Posted on 03/05/2007 10:22:20 AM PST by Sunsong
Pennsylvania may just have given the Republican Party, and Rudy Giuliani in particular, some desperately needed good news. It came in the form of polling results provided by the Center for Opinion Research at Franklin and Marshall College.
The Keystone Poll found that if Pennsylvania residents decided today among the leading 2008 presidential contenders, either Giuliani or Sen. John McCain would defeat either Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama. Giuliani leads Clinton 53 percent to 37 percent, and he leads Obama 52 percent to 32 percent. McCain trumps Clinton 45 percent to 41 percent and Obama 43 percent to 37 percent. Those are startling findings, since 46 percent of Pennsylvania respondents told the pollsters they believed the Republican president was doing a "poor job."
Clearly, suburbanites are prepared to support a Republican presidential candidate who is tough on terrorists but moderate on social issues. Giuliani seems uniquely able to attract a majority of support from politically moderate Pennsylvanians. And it's significant that both Giuliani and McCain lead Clinton and Obama even in Southeastern Pennsylvania...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Some evidence that the 06 midterms were not a vote for dems/libs, but a vote against RINOs. Whether it was well placed or misplaced depends on how conscious the voters were or how knee-jerk they were.
Face the facts Rudy is the only candidate who can beat Hitlary. Rudy can win in moderate blue states such as PA.
Buyer's remorse. Sorry, NE PA, you voted for Rendell, you got 'im. PA does this all the time, in 4 years, they'll wonder why they got that dim bulb Casey. Just like what happened with Wofford. They'll never learn. Never.
By the time Santorum started to campaign, the local papers and the local TV had been pounding him for more than 2 yrs. and he was one of the most disliked politicans running against a Democrat candidate hand-chosen to beat him. (Name the same as the most beloved Governor in modern times, a pro-life socialist which is what most PA residents of both parties really love to vote for.)
His only chance to close the race was to carry the Republicrats, PA's country club suburban pro-choice voters. They, of course, turned up their nose and stayed home or voted D as they have been since he first ran.
You're correct about "some people having no clue" as to the PA electorate.
I heard her on Rush today laying on that southern stuff. Gawd awful! You'd think she might have picked up on some of that while living in Arkansas, but I guess she is so self-absorbed she doesn't even hear other people. Also Rush has said that from now on she will be referred to by him as "Mrs. Clinton, the wife of the former president Bill Clinton". Just to keep her from trying to dump any of that baggage.
And FReepers should bear in mind that the DU and company are watching us beating one another up over here.
I don't think so. Rendell was enthusiastcilly supported by Republicans and democrats this last election.
It's not that blue.
Those people in the state house were ousted because of the pay raise.
I always like how the against Rudy types say that Rudy would lose the state, and then you look at the polls and you see him doing well in them. What's Rudy polling in TN these days, or is it meaningless? Ford didn't lost to Corker by much.
Again, Bush lost both states and won anyway, so who cares?
For God's sake, don't hold back so! Let it all out!
Unfortunately I agree with you. But I wouldn't just blame Philly emigres. A LOT of New York liberals have invaded PA aas they have overrun NJ.
While writing PA off politically in an election probably makes sense, conservatives must stop the spread of liberalism by logical proselytization in liberal areas.
I believe oour product is a better product. I believe our problem is in the marketing and in restrictive tactics by our organized competitors in the leftist media and schools.
That's what I have heard also.
That's what I have heard also.
I really think Ohio is in bigger danger today than in 04 or 00. If Bush had lost Ohio, he would have lost either one of the elections.
That's nice - but that's an economic statement and can be interpreted in a number of ways.
I believe PA was VERY far down in job opportunities in the past. I believe it was hurt badly by the loss of industry overseas. So, one would expect that eventually it would be making a comeback. I wish it well.
Bush barely carried Ohio. But then Bush had a rough time in a lot of states.
I think part of the problem was not political philosophy - it was Bush.
Bush is one of the most inarticulate Presidents I have ever heard. He makes Ford sound like an accomplished orator. Also, I don't think he did a very good job campaigning. I think he won both elections just as much as the Democrats lost them.
We have a good product - basic conservative, strong defense, good enomic policy - what we need is an equally good salesman who beleives in that product.
As late as 10/31/2004 Gallup showed Bush with a four point lead in Pennsylvania. Other polls showed him with various higher leads coming up to the election though some did show Kerry ahead. Bush had enjoyed various leads for awhile, so this was not an aberrant result.
Result: Kerry 51, Bush 49.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.