Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 20, 2017, 05:47:29 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  2016 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter, TJ in Wisco)
| | |-+  Pennsylvania
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Pennsylvania  (Read 1239 times)
King of Kensington
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1645


View Profile
« on: October 16, 2017, 04:11:54 pm »
Ignore

I have a copy of How Barack Obama Won (Chuck Todd and Sheldon Gawaiser).  An excerpt from their chapter on Pennsylvania:

Quote
The key mistake McCain made in Pennsylvania was treating the state as if were made up of nothing but blue-collar voters.  In fact, Pennsylvania, demographically, looks more like a Northeast or New England state than the industrial Midwest.  Fully half of the state's electorate were college graduates, putting it closer to the education level of states that border it to the east (New York and New Jersey) and south (Maryland), than states that border it to the southwest (West Virginia) and west (Ohio).

It used to be said the key for Democrats was to win the east (Philadelphia) and west (Pittsburgh) and concede the middle.  But the east has grown a lot bigger than just the Philadelphia area and now Obama has shown how a Democrat can simply run up huge margins in the entire eastern half of the state and still win statewide.  Republicans aren't going to win statewide in Pennsylvania any time soon if they don't start making up for lost ground in the suburbs.  In fact, this McCain deficit in the Philadelphia suburbs was mirrored in suburban communities all over the country; it wasn't just concentrated in Pennsylvania.

This analysis seems wrong in several respects.  First, Pennsylvania doesn't have anywhere close the the educational attainment levels of New York, New Jersey, New England and Maryland - so either there was a huge skew towards college graduates voting in PA in particular that year or these exit poll surveys include a fair number of people who don't actually have 4-year degrees.  Also, it seems to downplay Obama having a pretty solid WWC vote in PA.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1162


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2017, 04:56:45 pm »
Ignore

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.
Logged
super6646
Full Member
***
Posts: 161


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2017, 05:02:08 pm »
Ignore

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9ndn-R1_I&t=126s

This is the day Lehman collapsed (so polls before this day had to be compiled for this map). Mccain was doing far better than Romney ever did in 2012 at this point.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 870


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2017, 06:15:27 pm »
Ignore

McCain got a huge jump in the polls because of the Palin pick. Then she opened her mouth.
Logged
Biden/Kander 2020
jk2020
Full Member
***
Posts: 232


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2017, 06:19:13 pm »
Ignore

McCain got a huge jump in the polls because of the Palin pick. Then she opened her mouth.
Logged

Endorsements:
AL-Sen: Doug Jones
CA-Gov: Gavin Newsom
NY-Gov: Anthony Scaramucci
AZ-Sen: Kyrsten Sinema
ME-Sen: Angus King
OH-Sen: Sherrod Brown
UT-Sen: Mitt Romney
VA-Sen: Tim Kaine
HI-02: John Reiss

President 2020: Joseph R. Biden, Jr./Jason David Kander

New Zealand 2020: Nat
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1162


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2017, 06:30:39 pm »
Ignore

McCain got a huge jump in the polls because of the Palin pick. Then she opened her mouth.

Palin was highly scripted. No different from Rubio, but she was a VP, all she needed to do was stick to the script. Financial crisis complicated the issue, because it was a dynamic situation for which the Republican establishment did not have an established talking point for (initially some opposed, others supported TARP, until they eventually formally endorsed TARP in unison). Rubio had similar troubles in non-scripted settings.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5473


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2017, 06:43:37 pm »
Ignore

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9ndn-R1_I&t=126s

This is the day Lehman collapsed (so polls before this day had to be compiled for this map). Mccain was doing far better than Romney ever did in 2012 at this point.

Even in the period following the first 2012 debate? 
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 870


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2017, 07:19:02 pm »
Ignore

McCain got a huge jump in the polls because of the Palin pick. Then she opened her mouth.

Palin was highly scripted. No different from Rubio, but she was a VP, all she needed to do was stick to the script. Financial crisis complicated the issue, because it was a dynamic situation for which the Republican establishment did not have an established talking point for (initially some opposed, others supported TARP, until they eventually formally endorsed TARP in unison). Rubio had similar troubles in non-scripted settings.

Have you seen Game Change (the movie)?
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1162


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2017, 07:36:22 pm »
Ignore

McCain got a huge jump in the polls because of the Palin pick. Then she opened her mouth.

Palin was highly scripted. No different from Rubio, but she was a VP, all she needed to do was stick to the script. Financial crisis complicated the issue, because it was a dynamic situation for which the Republican establishment did not have an established talking point for (initially some opposed, others supported TARP, until they eventually formally endorsed TARP in unison). Rubio had similar troubles in non-scripted settings.

Have you seen Game Change (the movie)?

Same as Rubio. Rehearsed, Scripted, did everything per handler recommendation.
Logged
King of Kensington
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1645


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2017, 09:34:21 pm »
Ignore

What's interesting to me is this analysis suggests that a WWC-populist campaign could never work because too much like NY/NJ/MD, Philadelphia suburbs or whatever.
Logged
super6646
Full Member
***
Posts: 161


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2017, 10:46:03 pm »
Ignore

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9ndn-R1_I&t=126s

This is the day Lehman collapsed (so polls before this day had to be compiled for this map). Mccain was doing far better than Romney ever did in 2012 at this point.

Even in the period following the first 2012 debate? 

Yep. Romney was still losing Nevada and Ohio (two states Mccain was leading in), while being tied in Virginia, Colorado, Florida (Mccain doing a bit better in all of these states, with florida leaning for Mccain). Oregon and Washington were never even competitve for Romney (Mccain had closed to single digits), and Mccain was polling better in MN, MI, and even WI. Romney was never ahead of Obama, even at this best.
Logged
twenty42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 275
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2017, 03:01:52 pm »
Ignore

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9ndn-R1_I&t=126s

This is the day Lehman collapsed (so polls before this day had to be compiled for this map). Mccain was doing far better than Romney ever did in 2012 at this point.

The final results of 2008 make it easy to forget what a close, intense election it was for much of the year.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1162


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2017, 03:21:16 pm »
Ignore

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9ndn-R1_I&t=126s

This is the day Lehman collapsed (so polls before this day had to be compiled for this map). Mccain was doing far better than Romney ever did in 2012 at this point.

The final results of 2008 make it easy to forget what a close, intense election it was for much of the year.

It also allows people to forget how much of a polarizing figure Obama was. Hillary actually polled better than Obama swing-state wise.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/clintons-closing-argument-to-superdelegates/53314/

Obama wasn't picked for electability, he was picked for running a polarizing ideological campaign.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1412
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2017, 11:34:22 pm »
Ignore

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

I agree with this post. Without the financial crisis McCain could easily have squeaked a victory on the back of a Palin-inspired culture war victory as Trump managed in 2016.


Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9ndn-R1_I&t=126s

This is the day Lehman collapsed (so polls before this day had to be compiled for this map). Mccain was doing far better than Romney ever did in 2012 at this point.

The final results of 2008 make it easy to forget what a close, intense election it was for much of the year.

It also allows people to forget how much of a polarizing figure Obama was. Hillary actually polled better than Obama swing-state wise.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/clintons-closing-argument-to-superdelegates/53314/

Obama wasn't picked for electability, he was picked for running a polarizing ideological campaign.

This is a bit exaggerated though. Really, Obama was picked for running a (deliberately non-polarising) "let's make America post-racial" campaign. Clinton polled better in the swing states because she had more support among the WWC demographic which is highly concentrated there (as we saw in 2016), not because Obama was polarising. In fact, his fav/unfav during the campaign were stable in the low-60s/mid-30s. I also found this article from the primary about Obama bringing up Clinton's relatively high unfavourability and saying she "starts off with 47% of the country against her" (sound familiar?).

Though, in retrospect, I think things would have worked out better for the Democratic party and America if Clinton had won the nomination in 08. President Hillary could have avoided the whitelash Democrats suffered under Obama and also probably would have handled healthcare with more experience, then handing the baton to Obama's unifying post-racial message in the more 'woke' America of 2016.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2017, 11:47:25 pm by Statilius the Epicurean »Logged

They who have put out the people's eyes, reproach them of their blindness.
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1162


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2017, 12:08:04 am »
Ignore

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

I agree with this post. Without the financial crisis McCain could easily have squeaked a victory on the back of a Palin-inspired culture war victory as Trump managed in 2016.


Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9ndn-R1_I&t=126s

This is the day Lehman collapsed (so polls before this day had to be compiled for this map). Mccain was doing far better than Romney ever did in 2012 at this point.

The final results of 2008 make it easy to forget what a close, intense election it was for much of the year.

It also allows people to forget how much of a polarizing figure Obama was. Hillary actually polled better than Obama swing-state wise.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/clintons-closing-argument-to-superdelegates/53314/

Obama wasn't picked for electability, he was picked for running a polarizing ideological campaign.

This is a bit exaggerated though. Really, Obama was picked for running a (deliberately non-polarising) "let's make America post-racial" campaign. Clinton polled better in the swing states because she had more support among the WWC demographic which is highly concentrated there (as we saw in 2016), not because Obama was polarising. In fact, his fav/unfav during the campaign were stable in the low-60s/mid-30s. I also found this article from the primary about Obama bringing up Clinton's relatively high unfavourability and saying she "starts off with 47% of the country against her" (sound familiar?).

Though, in retrospect, I think things would have worked out better for the Democratic party and America if Clinton had won the nomination in 08. President Hillary could have avoided the whitelash Democrats suffered under Obama and also probably would have handled healthcare with more experience, then handing the baton to Obama's unifying post-racial message in the more 'woke' America of 2016.

He was more polarizing in Middle America (and especially the South) for sure. That's how the Blue Dogs were wiped out, that event begat the Tea Party. He won by pandering to the Left, and used the anti iraq war card to make an argument to overturn the foreign policy consensus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6f4tZFZ_-g
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5473


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2017, 07:40:39 am »
Ignore

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

I agree with this post. Without the financial crisis McCain could easily have squeaked a victory on the back of a Palin-inspired culture war victory as Trump managed in 2016.



I still believe that in the end, the best McCain could have done was a 1968 Humphrey or 1976 Ford style narrow loss even without the financial crisis.  The fundamentals were still horrible for McCain and much worse than they were for even Humphrey and Ford.  Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s and the economy was clearly in recession territory.  Unemployment rose from around 4.4% in summer 2007 to 6.2% in late summer 2008.  No candidate has ever won with the fundamentals so much against them.
Logged
twenty42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 275
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2017, 09:19:23 am »
Ignore

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

I agree with this post. Without the financial crisis McCain could easily have squeaked a victory on the back of a Palin-inspired culture war victory as Trump managed in 2016.



I still believe that in the end, the best McCain could have done was a 1968 Humphrey or 1976 Ford style narrow loss even without the financial crisis.  The fundamentals were still horrible for McCain and much worse than they were for even Humphrey and Ford.  Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s and the economy was clearly in recession territory.  Unemployment rose from around 4.4% in summer 2007 to 6.2% in late summer 2008.  No candidate has ever won with the fundamentals so much against them.

Fundamentals were pretty horrible for Truman in 1948.

One of McCain’s bigger mistakes was leaving Obama’s biggest scandal on the table until the very end. If he had hammered on Reverend Wright from the get-go I think he keeps IN/NC and puts OH into squeaker territory, even in OTL.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5473


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2017, 09:32:56 am »
Ignore

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

I agree with this post. Without the financial crisis McCain could easily have squeaked a victory on the back of a Palin-inspired culture war victory as Trump managed in 2016.



I still believe that in the end, the best McCain could have done was a 1968 Humphrey or 1976 Ford style narrow loss even without the financial crisis.  The fundamentals were still horrible for McCain and much worse than they were for even Humphrey and Ford.  Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s and the economy was clearly in recession territory.  Unemployment rose from around 4.4% in summer 2007 to 6.2% in late summer 2008.  No candidate has ever won with the fundamentals so much against them.

Fundamentals were pretty horrible for Truman in 1948.



The economy had fantastic economic growth for most of 1948 with a huge increase in real disposable income.  The economy didn't start sliding into recession until late Fall, well too late to start having an impact on the election.

Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1162


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2017, 11:08:54 am »
Ignore

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

I agree with this post. Without the financial crisis McCain could easily have squeaked a victory on the back of a Palin-inspired culture war victory as Trump managed in 2016.



I still believe that in the end, the best McCain could have done was a 1968 Humphrey or 1976 Ford style narrow loss even without the financial crisis.  The fundamentals were still horrible for McCain and much worse than they were for even Humphrey and Ford.  Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s and the economy was clearly in recession territory.  Unemployment rose from around 4.4% in summer 2007 to 6.2% in late summer 2008.  No candidate has ever won with the fundamentals so much against them.

Apparently, the fundamentals were stacked against GWB, how did he do?
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 870


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2017, 11:11:15 am »
Ignore

I still believe that in the end, the best McCain could have done was a 1968 Humphrey or 1976 Ford style narrow loss even without the financial crisis.  The fundamentals were still horrible for McCain and much worse than they were for even Humphrey and Ford.  Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s and the economy was clearly in recession territory.  Unemployment rose from around 4.4% in summer 2007 to 6.2% in late summer 2008.  No candidate has ever won with the fundamentals so much against them.

Someone said that had the economic collapse not happened, Obama's 2008 win would resemble his 2012 win - 4 popular vote lead, and the 2012 state margins.

That sounds about right. Palin could have been a huge boon if she was better prepped. She truly was the star of the 2008 election - even over Obama. No one cared about McCain.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 870


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2017, 11:14:48 am »
Ignore

Apparently, the fundamentals were stacked against GWB, how did he do?

Well he did lose the popular vote and it was the closest electoral college result in history. He only won Florida by the skin of his teeth (10,000 votes).
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1162


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2017, 11:29:49 am »
Ignore

I still believe that in the end, the best McCain could have done was a 1968 Humphrey or 1976 Ford style narrow loss even without the financial crisis.  The fundamentals were still horrible for McCain and much worse than they were for even Humphrey and Ford.  Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s and the economy was clearly in recession territory.  Unemployment rose from around 4.4% in summer 2007 to 6.2% in late summer 2008.  No candidate has ever won with the fundamentals so much against them.

Someone said that had the economic collapse not happened, Obama's 2008 win would resemble his 2012 win - 4 popular vote lead, and the 2012 state margins.

That sounds about right. Palin could have been a huge boon if she was better prepped. She truly was the star of the 2008 election - even over Obama. No one cared about McCain.

Would've been far closer than 2012. Before Lehman collapsed, not a single poll had Obama up in FL, VA, etc., in contrast, Hillary easily beat Mccain in FL and was competitive in a number of southern states like AR.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5473


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2017, 11:45:15 am »
Ignore

I still believe that in the end, the best McCain could have done was a 1968 Humphrey or 1976 Ford style narrow loss even without the financial crisis.  The fundamentals were still horrible for McCain and much worse than they were for even Humphrey and Ford.  Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s and the economy was clearly in recession territory.  Unemployment rose from around 4.4% in summer 2007 to 6.2% in late summer 2008.  No candidate has ever won with the fundamentals so much against them.

Someone said that had the economic collapse not happened, Obama's 2008 win would resemble his 2012 win - 4 popular vote lead, and the 2012 state margins.

That sounds about right. Palin could have been a huge boon if she was better prepped. She truly was the star of the 2008 election - even over Obama. No one cared about McCain.

Would've been far closer than 2012. Before Lehman collapsed, not a single poll had Obama up in FL, VA, etc., in contrast, Hillary easily beat Mccain in FL and was competitive in a number of southern states like AR.

There were plenty that had Obama ahead of McCain in Virginia before 9/15.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/va/virginia_mccain_vs_obama-551.html#polls
« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 11:47:07 am by Mr.Phips »Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1162


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2017, 11:52:30 am »
Ignore

I still believe that in the end, the best McCain could have done was a 1968 Humphrey or 1976 Ford style narrow loss even without the financial crisis.  The fundamentals were still horrible for McCain and much worse than they were for even Humphrey and Ford.  Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s and the economy was clearly in recession territory.  Unemployment rose from around 4.4% in summer 2007 to 6.2% in late summer 2008.  No candidate has ever won with the fundamentals so much against them.

Someone said that had the economic collapse not happened, Obama's 2008 win would resemble his 2012 win - 4 popular vote lead, and the 2012 state margins.

That sounds about right. Palin could have been a huge boon if she was better prepped. She truly was the star of the 2008 election - even over Obama. No one cared about McCain.

Would've been far closer than 2012. Before Lehman collapsed, not a single poll had Obama up in FL, VA, etc., in contrast, Hillary easily beat Mccain in FL and was competitive in a number of southern states like AR.

There were plenty that had Obama ahead of McCain in Virginia before 9/15.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/va/virginia_mccain_vs_obama-551.html#polls

Was exaggerating, but if you look at the trending of numbers before 9/15 overall Mccain looked more like Obama did in 2012 in those states than like Romney.

For sure, had Romney been the nominee in '08, he would've been wiped out.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 870


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2017, 12:16:24 pm »
Ignore

Would've been far closer than 2012. Before Lehman collapsed, not a single poll had Obama up in FL, VA, etc., in contrast, Hillary easily beat Mccain in FL and was competitive in a number of southern states like AR.

Obama was struggling in the polls in Virginia and Florida leading up to election day 2012.

He would have separated himself in 2008 as well. Same margins as 2012. No one cared about McCain and Palin was a flop after initial excitement.

Obama would have won Virginia 3-5 points in 2008 and Florida by 0.5-1.5.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines