Articles and Analysis


PA: 49% Corbett, 39% Onorato (Rasmussen 6/29)

Topics: Pennsylvania , poll

6/29/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)


2010 Governor
49% Corbett (R), 39% Onorato (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Tom Corbett: 61 / 24
Dan Onorato: 48 / 37

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 47 / 53 (chart)



Republicans projected to gain House. Polling in June light, but consistent:




The Democrats lead the Gop by a wide margin in 5 Congressional Districts that is held by a Republican,that means the Gop have to pickup 44 seats to win.like i said before this is not 1994 when 10% of the vote was Minority.The media and the political experts are ignoring the fact that 20% of the electric is going to be Minority in November thats a big difference.The only way the Gop can recapture the house if the white vote comes out for them by a wide margin or if they tamper with the voting machines which is very likely.



Karl Rove said himself on Foxnews that the Republican nominee in 2012 is going to need 46% of the Hispanic vote to win the Whitehouse.Now what Republican canidate do you see winning that many Hispanic votes in 2012?


Field Marshal:


You, and many other far-lefties, are obsessed with minorities and race. Its kinda of borderline fetish.

The Dems are losing the white vote, especially the female suburban voter fairly quickly. The dems would need the minority turnout of 2008 in order to mitigate Dem seat losses. I highly doubt that will occur given Obama is not on the ticket. History shows that minorities tend to only show up when going out to vote for another minority. (if whites did that, they would be called racists by you guys 7 days a week).




@ melvin

If white non-hispanics constitute roughly 72% of the voters on election day 2012, a Republican candidate for President can win the popular vote with about 49.66% of the vote if he receives:

-60.5% of the white vote
-5.0% of the black vote
-35.0% of the latino vote
-40.0% of the asian/other vote

As for the 2010 midterm voter, most "experts" believe that white non-hispanics will constitute somewhere around 75% to 78% of the voters this November. 18-29 year old whites will be much reduced from their 2008 levels, as will minority voters across the board. All this spells impending disaster for the Democrats in November.



I live in PA. Onorato is not well known except for Pittsburgh area. Corbett was the AG here so he is definitely well known. I haven't seen ads for either of them really. However, since it is summer, I am not watching too much TV. I doubt Onorato's number regarding his favorability. So once he becomes more well known, I think he can turn this around. PA usually switches parties for governor so it is likely that we will again. Rendell's numbers are probably hurting Onorato more than Obama's right now.



Back in 1994 the White vote was 90% in the Midterms,if the White vote is only going to be 78% this November,then the Gop will not win the House, because their going to have to get over 60% of the White vote.JMSTiger you said the Gop is going to need to get over 60% of the White vote to beat Obama in 2012? Well the lastime the Gop got over 60% of the White vote was way back in 1984 when Reagan won every damm State in got over 59% of the total vote.To show you how big the Minority vote has become"Obama would have lost every election before 2000 getting only 43% of the White vote.



I dont see any Republican out there who can get over 60% of the White vote in 2012.Reagan got over 60% because he was well liked by the Moderate Democrats.The Gop today is far more right then the Gop was back in the 80s,thats why its going to be very difficult for the Gop to get over 60% in 2012.The only Republican who have a shot of getting over 60% of the White vote is General Betraus,but i dont think he is going to run because his hands are tied up in Afghanistan.Good move President Obama.



General Betraus is the only Republican who could unite the Republican party, because the far-right in the moderates loves the guy.General Betraus would be the Obama of 2012 and the Eisenhower of 1952.Not only would he get over 60% of the White vote,but he would also get over 40% of the Hispanic vote in over 18% of the Black vote very easily.



Melvin: I am having a difficult time determining if your posts are satirical or if you really ascribe to the race-based analyses you post in every thread. Either way, I think the point has been made and it’s time to move on.



"General Betraus is the only Republican"
I am pleased to see these posts from you. I was afraid you could not contribute things I would want to read. I am glad to be proven wrong.

Response to Minorities:
Your comments on minorities are well-taken for the 2012 election, but probably not for this fall's election since the polls include minorities, also. I suspect that Rasmussen is quite correct to assume greatly lower minority turnout in 2010, not only because that has been their history in past mid-terms, but because this is a terrible time for blacks because of the economy. It is no longer reasonable to blame current conditions on Bush and Co, whatever you may think, so the economy will dampen demo turnout, not increase it.

Unless Obama can find an issue that revs up blacks and Hispanics without turning off whites even more, this election seems sets on its path. 2012 is a different story because blacks will not be willing to see Obama go down in flames for obvious reasons -- unless the economy is still terrible in 2012.

Response to Petraeus:
Given that he is not a dynamic speaker, is not leading a popular war, and his views are not well known, Petraeus is a dark-horse, at best.

He would have to find a cause other than his war experience. Those same issues would be available to other candidates.

Economy in 2012:

At this point, I am beginning to suspect that the economy will be terrible in 2012. I am sure you disagree, but it is clear to me that this crop of demos has the magical ability to turn wine to water, or perhaps more accurately, to turn vinegar to battery acid. Everything they have done to date has vitiated business activity, and the full effects after November will be even worse.

The massive and growing debt also acts as a tax on economic growth. Adding increased state and local taxes to the Obama scheduled taxes on wealthy, the lapse of the portion of the Bush tax cuts applied to the non-wealthy, the "death" tax, the emergence of the alternate minimum tax ,and the expected additional large tax increases (VAT, medical reform-associated, financial reform-associated, etc.) next year will guarantee stagflation for many years. All of those are just beginnings. To balance the budget to match expenditures required by current law (not counting stimulus spending), federal taxes will have to be increased by roughly 40%.

The only alternative to massive tax increases on EVERYONE is draconian spending cuts or an extremely high growth rate. The latter will not happen for one reason: the attitude of liberals towards business.

Clinton was the exception that proved the rule: as an amoral hustler he had no antipathy towards business and was satisfied with modest payoffs. He actually deregulated about as much as Reagan.

However, liberals who are government employees and academics often are hostile to non-crony businesses. They often see them as: (1) a cow to be milked, (2) a nasty, barely tolerated social behavior to be discouraged, like smoking, or (3) a dangerous animal requiring vigilance and slaughter at the slightest sign of trouble.

These Chavez-type attitudes wear down and discourage businesses, to the detriment of us all. The coming massacre of public employees and their benefits will be just one consequence.



Nicely broken down, Seg. As usual.

I only want to reiterate for the benefit of the lib readers here, that these anti-business, pro-big government, help the poor and soak the rich redistributive policies invariably and infallibly hurt the most those they intend to help. Always always always. It's unfortunate that a reflexive emotional response can overwhelm empirical knowledge and reason.


Field Marshal:

Great post Seg.

Number one reason why companies are not hiring is simply the fear of the unknown. Given the proclivity of this administration and the far-left congress to impose more barriers and hurdles for american businesses, it should be no surprise to most that hiring would be sluggish. Not to mention that we now are 6 months away from the largest tax hike in US history. Why would a company hire in that environment?



StatyPolly, Field Marshal:

Thank you for the compliments.

Do you have any hope that Obama and liberal dems will learn anything from the drumbeat of debacles they are experiencing? Republicans seemed to learn little in 6 years of ascendency, but I am not sure the country can afford to tutor the democrats much longer.

It amazes me more every day that liberal dems don't ask themselves: what is the difference between Hoover's determined reliance on the dominant economic theories of his time and Obama's reliance on Keynesian economists? Neither one seemed able to say, "This is not working!"


DFW freethinker:

I think the worst nightmare for you and other Democrats would be a Gen. Petraeus and soon to be Gov. Sandoval of Nevada ticket. A Republican ticket like that equals slam dunk in 2012.


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.