, at least PPP is a generally good pollster and with only 11 months to go im sure PA will be polled another dozen times.

In a good GOP year...

[pbrower2a]

Florida                 28   5.01%    52.10%    47.09%   
Colorado                   9   4.67%    51.69%    47.02%   
Nevada                   5   2.59%    50.47%    47.88%
US total              270+   2.46%       50.73%    48.27%
Ohio                         18   2.11%    50.81%    48.71%   
New Mexico           5   0.79%    49.84%    49.05%   
Iowa                   6   0.67%    49.90%    49.23%   
Wisconsin                 10   0.38%    49.32%    49.70%   
New Hampshire   4   1.37%    48.87%    50.24%   
Pennsylvania         20   2.50%    48.42%    50.92%       
Michigan                 16   3.42%    47.81%    51.23%   
Minnesota         10   3.48%    47.61%    51.09%   
Oregon               7   4.16%    47.19%    51.35%   

These were the legitimate swing states of the 2004 Presidential election (margins less than 6%). 

The key:

States that John Kerry won by more than the usual 4% margin of error (and had to win to be elected)
States that John Kerry won by less than the usual 4% margin of error (and had to win to be elected)
States that Dubya won but did not need to win but Kerry had to win to have a reasonable chance of victory
Victory line (both would have won with this state and lost without it)
States that Dubya won by less than the usual 4% margin of error (and had to win to be elected)*
States that Dubya won by more than the usual 4% margin of error (and had to win to be elected)

*Kerry could have won the 2004 election by a uniform shift of 1.12% and 1.23% by winning Ohio but still not winning the popular vote.

The states will not quite line up that way even in sequence in 2012 even if the 2004 and 2008 elections are variations on a theme of 2000. 

To be sure, President Obama looks to have an easy re-election (for now) against anyone but Mitt Romney.  No other Republican projects to any of the swing states of 2008 -- or Arizona, Missouri, North Carolina, or Virginia. It's easy to figure that President Obama wins at lest 370 electoral votes against anyone but Romney. 

Romney projects to be way ahead of President Obama in New Hampshire and tied in Nevada and Pennsylvania.

If President Obama loses Florida, New Hampshire, and Nevada from among these swing states but no others, then he wins, if barely. If he also loses either Ohio or Pennsylvania, then he has to win something outside this group. At this moment Arizona looks most promising. But that seems unlikely if President Obama loses Nevada.  Arizona is becoming a disaster for the GOP (check the most recent PPP poll for the Republican Governor and  the two Republican Senators from the state).
   

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The trick is to, like Toomey, win the blue collar voters in the Lehigh valley and SW PA simultaneously. Doing this Reagan style balancing act between rich and working class conservatives is the key to winning Pennsylvania, and Michigan for that matter.

Bingo. The Toomey strategy is the best plan for victory here.

The way you cut that post is somewhat misleading. What I meant was with the Lehigh Valley and SW PA while simulaneously matching or exceeding (preferably exceeding by a handfull of points atleast considering Philly will have higher turnout along with Scranton and Pittsburgh) Toomey in the SE. While you undoubtedly understand this, others many not.

[Zarn]

How many polls does the GOP base need to realize that their only winning option is Romney? Or would they prefer to lose the whole election with one of the clown candidates? What is so terrible about Romney that you'd rather keep Obama? Does it hurt your feelings that he won't do the John Wayne cowboy act?

Paul does better with independents in most polls. His numbers are usually lower due to neocons claiming he is an isolationist, a Justin Bieber fan, or something else equally stupid, so their candidate looks good by comparison. These people would vote for Paul in the general. They just don't want to admit it, because he is not their guy/guys.

Romney does better with Republicans, but the ones that don't like him see him as no different than Obama. This includes libertarians/paleocons and so-cons. Why let the Republican party get the blame for the stupid policies? Romney also won't win the increasingly anti-war independents.

[Badger]

the 2010 exit polls had 35% identify as conservatives in PA, whereas this one has an absurdly high 46%. Dems shouldnt ring the alarm bells over one poll. That said, at least PPP is a generally good pollster and with only 11 months to go im sure PA will be polled another dozen times.

In a phenomenally good GOP year...