Pennsylvania 2012 Why no Romney Effort?

[barfbag]

He made some efforts but certainly nothing like Bush did when he was president. The state didn't look close until the last month of the election though. Honestly, I thought it would be a nail biter. It's definitely trending to the right and a battleground state. Please notice Democrats talking about Georgia and Arizona but not Pennsylvania. Although, I must say Pennsylvania is pretty much the same election state it was in 1960 and hasn't really changed. If Republicans win by more than 5, then it goes red.

2004 +5 D
2008 +4 D
2012 +2 D

[barfbag]

First off, even with Romney's poor polling data, it was clear that he'd have to pick up Ohio, Florida, and Virginia for Pennsylvania to even be in play.  That gets him to 266 right there. At that point there are any number of fourth states that would have put him over the top, of which if you look at things historically, Pennsylvania was among the least likely of those that would have been possible. I think most people would have thought Colorado, New Hampshire, or Iowa would have been likelier to go Romney than Pennsylvania. (As it was, assuming uniform swing, Colorado would have been Romney's fourth state.) So until his campaign began to think of 300 as the goal to shoot for rather than 270, it didn't make much sense to waste time and money in the Keystone State, especially time.

This is exactly right. When he was looking at a landslide towards the end before Sandy we saw an effort in PA. His last stop on election day was in Pittsburgh.

[barfbag]

Of course the question is WHY the Romney campaign was aiming for a landslide by election day. It was fairly obvious to most reputable analyzers that Obama would come out ahead (Silver gave Obama somewhere around 85% chance of winning).

Also, if Romney had focused his ground game in Pennsylvania earlier, and the state was actually starting to look close, Obama would probably have poured tons of money into that state. As it happened, Obama spent very little time in Pennsylvania.

Traditional polling showed PA in the leaning Obama column until the end and the overall election looked more favorable for Obama until the debates. It's easy to see with hindsight but not ahead of time.

[barfbag]

I saw with hindsight everything except Florida and the North Dakota and Nevada Senate races. And all I did was occasionally read Nate Silver's blog.

and?

[barfbag]

I saw with hindsight everything except Florida and the North Dakota and Nevada Senate races. And all I did was occasionally read Nate Silver's blog.

Wait, how could you have hindsight before the election?

[barfbag]

The non-existent "Romney Surge" in October made the Romney team think Pennsylvania could be put in play. Democrats said he was desperate like McCain in '08, while after the election it was revealed they were going for a blow-out, not a back-up.


They legitimately thought they could snatch Pennsylvania to get 305 EVs(they assumed they would win FL, VA, NC, IO, NH, CO, and OH), assuming uniform national swing.

He had a surge which fizzled in the last week.

[barfbag]

The non-existent "Romney Surge" in October made the Romney team think Pennsylvania could be put in play. Democrats said he was desperate like McCain in '08, while after the election it was revealed they were going for a blow-out, not a back-up.


They legitimately thought they could snatch Pennsylvania to get 305 EVs(they assumed they would win FL, VA, NC, IO, NH, CO, and OH), assuming uniform national swing.

He had a surge which fizzled in the last week.

He never had a real surge. Among the undecided, males preferred Romney, females went to Obama. The male trend became obvious earlier in time, creating the impression of a Romney surge. Undecided females were always most likely to overwhelmingly vote for Obama, as they already did in 2008. However, they either failed to pass certain pollsters' likely voter screening (Gallup), or they only voiced their intention quite late, if at all.

There was a Romney surge following the first debate.

[barfbag]

There was a Romney surge following the first debate.

Not really.  Those weren't neutrals that Romney picked up but lean-Romney types who needed either a great Romney debate performance or a poor Obama one to get them to vote for him.  Even f you count that as a surge it was far mre an anti-Obama surge than a pro-Romney surge.

It was still a surge.

[barfbag]

The non-existent "Romney Surge" in October made the Romney team think Pennsylvania could be put in play. Democrats said he was desperate like McCain in '08, while after the election it was revealed they were going for a blow-out, not a back-up.


They legitimately thought they could snatch Pennsylvania to get 305 EVs(they assumed they would win FL, VA, NC, IO, NH, CO, and OH), assuming uniform national swing.

So did Michael Barone.

[barfbag]

I don't know why there are people that think it's stupid for Republican presidential candidates to contest PA, but think it's just fine that Democrats contest NC.

The type of people you refer to are called Democrats.

[barfbag]

I've said this earlier: Pennsylvania should be alarming to the Democrats.

About 2/3 of the state is in the Appalachians and Democrats have utterly collapsed in the Appalachians.

Romney should have been organizing in the state for the entire year was as in Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon and he should have gone hard and heavy in all four after that first debate win.

None of those three states have much potential for Republican (unlike Pennsylvania).

I have heard a lot of people said that the GOP should be competitive in Minnesota because the state is very white. This is nonsense. Republicans perform very well with Southern whites, but Minnesota doesn't have a lot of Southern white. The same can be observed in Maine. It is the whitest state in the nation, yet it overwhelmingly votes for Obama and other Democrats.

Oregon isn't really competitive without a third party peeling away Democratic votes. Portland will continue power the state to Democratic wins. Even without Portland, the state will be about even.

Michigan - don't even go there. It would be one of the last Midwestern state to go Republican had Romney overwhelmingly won the Midwest (which he didn't).

Romney did win the White Vote in MN 49-48% but in the Twin Cities is where the R's get destroyed.

Michigan actually has a 1 point lower Dem PVI than Oregon(D+4 to D+5.)

It's interesting and I hope I'm not too far off topic that out of those three battleground states you just mentioned, the only one I see staying is Minnesota. It will be close there in the foreseeable future but the Democrats will win by about 5 on average. As for Michigan and Oregon, they should remain in the single digits, but I think they're on their way out as battleground states.

[barfbag]

I don't know why there are people that think it's stupid for Republican presidential candidates to contest PA, but think it's just fine that Democrats contest NC.

Because. In the last 20 years at least, when Democrats contested NC they made it genuninely close (not "relatively" close) and occassionally won. PA on the other hand.....

Pennsylvania had a rightward trend though in 2008 and 2012.

[barfbag]

I don't know why there are people that think it's stupid for Republican presidential candidates to contest PA, but think it's just fine that Democrats contest NC.

Because. In the last 20 years at least, when Democrats contested NC they made it genuninely close (not "relatively" close) and occassionally won. PA on the other hand.....

Pennsylvania had a rightward trend though in 2008 and 2012.

Which of course proves absolutely nothing, towrads your point troll.

Are you this hard on people from the other party? I think you're George Voinovich.

[barfbag]

The non-existent "Romney Surge" in October made the Romney team think Pennsylvania could be put in play. Democrats said he was desperate like McCain in '08, while after the election it was revealed they were going for a blow-out, not a back-up.


They legitimately thought they could snatch Pennsylvania to get 305 EVs(they assumed they would win FL, VA, NC, IO, NH, CO, and OH), assuming uniform national swing.

He had a surge which fizzled in the last week.

Yes, his PA numbers were showing it reasonably close and closing.  Turnout was also an issue.  2010 was also a GOP landslide in PA.  Corbett, who I am not a big fan of, cleaned up across the state.

The key word being "his" numbers, which unsurprisingly were shown to be only one step less ludicrously hackish that unskewedpolls.com, which is saying quite a lot. Every other pollster back in realityland showed PA out of reach.

So the more liberal pollsters showed it out of reach. We get it.

[barfbag]

I don't know why there are people that think it's stupid for Republican presidential candidates to contest PA, but think it's just fine that Democrats contest NC.

Because. In the last 20 years at least, when Democrats contested NC they made it genuninely close (not "relatively" close) and occassionally won. PA on the other hand.....

Pennsylvania had a rightward trend though in 2008 and 2012.

Which of course proves absolutely nothing, towrads your point troll.

Are you this hard on people from the other party? I think you're George Voinovich.

I just don't suffer fools.

So what do you think of left-wing hacks?

[barfbag]

I don't know why there are people that think it's stupid for Republican presidential candidates to contest PA, but think it's just fine that Democrats contest NC.

Because. In the last 20 years at least, when Democrats contested NC they made it genuninely close (not "relatively" close) and occassionally won. PA on the other hand.....

Pennsylvania had a rightward trend though in 2008 and 2012.

Which of course proves absolutely nothing, towrads your point troll.

Are you this hard on people from the other party? I think you're George Voinovich.

I just don't suffer fools.

So what do you think of left-wing hacks?

At least they tend not to post their tripe on EVERY damn thread.

Hint, hint.

None of them ever have?

[barfbag]

I think Obama underperformed in PA vs what another generic (white) Dem would do. Lets not forget that Obama was talking about PA when he made his "cling to their bibles and guns" comment. Hillary would easily reverse the trend and any GOPer going up against her would probably be throwing away money in PA.

No Pennsylvania is trending and the Democrats should start worrying. In fact it's trending twice as fast as Georgia according to the last election. We do cling to our bibles and guns. I grew up there. Clinton would do better than Obama, but the Democrats better hope it's not too late. The keystone state was only one point left of center last year. They better watch out. It's happening!

Pennsylvania is losing population in the west and it's caused a rightward trend throughout this century. They were leaning Democrat and now the western part of the state is leaning Republican.

[barfbag]

I think Obama underperformed in PA vs what another generic (white) Dem would do. Lets not forget that Obama was talking about PA when he made his "cling to their bibles and guns" comment. Hillary would easily reverse the trend and any GOPer going up against her would probably be throwing away money in PA.

Pennsylvania is losing population in the west and it's caused a rightward trend throughout this century. They were leaning Democrat and now the western part of the state is leaning Republican.

Re-read these last two lines of your post and you'll realize why that's not happening soon.

My post was only two lines long. Are you referring to the part where they're losing population?

[barfbag]

What I think happened, was that the eastern side of Pennsylvania stayed largely the same. But the western side swung (or trended) far enough right, to combat the loses of population in some areas.

This is incorrect. The Philly region (primarily the surrounding suburban counties) have grown steadily in population, particularly compared to the State as a whole, and especially Western PA. Likewise, Democratic registration in SE PA boomed over the last two decades.

It's a little (emphasis here) like VA: The fastest growing area of the state (NOVA) is also that where the Democrats share of registered voters is growing fastest. Likewise, the once traditional Democratic area (SW coal country VA) where Republicans are making the fastest inroads is also the region with the lowest population growth in the state.

It's similar as far as which areas of the states are trending and why. I do see Pennsylvania trending to the right though. One point left of center is as far to the right as they've been since 1948.

[barfbag]

Another way of thinking about the rightward trend of western PA is about age. When the steel industry crashed, it meant the Pittsburgh area lost a cohort that came of age in the 70s. This compounded and means fewer young adults today as well. Now with the Democratic Greatest Generation dying, the conservative Silent Generation is overrepresented in SW PA. I think this explains its demographic trends about as well as anything.

Very true! If you go to Three Rivers Casino it's almost all seniors. Granted that's a casino but living there most of my life I can tell you there's a higher age population.