Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

PA: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 1/18)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
1/18/10; 1,000 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Pennsylvania

2010 Senate
Toomey 49%, Specter 40% (chart)
Toomey 43%, Sestak 35% (chart)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 46 / 53 (chart)
Gov. Rendell: 43 / 56 (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Arlen Specter: 43 / 54 (chart)
Pat Toomey: 57 / 27
Joe Sestak: 37 / 37

 

Comments
farleftandproud:

This is what the Dems get for not putting the people first. they lose progressive support and our nation goes downhill even more. It is a sad story.

____________________

farleftandproud:

Again the Democrats are showing just what pussies they can be by caving in on health care and waiting for Scott Brown to be seated. It isn't the Democrats losing control of the house I am worried about, it is the fact that each year the number of uninisured continue to grow, and the voters end up rewarding right wing bafoons like Toomey and Scott Brown with their vote. It is an American disease.

____________________

JMSTiger:

This is what happens to party-switchers. Democrats would be better off with Sestak as the nominee. Specter was just looking out for himself when he switched and now it is coming back to bite him in the rear area. Plus, when a person hits 80 years old, it is time to retire from political life.

____________________

Stillow:

farleft - again your totally wrong. This is what happens when you try pushing a far left agenda. There are not enough liberals/progressives out there to win elections. By pushing the hard left stuff you tick off the middle and the right........you can win without the right, but once you tick off the middle you cannot win elections with liberals alone.

Repubcs can be a little more right than dems can left simply because there are so many more conservatives than there are libs.

PA has a ton of old school blue collar tradtiional conservative democrats in it. They do not like the far left stuff coming from obama or the dem party and as we saw with MA, a solid chunk of dems will cross to vote red.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I cannot see Specter winning under any scenario. But even more surprising is that Obama has a negative approval rating in a solid blue state. Of course, negative approval doesnt necessarily mean more than 46% wouldn't vote for him but it doesn't help either.

____________________

Xenobion:

PA is not a solid blue state. Its always been a battleground purple state for the past 3 presidental elections.

____________________

farleftandproud:

"farleft - again your totally wrong. This is what happens when you try pushing a far left agenda. There are not enough liberals/progressives out there to win elections. By pushing the hard left stuff you tick off the middle and the right........you can win without the right, but once you tick off the middle you cannot win elections with liberals alone.

Repubcs can be a little more right than dems can left simply because there are so many more conservatives than there are libs."

To answer Stillow's question, I agree that true conservatives outnumber liberals in all but maybe 7 states. PA is one of those states where Conservatives do outnumber liberals among likely voters, and unfortunately, the inner cities in PA have poor turnout. When I talk about electing progressive leaders, I want to admit that they can have their differences depending on what state they are from. Senator Casey I admire tremendously; I respect the fact he is pro-life, and in fact he is more pro-life than Scott Brown, because Casey has his doubts about upholding Roe Vs wade. Paul Hodes running in NH this year has a great rating with the NRA and sportsmen, yet he is progressive on other issues. In my mind what makes a progressive isn't issues like that but in putting human beings first, by helping to create affordable healthcare, hitting corrupt bankers hard with penalties, and work for social justice. I understand that leaders have to be taylor fitted for the state they will represent. I think leaders like Max Baucus taking lots of money from pharmacy ceo's is outrageous, and he doesn't represent the people of that state very well. Their governor on the other hand is a social moderate, a lifelong farmer, and takes lots of money from independent soft donors than from big corporations. Howard Dean had that idea back in 2004 and helped a lot of democrats get elected on contributors from individuals.

I like a leader with gutts and doesn't always go along with the flo. I admire Ron Paul because even though he and I wouldn't see eye to eye on fiscal issues, we think spending money on tons of weapons to send to other countries at the magnititude we have been doing is wrong.

____________________

farleftandproud:

Stillow, if this country was always as right wing as the polls show, Obama never would have won Indiana, NC, Colorado and Virginia. I don't believe that was just a coincidence because Palin was a weak candidate on the VP ticket. It was because of strong turnout.

____________________

saywhat90:

First it has nothing to do with what the agenda. If things were going well economically then they would not be upset with the direction of obama's policies. Funny how it's the economy when the republicans lost, but it's the far left agenda when democrats lose. For all president's and their party it is always the economy when it doesn't improve by the mideterms for congress and the first term for presidents. Hoover,Carter, and Bush sr. all fell becuase they failed to boost the economy or economy tanked around the end of their first term. People are angry because they don't see results not becuase of left or right wing political agendas. If the economy returns to a point where job bcome more available and unemployment goes down to 7 percent thigns will change. You keep talking about the Mass election being a referendum on HCR. But you don't what the referendum. you don't kniw if they are angry that it's a watered down version. Or you don't know if they are selfish and are upset that it may interfere with their HCR and that they what nayone to have what they. You just assume that it is becuase it was a so called liberal bill. It may be but don't assume that you know why Mass voted Scott Brown in.

____________________

farleftandproud:

I think the Mass election and NJ elections ended the way they did because younger voters and black and hispanic voters weren't interested. When you have a midterm or even moreso a presidential election, people, especially in cities, have someone they may know or have great respect for at the local level on the ballot. For instance you love your mayor and you may know him or her personally, that local interest to get people out to the polls is greater! When people go to the polls to elect their hometown hero, they will usually vote along the party lines for other candidates. That is my theory why the turnout in Mass was bad. If I was campaigning for even a weak candidate like Coakley in the midterms, I could also campaign to get Democratic leaners out to the polls. THat is why I say, is I believe Pataki will still have a hard time winning a senate seat, because Schumer is popular as well as the fact people tend to support local hometown politicians in the midterms. I can't see many New Yorkers spliting their ticket by voting for Schumer and voting for Pataki too.

____________________

farleftandproud:

If I was apolitical novice, who was apolitical and wasn't interested in politics or the issues that I volunteer for, I would have seen Martha Coakley's arragance and vacation to Maine as being out of touch with my state. I wouldn't have known, how much was at stake. If I was one of these voters, I probably would have voted for Scott Brown. Coakley was so unlike what Obama would have done, I can't understand why she was even nominated.

____________________

farleftandproud:

Hey Saywhat 90: Sometimes when one leader takes over the grass isn't always greener. Under carter we had a recession and inflation but it took reagan nearly 3 years before the economy improved. I am not going to express an opinion on whether or not Reagan's policies hurt or helped the economy, but just to give him the benefit of the doubt, his approval was as low as 37 in his first term and the GOP lost quite a few seats in 82, yet Reagan wins every state but MN in 1984. Back in those days the GOP out spent the Democrats like 3 to 1 in elections.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR