Pollster.com

Wow. I though Obama's numbers looked bad in Indiana. They're even worse in Pennsylvania.

If there are states where Obama's approval is barely above 30%, there must be some states where his approval is absolutely huge in order for him to have a 48% overall approval rate.

I wish we had a state-by-state approval map chart. It would be interesting to see how red the center of the country has become compared to how blue the coasts are.

It is hard to see how any democrat is going to win a congressional election in a state with Obama's approval in the 30% range and Pelosi's in the 20% range. Those approvals match the lowest points of Bush's presidency.

Just a quick note: this is not Obama's rating for the entire state --it is PA-12 only, which is R+1. I'm not arguing that his rating is golden statewide, but it is not this low.

Hey, a Republican going on a long rant based on an inaccurate premise....consider me shocked.

It is hard to see how any democrat is going to win a congressional election in a state with Obama's approval in the 30% range and Pelosi's in the 20% range.

Ya, that's really something. Except that, according to Rassmussen, Obama's approval in PA is 48/52. Considering the pollster and the current political climate, that ain't bad.

Don't call me a republican - that's rude. I'm an anti-democrat.

Yep - I looked at the number wrong. Busted. Since Indiana only has a 36% approval for Obama, I thought 31% was not that far off the mark.

I still maintain the original premise, though. If Obama has a 30% approval in some congressional districts, how high must he have in some of the others to come up with a 48% approval? Doesn't much matter if he has an 80% approval in Philadelphia and only picks up one seat if he is at 40% in all the others and loses all of those.

Pennslylvania is a lot like Indiana and Ohio in that the democrats only carry a few counties with the large cities but lose almost all of the other counties.

That is a joke on Obama's approval in PA. Even Rasmussen had Tennesee and Louisiana at 37. Why don't these biased pollsters get a life.

I think they might be right if that is Obama's approval in that district of PA. That is one of the "Alabama's in between" they have considered interior PA political views.

far left we already discussed it. It's for the district. By the way, with Obama's and Pelosi's numbers as low as they are, explain why it is basically a tie in this district. This tidal wave that everyone is predicting doesn't seem to be happening in this district. It also has a PVI of +1 for Republicans. This seems like it is going to be a very close race.

@Chris Merkey:

You are ignoring the fact that there are 21% still undecided. With a 31% approval for Obama and 21% for Pelosi, what makes anyone think that the majority of those undecided will break for the person most like Obama and Pelosi? Plus, it's not just the low approvals - those disapprovals are huge. 68% and 76% disapprovals. It makes me think that remaining 21% will break at least 3 to 1 for Burns. I'm not even sure that Critz can stay at 40% with Obama and Pelosi so disliked there.

Murtha still has sympathy support but I don't think you will have many people coming out to vote as a condolence.

Interesting that the Republican pollster gives the Dem the lead, while PPP, a democratic pollster gives the republican a lead.

Gary,

You are right on point, but you are forgetting one thing. In a presidential election you can't lose Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by a combined 750,000 votes and win PA! I have said this a thousand times the GOP has a huge problem winning urban and minority voters and over the long term this is only going to get worse for them not better unless they change their strategy quickly.

I thought the days of a Democrat winning in a district like this was impossible today. Since Murtha never got to sign the final health care vote, the Democrat can support teaching creation in the schools, Talk about criminalizing abortion and tell people that that Obama's health plan was a bad idea. If they can do that in this district that loves Sarah Palin and probably has a 16 percent unemployment rate, than I wish him or her the best of luck!

Lat,

This isn't a presidential election. State-wide polls mean nothing. District by district polls are the only thing that matters.

And even if it was, you're wrong. You could lose Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by 750,000 votes and still win the state. There are 8 million registered voters in PA. Only 10% of those voters live in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Someone could lose by 750,000 votes in those two cities (which would have to be about a 90 point margin with a 100% voter turnout) and could still win the state by taking the rest of the state by a 6 point margin. That isn't feasible since those two cities only have about 800,000 registered voters but 750,000 is the number you chose.

Obama took Philadelphia county 84% to 16% in 2008. That was a margin of 461,670 votes. He took Allegheny county (Pittsburgh) by a 58% to 42% margin - 98,634 votes. That is a total of 560,304 votes. Obama took Pennsylvania by a total of 605,820 votes.

So without those two counties, Obama only had a lead of 45,516 votes - less than a 1% margin. That's 45,516 votes out of the 4,452,530 votes in the rest of the state.

Had McCain taken 50% of the vote in the rest of those counties rather than the 49% he received, he would have won Pennsylvania.

McCain won 49 counties with an average of 59% to 41%. Obama won 18 counties with an average of 58% to 42%

So, yes you could lose Philadelphia and Pittsburg by 750,000 votes and farily easily still win the state. Especially when the electorate is this divided. If in a year of a huge win for Obama he could only win 18 of the counties compared to McCain's 49 counties - how many counties do you think the democrat congressional candidates can win?

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh might make 3 or possibly 4 of the 18 congressional seats in PA safe. Most of the the rest could very easily all go Republican in 2010. That would be a loss of 8 to 10 seats - in Pennslyvania alone.

Does anyone still not see how there could be a 100 seat pickup nationwide if states like Pennslyvania who are only a very light pale blue couldn't swing pink in 2010 just enough to give republicans wins in a majority of the districts?

Had McCain taken 50% of the vote in the rest of those counties rather than the 49% he received, he would have won Pennsylvania.

I love it. "If you take away those three TDs they scored, then they only beat us by a FG".

Gary,

Do you realize what you just said? Obama won Philly 84-16, but if only McCain... Are you crazy? You get your clock cleaned in the 2 biggest areas of the state and think you can win it? The formula for the dems since 92 is to rack up huge margins in urban areas break even or lose the suburbs by slim margins and then the rural areas of the states don't matter. The GOP lost Ohio, Florida, Michigan, etc. all for this reason. I don't give a rat's ass what happens in 2010 this is a huge problem for the GOP long term which they seem to be doing their best to make worse. It's estimated that in 2016 the dems will only need to win 37% of white voters in order to win (that's Walter Mondale, George McGovern territory) a national election. I highly suggest your party figures out how to win minority voters on a consistent basis.