Pennsylvania 2012 Why no Romney Effort?

[Kevin]

Why didn't Mitt Romney in 2012 focus much effort on PA until the very end of the race in November of last year?

I ask because throughout most of his campaign he wrote off Pennsylvania as "unwinnable "and instead decided to focus on states that him and his political advisors deemed they ether needed to win or could make Obama  "fight" for such as OH, VA, FL, NH, CO and MI.

Imo this was a very unwise move on Romney's part as PA started to show significant promise for him towards the end and he could have put Obama on the defensive here had he focused a lot more on the state much earlier in the campaign.

As Obama's victory in PA seemed very underwhelming in comparison to his one in 2008. For example, his performance in the Philadelphia suburbs seemed anemic compared to 4 years earlier and even Kerry's/Gore's in 2004 and 2000 respectively. It seemed one of the few reasons why Obama won PA in 2012 was the record high turnout amongst core Democratic base groups such as minorities.  

Then again am I correct in this assumption? Was Romney's chance's in PA really that high to begin with? Could he have made the state more competitive if he had focused on it earlier and ran a better national campaign?

[barfbag]

He made some efforts but certainly nothing like Bush did when he was president. The state didn't look close until the last month of the election though. Honestly, I thought it would be a nail biter. It's definitely trending to the right and a battleground state. Please notice Democrats talking about Georgia and Arizona but not Pennsylvania. Although, I must say Pennsylvania is pretty much the same election state it was in 1960 and hasn't really changed. If Republicans win by more than 5, then it goes red.

2004 +5 D
2008 +4 D
2012 +2 D

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Pennsylvania has changed drastically since the 1960's.

I think the registration numbers were the primary reason and seen as just too high a hurdle to get past.


Romney should have been organizing in the state for the entire year was as in Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon and he should have gone hard and heavy in all four after that first debate win.

[illegaloperation]

I've said this earlier: Pennsylvania should be alarming to the Democrats.

About 2/3 of the state is in the Appalachians and Democrats have utterly collapsed in the Appalachians.

Romney should have been organizing in the state for the entire year was as in Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon and he should have gone hard and heavy in all four after that first debate win.

None of those three states have much potential for Republican (unlike Pennsylvania).

I have heard a lot of people said that the GOP should be competitive in Minnesota because the state is very white. This is nonsense. Republicans perform very well with Southern whites, but Minnesota doesn't have a lot of Southern white. The same can be observed in Maine. It is the whitest state in the nation, yet it overwhelmingly votes for Obama and other Democrats.

Oregon isn't really competitive without a third party peeling away Democratic votes. Portland will continue power the state to Democratic wins. Even without Portland, the state will be about even.

Michigan - don't even go there. It would be one of the last Midwestern state to go Republican had Romney overwhelmingly won the Midwest (which he didn't).

[old timey villain]

I agree that Obama's performance in PA was underwhelming and I do worry about the long term prospects for Democrats in the state.

But I really don't think Romney would have been able to win the state, even with a much stronger effort. PA is pretty inelastic.

[Devils30]

Geographically PA is very Appalachian but population wise it really isnt even close to 2/3. Everywhere in western PA has actually declined population wise in the past 80 years while eastern PA is still growing. Some counties like Lehigh, Monroe in the east have a growing minority population and those areas are more northeastern and not into the GOPs hardline conservatism. Even Lancaster County isn't providing the GOP the same numbers it once did.
Only way the GOP turns PA red is by making more gains in western PA and Scranton (which has trended Dem since 1988 contrary to perception). GOP also needs to gain in the Philly burbs and the registration numbers by age are alarming for them in all of those counties.

http://www.redracinghorses.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1947

A 2% GOP trend since 2000 really does not say too much.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First off, even with Romney's poor polling data, it was clear that he'd have to pick up Ohio, Florida, and Virginia for Pennsylvania to even be in play.  That gets him to 266 right there. At that point there are any number of fourth states that would have put him over the top, of which if you look at things historically, Pennsylvania was among the least likely of those that would have been possible. I think most people would have thought Colorado, New Hampshire, or Iowa would have been likelier to go Romney than Pennsylvania. (As it was, assuming uniform swing, Colorado would have been Romney's fourth state.) So until his campaign began to think of 300 as the goal to shoot for rather than 270, it didn't make much sense to waste time and money in the Keystone State, especially time.

[barfbag]

First off, even with Romney's poor polling data, it was clear that he'd have to pick up Ohio, Florida, and Virginia for Pennsylvania to even be in play.  That gets him to 266 right there. At that point there are any number of fourth states that would have put him over the top, of which if you look at things historically, Pennsylvania was among the least likely of those that would have been possible. I think most people would have thought Colorado, New Hampshire, or Iowa would have been likelier to go Romney than Pennsylvania. (As it was, assuming uniform swing, Colorado would have been Romney's fourth state.) So until his campaign began to think of 300 as the goal to shoot for rather than 270, it didn't make much sense to waste time and money in the Keystone State, especially time.

This is exactly right. When he was looking at a landslide towards the end before Sandy we saw an effort in PA. His last stop on election day was in Pittsburgh.

[MalaspinaGold]

Of course the question is WHY the Romney campaign was aiming for a landslide by election day. It was fairly obvious to most reputable analyzers that Obama would come out ahead (Silver gave Obama somewhere around 85% chance of winning).

Also, if Romney had focused his ground game in Pennsylvania earlier, and the state was actually starting to look close, Obama would probably have poured tons of money into that state. As it happened, Obama spent very little time in Pennsylvania.

[barfbag]

Of course the question is WHY the Romney campaign was aiming for a landslide by election day. It was fairly obvious to most reputable analyzers that Obama would come out ahead (Silver gave Obama somewhere around 85% chance of winning).

Also, if Romney had focused his ground game in Pennsylvania earlier, and the state was actually starting to look close, Obama would probably have poured tons of money into that state. As it happened, Obama spent very little time in Pennsylvania.

Traditional polling showed PA in the leaning Obama column until the end and the overall election looked more favorable for Obama until the debates. It's easy to see with hindsight but not ahead of time.

[MalaspinaGold]

I saw with hindsight everything except Florida and the North Dakota and Nevada Senate races. And all I did was occasionally read Nate Silver's blog.

[barfbag]

I saw with hindsight everything except Florida and the North Dakota and Nevada Senate races. And all I did was occasionally read Nate Silver's blog.

and?

[barfbag]

I saw with hindsight everything except Florida and the North Dakota and Nevada Senate races. And all I did was occasionally read Nate Silver's blog.

Wait, how could you have hindsight before the election?

[barfbag]

The non-existent "Romney Surge" in October made the Romney team think Pennsylvania could be put in play. Democrats said he was desperate like McCain in '08, while after the election it was revealed they were going for a blow-out, not a back-up.


They legitimately thought they could snatch Pennsylvania to get 305 EVs(they assumed they would win FL, VA, NC, IO, NH, CO, and OH), assuming uniform national swing.

He had a surge which fizzled in the last week.

[Franknburger]

The non-existent "Romney Surge" in October made the Romney team think Pennsylvania could be put in play. Democrats said he was desperate like McCain in '08, while after the election it was revealed they were going for a blow-out, not a back-up.


They legitimately thought they could snatch Pennsylvania to get 305 EVs(they assumed they would win FL, VA, NC, IO, NH, CO, and OH), assuming uniform national swing.

He had a surge which fizzled in the last week.

He never had a real surge. Among the undecided, males preferred Romney, females went to Obama. The male trend became obvious earlier in time, creating the impression of a Romney surge. Undecided females were always most likely to overwhelmingly vote for Obama, as they already did in 2008. However, they either failed to pass certain pollsters' likely voter screening (Gallup), or they only voiced their intention quite late, if at all.

[barfbag]

The non-existent "Romney Surge" in October made the Romney team think Pennsylvania could be put in play. Democrats said he was desperate like McCain in '08, while after the election it was revealed they were going for a blow-out, not a back-up.


They legitimately thought they could snatch Pennsylvania to get 305 EVs(they assumed they would win FL, VA, NC, IO, NH, CO, and OH), assuming uniform national swing.

He had a surge which fizzled in the last week.

He never had a real surge. Among the undecided, males preferred Romney, females went to Obama. The male trend became obvious earlier in time, creating the impression of a Romney surge. Undecided females were always most likely to overwhelmingly vote for Obama, as they already did in 2008. However, they either failed to pass certain pollsters' likely voter screening (Gallup), or they only voiced their intention quite late, if at all.

There was a Romney surge following the first debate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There was a Romney surge following the first debate.

Not really.  Those weren't neutrals that Romney picked up but lean-Romney types who needed either a great Romney debate performance or a poor Obama one to get them to vote for him.  Even f you count that as a surge it was far mre an anti-Obama surge than a pro-Romney surge.

[barfbag]

There was a Romney surge following the first debate.

Not really.  Those weren't neutrals that Romney picked up but lean-Romney types who needed either a great Romney debate performance or a poor Obama one to get them to vote for him.  Even f you count that as a surge it was far mre an anti-Obama surge than a pro-Romney surge.

It was still a surge.

[Kevin]

There was a Romney surge following the first debate.

Not really.  Those weren't neutrals that Romney picked up but lean-Romney types who needed either a great Romney debate performance or a poor Obama one to get them to vote for him.  Even f you count that as a surge it was far mre an anti-Obama surge than a pro-Romney surge.

I would agree with that,

As imo the momentum nationally was going against Obama after his very poor first debate, until the last couple of weeks before the swing against him halted.

Ether way though I feel that Obama could have won because like Bush in 2004 he had far superior turnout model and campaign in general then his opponent.

[barfbag]

The non-existent "Romney Surge" in October made the Romney team think Pennsylvania could be put in play. Democrats said he was desperate like McCain in '08, while after the election it was revealed they were going for a blow-out, not a back-up.


They legitimately thought they could snatch Pennsylvania to get 305 EVs(they assumed they would win FL, VA, NC, IO, NH, CO, and OH), assuming uniform national swing.

So did Michael Barone.

[Nichlemn]

I don't know why there are people that think it's stupid for Republican presidential candidates to contest PA, but think it's just fine that Democrats contest NC.

[barfbag]

I don't know why there are people that think it's stupid for Republican presidential candidates to contest PA, but think it's just fine that Democrats contest NC.

The type of people you refer to are called Democrats.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

There was no Romney effort because as many have said, if he were to win PA he has already won FL, OH, and VA. At this point winning Pennsylvania would be about the same as winning a state like Colorado or New Hampshire. With the "October Surge" Romney thought he he was able to take states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and wanted Obama to spend more money on defense in states like those than states like OH and FL. So logically it makes more sense to contest a small state like Iowa than a big, inelastic one like Pennsylvania, since the result will be, ultimately, the same.

[hopper]

I've said this earlier: Pennsylvania should be alarming to the Democrats.

About 2/3 of the state is in the Appalachians and Democrats have utterly collapsed in the Appalachians.

Romney should have been organizing in the state for the entire year was as in Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon and he should have gone hard and heavy in all four after that first debate win.

None of those three states have much potential for Republican (unlike Pennsylvania).

I have heard a lot of people said that the GOP should be competitive in Minnesota because the state is very white. This is nonsense. Republicans perform very well with Southern whites, but Minnesota doesn't have a lot of Southern white. The same can be observed in Maine. It is the whitest state in the nation, yet it overwhelmingly votes for Obama and other Democrats.

Oregon isn't really competitive without a third party peeling away Democratic votes. Portland will continue power the state to Democratic wins. Even without Portland, the state will be about even.

Michigan - don't even go there. It would be one of the last Midwestern state to go Republican had Romney overwhelmingly won the Midwest (which he didn't).

Romney did win the White Vote in MN 49-48% but in the Twin Cities is where the R's get destroyed.

Michigan actually has a 1 point lower Dem PVI than Oregon(D+4 to D+5.)

[barfbag]

I've said this earlier: Pennsylvania should be alarming to the Democrats.

About 2/3 of the state is in the Appalachians and Democrats have utterly collapsed in the Appalachians.

Romney should have been organizing in the state for the entire year was as in Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon and he should have gone hard and heavy in all four after that first debate win.

None of those three states have much potential for Republican (unlike Pennsylvania).

I have heard a lot of people said that the GOP should be competitive in Minnesota because the state is very white. This is nonsense. Republicans perform very well with Southern whites, but Minnesota doesn't have a lot of Southern white. The same can be observed in Maine. It is the whitest state in the nation, yet it overwhelmingly votes for Obama and other Democrats.

Oregon isn't really competitive without a third party peeling away Democratic votes. Portland will continue power the state to Democratic wins. Even without Portland, the state will be about even.

Michigan - don't even go there. It would be one of the last Midwestern state to go Republican had Romney overwhelmingly won the Midwest (which he didn't).

Romney did win the White Vote in MN 49-48% but in the Twin Cities is where the R's get destroyed.

Michigan actually has a 1 point lower Dem PVI than Oregon(D+4 to D+5.)

It's interesting and I hope I'm not too far off topic that out of those three battleground states you just mentioned, the only one I see staying is Minnesota. It will be close there in the foreseeable future but the Democrats will win by about 5 on average. As for Michigan and Oregon, they should remain in the single digits, but I think they're on their way out as battleground states.