PA Primary 2008

[Keystone Phil]

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/pa_poll_061506.htm


19. Who is your choice for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008? (Democrats only)
Hillary Clinton 33%
Al Gore 18%
John Edwards 14%
Russ Feingold 6%
John Kerry 5%
Mark Warner 2%
Wesley Clark 2%
Joseph Biden 2%
Ed Rendell 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 13%

20. Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)
Rudy Giuliani 39%
John McCain 28%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Mitt Romney 5%
Bill Frist 3%
George Allen 3%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 14%

[MasterJedi]

It's only name recognition so far though it's still interesting.

[Boris]

Does anyone have any polls like this for South Carolina? If Guiliani wants to win the nomination, the South Carolina Primary may be his biggest obstacle.

Indeed, this poll is very interesting (for the GOP side, at least). How far is the Pennsylvania Primary down in the order?

[Keystone Phil]

Indeed, this poll is very interesting (for the GOP side, at least). How far is the Pennsylvania Primary down in the order?

We were trying to move the primary up to early March, I believe. I don't know what happened with that.

[adam]

I think people really need to stop with the "Rudy can't win" spiel. All polls show him to be the favorite among Republicans everywhere (unless Condi Rice is in the mix). I think if Rudy runs, he'll blow the top off of GOP primary race. Who do you think Republicans are more likely to side with? A strong leader with a proven record to be tough on crime, or a wussy pro-amnesty Republicrat in John McCain? Not to mention McCain's newest addition to his foreign policy: "Cut it out!!"

I think it's Rudy's if he can take it.

[Keystone Phil]

I think people really need to stop with the "Rudy can't win" spiel. All polls show him to be the favorite among Republicans everywhere (unless Condi Rice is in the mix). I think if Rudy runs, he'll blow the top off of GOP primary race. Who do you think Republicans are more likely to side with? A strong leader with a proven record to be tough on crime, or a wussy pro-amnesty Republicrat in John McCain? Not to mention McCain's newest addition to his foreign policy: "Cut it out!!"

I think it's Rudy's if he can take it.

They aren't looking at issues now; they're looking at the name. At this time four years ago, Joe Lieberman was at the top of the polls because of name ID once Gore was taken out of the poll questioning. Do you think he could have won the nomination?

[Boris]

I think people really need to stop with the "Rudy can't win" spiel. All polls show him to be the favorite among Republicans everywhere (unless Condi Rice is in the mix). I think if Rudy runs, he'll blow the top off of GOP primary race. Who do you think Republicans are more likely to side with? A strong leader with a proven record to be tough on crime, or a wussy pro-amnesty Republicrat in John McCain? Not to mention McCain's newest addition to his foreign policy: "Cut it out!!"

I think it's Rudy's if he can take it.

They aren't looking at issues now; they're looking at the name. At this time four years ago, Joe Lieberman was at the top of the polls because of name ID once Gore was taken out of the poll questioning. Do you think he could have won the nomination?

Phil, you probably know Pennsylvania politics much more than I do, so I have a question: Will Pennsylvania GOPers be turned off by Guiliani's record  on social issues? You can bet that people such as Allen will definitely use Guiliani's pro-choice position against him during the nomination phase.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, you probably know Pennsylvania politics much more than I do, so I have a question: Will Pennsylvania GOPers be turned off by Guiliani's record  on social issues? You can bet that people such as Allen will definitely use Guiliani's pro-choice position against him during the nomination phase.

As we all know, the base of the party turns out in these primaries. Now there is still somewhat of a loyal Republican base in my area - Southeastern PA. These Republicans are loyal but pretty much RINOs. Rudy's social liberalism wouldn't hurt him in most areas of SE PA. The base of the party in this area in Northeast Philadelphia (yes, we have some very loyal Republicans here) wouldn't like it so they aren't locked up for Rudy but Montgomery and Bucks counties would be good areas for him. Montco's GOP organization is taking a back seat to the Dems but you'll still find an active Republican party there that could really turn out the vote for someone like Giuliani. This could lead to big vote totals for the former NYC Mayor but it likely wouldn't.

You now have to look at the rest of the state's Republican organization. Republicans, like myself, would be attracted to Rudy's stances on dealing with crime, leadership after 9/11, etc. but we are socially conservative. Abortion certainly wouldn't be the only thing to kill Rudy everywhere else. His position on gay marriage and guns would also have Republicans in the rest of the state totally turned off.

In the end, it would come down to a battle of turnout. If the SE was somehow able to totally dominate in getting out the vote, Rudy could take it. I don't see that happening though.

[TomC]

Do Republicans follow the same rules the Democrats do in terms of states that they won in the last election are weighted more heavily with delegates than the states they lost. In other words, states a party wins get a handful of extra delegates? (Democrats used to do this anyway.)

[Keystone Phil]

Do Republicans follow the same rules the Democrats do in terms of states that they won in the last election are weighted more heavily with delegates than the states they lost. In other words, states a party wins get a handful of extra delegates? (Democrats used to do this anyway.)

I don't think so. That seems very odd.

[adam]

They aren't looking at issues now; they're looking at the name. At this time four years ago, Joe Lieberman was at the top of the polls because of name ID once Gore was taken out of the poll questioning. Do you think he could have won the nomination?

How can you compare Rudy to Lieberman? Lieberman was on a losing presidential ticket, which for some reason seems to be very popular with Democrats. Lieberman had the wrong kind of name recognition, where as Rudy has a record as strong leader and even a hero to some. I wont garuntee anything, but I think the political junkies are banking too much on the fact that one or two social liberal stances will shoot his campaign down.

[Keystone Phil]

They aren't looking at issues now; they're looking at the name. At this time four years ago, Joe Lieberman was at the top of the polls because of name ID once Gore was taken out of the poll questioning. Do you think he could have won the nomination?

How can you compare Rudy to Lieberman? Lieberman was on a losing presidential ticket, which for some reason seems to be very popular with Democrats. Lieberman had the wrong kind of name recognition, where as Rudy has a record as strong leader and even a hero to some. I wont garuntee anything, but I think the political junkies are banking too much on the fact that one or two social liberal stances will shoot his campaign down.

Uh...I can compare the two because most of their support comes from name ID. Once people found out about Lieberman's views, he dropped off. Once people find out about Rudy's views, he'll be ridiculed and won't get far.

[adam]

They aren't looking at issues now; they're looking at the name. At this time four years ago, Joe Lieberman was at the top of the polls because of name ID once Gore was taken out of the poll questioning. Do you think he could have won the nomination?

How can you compare Rudy to Lieberman? Lieberman was on a losing presidential ticket, which for some reason seems to be very popular with Democrats. Lieberman had the wrong kind of name recognition, where as Rudy has a record as strong leader and even a hero to some. I wont garuntee anything, but I think the political junkies are banking too much on the fact that one or two social liberal stances will shoot his campaign down.

Uh...I can compare the two because most of their support comes from name ID. Once people found out about Lieberman's views, he dropped off. Once people find out about Rudy's views, he'll be ridiculed and won't get far.

Found out about his views? I know they were terribly boring, but people still watched the 2000 VP debates. People knew where Lieberman was, they just didn't want to run a loser 4 years after he earned that titled (the same reason Edwards wont get nominated in 2008). People know where Rudy is on these social issues, I'll ask you this. Why hasn't McCain's  pro-amnesty agenda not hurt him as a candidate?

[Keystone Phil]

Found out about his views? I know they were terribly boring, but people still watched the 2000 VP debates. People knew where Lieberman was, they just didn't want to run a loser 4 years after he earned that titled (the same reason Edwards wont get nominated in 2008). People know where Rudy is on these social issues, I'll ask you this. Why hasn't McCain's  pro-amnesty agenda not hurt him as a candidate?

How many people watch VP debates, Vlad? Give me a break. Plus, the primary is when people really realize where people stand and when put up with the others, Lieberman wasn't nearly liberal enough.

People don't know where Rudy is on social issues. They're going mostly on name ID and the 9/11 factor. McCain hasn't been hurt by his immigration stance because, again, his support is mainly name based! You help me prove my point everytime.

[adam]

Found out about his views? I know they were terribly boring, but people still watched the 2000 VP debates. People knew where Lieberman was, they just didn't want to run a loser 4 years after he earned that titled (the same reason Edwards wont get nominated in 2008). People know where Rudy is on these social issues, I'll ask you this. Why hasn't McCain's  pro-amnesty agenda not hurt him as a candidate?

How many people watch VP debates, Vlad? Give me a break. Plus, the primary is when people really realize where people stand and when put up with the others, Lieberman wasn't nearly liberal enough.

People don't know where Rudy is on social issues. They're going mostly on name ID and the 9/11 factor. McCain hasn't been hurt by his immigration stance because, again, his support is mainly name based! You help me prove my point everytime.

You'd be suprised about the VP debates, a lot of people feel as though there is a hidden agenda in a VP choice and tune in to find out what it is. Here is the question I ask you, how do you know? All you have said is that "you're wrong, im right". Do you have a poll saying that they are going by name recognition? You have your claims, but until you offer some evidence that you are right...your claims are all you have.

[Speed of Sound]

Watch your back Hillary. Gore's on your trail!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ed Rendell 1%
Rick Santorum 1%

Can't you feel the home state love for those 2, the one from PA, and the one who pretends to be from PA?

[Keystone Phil]

Ed Rendell 1%
Rick Santorum 1%

Can't you feel the home state love for those 2, the one from PA, and the one who pretends to be from PA?

Here I think you might actually be busting on Rendell and you go and shock me again with your usual hack remarks.

[Keystone Phil]

You'd be suprised about the VP debates, a lot of people feel as though there is a hidden agenda in a VP choice and tune in to find out what it is. Here is the question I ask you, how do you know? All you have said is that "you're wrong, im right". Do you have a poll saying that they are going by name recognition? You have your claims, but until you offer some evidence that you are right...your claims are all you have.

No, I'm going by what everyone believes in the case and usually is. I don't have to have a poll (which I'm glad you ask for that as if it makes something fact) to back up my claims. What evidence do you have? How do you know people really know Rudy's views? All you have are claims.

You have so little knowledge that it scares me. You really think a lot of people watch VP debates? How delusional are you?

[adam]

You'd be suprised about the VP debates, a lot of people feel as though there is a hidden agenda in a VP choice and tune in to find out what it is. Here is the question I ask you, how do you know? All you have said is that "you're wrong, im right". Do you have a poll saying that they are going by name recognition? You have your claims, but until you offer some evidence that you are right...your claims are all you have.

No, I'm going by what everyone believes in the case and usually is. I don't have to have a poll (which I'm glad you ask for that as if it makes something fact) to back up my claims. What evidence do you have? How do you know people really know Rudy's views? All you have are claims.

You have so little knowledge that it scares me. You really think a lot of people watch VP debates? How delusional are you?

I don't flaunt my commentary as if it's fact, like some other people who have a swelling ego to fill. A poll or anything besides your cheesy but typical "Im right because your not" comments would be sufficient to back up your claims. Polls don't make things fact, but neither does your opinion. I'm sure there are some people who don't know of Rudy's less than conservative social views but on the whole, people have had this fact pointed out to them hundreds of times by religious right activists and his GOP opponents in the NYC Mayoral primaries...believe it or not, this hasn't changed public opinion of him. When Rudy's divorce scandal broke, his public opinion polls didn't shift. After his role in 9/11, I don't think that most conservatives with an IQ over 5 see "pro-choice" Rudy. I could be wrong, but every approval rating poll and 2008 poll are on my side with this one.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't flaunt my commentary as if it's fact, like some other people who have a swelling ego to fill.

Uh...I do? Tell me, where's your poll to back that up?

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, you started with the "I'm right. How do you know you're right."

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither does your opinion! His public opinion didn't shift after a divorce or after he said he would support legalized partial birth abortion because he was Mayor of New York City!

I don't care what every opinion poll says. I don't care that they're on your side. They were on Lieberman's side and guess how far that got him. Everyone involved in politics will say that early polls reflect name ID advantages. I'm sorry that you don't realize that.

[adam]

Actually, you started with the "I'm right. How do you know you're right."

I never said I was right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They didn't shift nationally either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care that you don't care. Better options opened up and Lieberman lost, Giuliani doesn't have that problem. Everyone in politics said Gore was a sure winner. Few people in politics have much better insight than you or I do.

[Keystone Phil]

I never said I was right, learn to read moron.

No, but you're acting like it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Show me national polls taken after his divorce. Why would anyone have a nationwide poll for the Mayor of NYC before 9/11?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha...ok. Or it could have been based mainly on name ID. I love how apparently Rudy doesn't have that problem. Stop acting like you're right when the primaries are two years away.

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I expect that there will be several other states voting at the same time as SC, just as there were in 2004.  So I wouldn't expect that SC would return to its pre-2004 significance.

Do Republicans follow the same rules the Democrats do in terms of states that they won in the last election are weighted more heavily with delegates than the states they lost. In other words, states a party wins get a handful of extra delegates? (Democrats used to do this anyway.)

I don't think so. That seems very odd.

Actually, both parties award delegate bonuses to states based on "party strength" in the state, so that for two states of equal populations, the more Republican state will get more delegates at the GOP convention, while the more Democratic state will get more delegates at the Democratic convention.  See for example:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/NatDelegates2004.html

"But, in 1976, a new allocation formula for Republican Conventions was introduced, one which- at least as far as the basics are concerned- survives to this day: each State is given 3 delegates for each Electoral Vote, after which bonus delegates in the amount of 4 1/2 + (60% of the State's Electoral Vote)- rounded up to the nearest whole integer- are awarded where a State has given its Electoral Vote, in the last Presidential Election, to the Republican ticket or has elected a Republican United States Senator, a Republican Governor, or Republicans to at least half of the State's U.S. House delegation. Since then, bonus delegates have also been awarded by the Republicans to States where the Republicans have a majority of the seats in the state's legislature or control of the legislature or where Republicans have made significant gains in percentage of legislative seats since the last Convention."

[jman724]

If i could jump into the giuliani performance debate, i would like to add that here in ohio i have known people who said they were going to vote for the more moderate candidate, and right before the election or in the voting booth they changed their mind.  this seems to be true with both republicans and democrats.  don't know why, but that is the way some people are.  maybe when they are about to make that final decision all those negative ads pop into memory.