Battleground Counties: Pennsylvania Edition

Bucks County native, the guy who called the Paul Ryan VP pick and alum of the right University, Robert Costa uses tonight’s massive Romney Rally in Pennsylvania to drop some knowledge on one of our favorite topics: Battleground Counties — specifically Pennsylvania Battleground Counties.

Mitt Romney is poised to win Pennsylvania — if he can stay competitive in the moderate suburbs and put up large numbers in Pennsylvania’s conservative pockets. “If he runs up big margins in the central and western parts of the state, and holds his own in the Philadelphia suburbs, he can win it, even if he gets his butt beat in Philadelphia,” says former Republican senator Rick Santorum. “Even then, he’ll need a little magic.” … It won’t be easy. “Republicans have been here before,” says G. Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin and Marshall College. “In 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush got to within three or four points in the last week, and ended up losing both times. They know how to get to the red zone, but they haven’t figure out how to get into the end zone.” Four years ago, John McCain lost every county in suburban Philadelphia…Winning Pennsylvania is complicated. In a way, it’s a microcosm of America. It has big, deep-blue cities, sprawling, deep-red rural counties, and highly populated suburbs. It has a pro-life Democratic senator (Bob Casey), but five times elected a pro-choice Republican (Arlen Specter) to the upper chamber. It counts a Democratic grandee (Ed Rendell) as a former governor, and Pat Toomey, the former Club for Growth president, as a senator…For Romney to win, five key counties need to either shift toward Romney or see depressed Democratic turnout. And most important, these shifts need to happen in a synchronized fashion. For example, even if Romney does better than McCain in the suburbs, he needs turnout among Philadelphia Democrats to be average and Republican turnout in western Pennsylvania to be heavy.

Bucks County 

2008 result: Obama +9
2004 result: Kerry +3

Bucks County is a tale of two suburbs. In upper Bucks, there are thousands of stucco-and-brick mansions that are home to well educated, socially liberal professionals… In lower Bucks, you have thousands of Levittown homes…The people here are blue-collar Democrats. Many of them had union jobs at Fairless Works, a U.S. Steel mill, until it closed, and now work in non-industrial sectors. Together, these two suburban areas and their 600,000 residents form a capricious political powerhouse…To win Bucks, you need to win the hearts of the Reagan Democrats and the fickle soccer moms who live in the palaces on former farmland…As a reserved, Harvard-trained businessman, Romney appeals temperamentally to upper-Bucks Republicans, and his economic-focused campaign appeals to Levittown’s many out-of-work residents.

Philadelphia County

2008 result: Obama +67
2004 result: Kerry +60

In 2008, Obama garnered 30,000 more votes in Philadelphia than Kerry did, giving him more than half-a-million votes in a single county. That was about one-sixth of Obama’s statewide total — and his approximate margin of victory. In the rest of the state, Obama and McCain more or less tied, but McCain ended up losing by about 600,000 votes. McCain’s effective tie in 66 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties wasn’t enough, and Romney’s campaign knows that it has to come out well ahead in the rest of the state in order to eke out a victory once the Philadelphia returns are tallied. You can be sure that Obama adviser David Axelrod is counting on Philadelphia’s old-fashioned Democratic and public-union machine, which is managed by Representative Bob Brady, to show up.

Luzerne County

2008 result: Obama +8
2004 result: Kerry +3

Luzerne County is in the Scranton–Wilkes-Barre metropolitan area in northeastern Pennsylvania…the county is trending Republican. Senator Toomey nearly won Luzerne County two years ago, coming within a thousand votes of victory in a county that Obama carried by eight points. According to local election officials, Democrats still outnumber Republicans in registration by a hefty margin, but Republican and independent registrations have jumped markedly since Obama’s 2008 campaign…The Romney campaign has a bustling campaign office in Luzerne. Their goal is to repeat Toomey’s 2010 model, which means a near-constant focus on the economy with a bipartisan message…These voters are looking for an economic alternative, and they’re unhappy with Washington. Two years ago, Republican Lou Barletta, a vocal critic of illegal immigration, won the area’s congressional seat [ousting powerful 13-term incumbent Paul Kanjorski by nearly 10-points].

Cambria County

2008 result: Obama +1
2004 result: Bush +2

Cambria County is east of Pittsburgh, and it includes Johnstown, a Democratic city that was the late John Murtha’s political base for decades, as well as Republican-leaning suburbs closer to Pittsburgh…Cambria County is full of families who grew up with fathers who worked in coal mines and steel mills, and many of the best jobs in the county remain in the energy sector. Expect Obama to pay a price for his regulations…Senator Toomey carried Cambria two years ago, and Republican Keith Rothfus, who narrowly lost his House race in 2010, is running strong against the county’s incumbent congressman, Democrat Mark Critz, a former Murtha staffer. Romney should also be helped by U.S. Senate candidate Tom Smith, a former coal executive from the region who is running countless TV ads about Obama’s “war on coal.”

Lancaster County

2008 result: McCain +12
2004 result: Bush +32

Lancaster County and neighboring York County make up the base of the Pennsylvania GOP. Running up solid totals here gives you some breathing room, especially if Philadelphia’s suburbs don’t turn completely red and the turnout in the western counties is less than expected. … Politically, Pennsylvania Dutch Country is often overlooked, but it is more populated than people think, with over 500,000 residents, and turnout here can change the entire dynamic of a Republican’s statewide effort…But Romney’s late entry into Pennsylvania makes turnout in Lancaster harder to predict…Looking to win the state, Romney must hope that local conservatives don’t mind his absence.

 

54 Comments

  1. Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

    As I understand it Pulse Opinion Research is the part of Rasmussen that actually does the polls, same methodology as Ras but will publish polls on its own.

    Why bring that up? Because I just saw a POR poll with O+3 in PA and O+1 in VA! Both from October 30. Ras has Obama winning VA?

    • Medicine Man
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Went on the website since I have the premium (of course). Latest results from Oct 25 R 50 O 48.
      92% of people that have made up their minds, R 52 O 48.
      EV down compared to 08. Will be closer than FLA, but will go R. I know, VA is kinda like the surprise Obama attack, but don’t confuse having 20k people show up for Dave Matthews for enthusiasm. He’ll, I would go see Obama if I could see DMB for free.

      • Guest
        Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

        Their latest poll from Oct 30 for Let Freedom Ring has Obama up by one point, though.

        But the RCP averages which trolls claim to value so much actually show Romney slightly up in VA. The most recent poll from WeAskAmerica shows Obama up by one, also from the same time period. Not sure about the sample, though I think it’s even, which would be generous to Romney. But most VA polls have also shown Romney up among independents, with the exception of some ridiculous outliers.

      • Medicine Man
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:07 am | Permalink

        Not on Rassmussen Reports. They provide the field work, don’t analyze the data.

        Pulse makes the calls for whoever hires them (Let Freedom Ring) on Oct 30, Scott Rassmussen didn’t analysis that data. Check out the website.

        He only puts his magic sauce on what he releases on Rassmussen reports.

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

      +1 to +3 is not winning. It’s right in the MoE.

      But, Obama has made some ground up in VA, but I don’t think its enough to make up for the lost NoVA Ev vote.

    • christopher
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Hi Peter – Please admit that you are concerned… It would be the best for your “soul” to admit yor concern. No religion here but the evidence (without a filter) is clear. True Americns vote Romney. BTW – you will be well in a Romney Admin.

    • Mike
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:29 am | Permalink | Reply

      Not true……last of RASS had romney up in VA.

  2. Bob San Diego
    Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Was bopping around and saw this from Gallup – which was a little disheartening. It’s pretty recent,(Sept. 27). Basically it pooh-poohs the idea of party ID as a measure of accuracy, as it is more fluid than other measurables (race, gender, age, education etc.).

    Anyone want to give a competing view?

    http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/09/the-recurring-and-misleading-focus-on.html

    The Recurring — and Misleading — Focus on Party Identification
    The discussion of the party identification composition of poll samples comes up in every presidential election with which I’ve been involved. Interested observers often opine that when a given poll shows that Candidate X is ahead, it cannot be correct because there is a higher percentage of voters who identify with Candidate X’s party in the sample than there should be, based on comparison to some previous standard.

    There are several reasons why this is a faulty approach to evaluating a poll’s results.

    I’ve been analyzing election surveys at Gallup since the 1992 presidential election, and I don’t personally put a great deal of stock in survey-to-survey variations in party identification. All of our weighting focus is on the effort to bring more solid demographic variables into alignment with census figures — including in recent years cell phone and landline phone use. We don’t find that party identification is stable enough to be of much use when it comes to comparing sample-to-sample variations, or sample to exit poll differences.

    • JP
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Well Gallup has romney +5 in national polling so I guess they’ve got all of their weighting in order (unlike some other polls)

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I share that concern about using party ID, although Susquehanna Polling swears by it, precisely for the reason given, it is so fluid from election to election whereas other demographics are not. Same with those who identify as independents. Nevertheless, for pro-O polls to be largely correct, especially ones showing him only slightly ahead while Romney is winning independents handily, both party ID and measures of independents have to be out of whack at the same time. Plus there is the fact that that so many pro-O polls are showing so little white turnout this time around. The latter factor, white turnout, is the real key here, and pro-O pollsters are making highly speculative assumptions that it will be less than census figures indicate.

      • Ron
        Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

        I’m no expert but it seems crazy to me that party ID is considered irrelevant in measuring what is essentially political. I don’t wonder that Susquehanna swears by it–and is right most often than not–whereas the network pollsters have bad records for accuracy.

    • allthingsgeography1
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Well, I don’t have an academic answer…all I can say is that Party ID would seem important simply because of the fact it is so fluid and people are voting based on politics and so understanding a likely turnout scenario is important.

      • PeterJ
        Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

        You are exactly right that is seems and likely is so important. It just is too fluid to model well. Just like how the football team that has the lowest turnovers will likely win, but which despite past performances cannot be predicted well for individual games.

      • allthingsgeography1
        Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

        I can agree with that…although the best we can do is run different scenarios and see what the situation looks like even if we don’t know which one will be absolutely correct.

      • Medicine Man
        Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

        It is used different ways. If someone makes 100 phone calls and 5 more democrats happen to pick out the phone, it would be considered D + 5. Problems with inherent bias on who is more likely to pick up the phone.

        Pollsters sometimes use it to gauge turnout. That is the difficultly now. There is an inherent distrust with many pollsters on if they are reflecting public opinion or trying to shape it.

        CNN poll, recently released, is a perfect example on why one needs to see the forest from the trees. 2008 was a D + 7 election. This poll was D + 11.

        No one expects there to be a greater turnout of Dems EV Repubs this election. So the 49/49 tie is basically useless data.

      • UncleFred
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 11:27 am | Permalink

        Except that all actual quality polls of partisan id, the Rasmussen political trends poll for example, shows that when measured in the aggregate partisan id is not very fluid, it does change but typically very slowly from a fraction of a percent to occasionally as much as 2 percent.

        Pollsters and pundits who tell you that partisan id is to “fluid” to use as a weighting factor are simply defending their decision not to so do. Understand that gathering good data about partisan id in a fashion that doesn’t impact the poll result is adds both difficulty and expense. Rasmussen for example determines partisan id in a separate daily poll and uses a 21 day moving average each day in their tracking poll. That is a lot of extra cost for a media poll that only samples perhaps a 1000 people over three days.

      • UncleFred
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 11:28 am | Permalink

        Sorry that rate of change is monthly. So from a fraction of a percent to 2% per month is the typical rate of change.

    • Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This is widely accepted among poll pros. Rasmussen got into trouble in 2000 because he baked in the party ID in his polls and ended predicting Bush would win the popular vote by 8 points. Now he adjusts the party ID regularly but still has a GOP bias (see 2010 Congressional Vote for latest example).

      This whole debate about D+ or R+ is wrong, we have it every election.

      • Medicine Man
        Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

        Whatever he has been doing since 2000, he has gotten it right…extremely close for both a high R turn out ( 2004) and a wave Dem turnout (2008). Burns Peter’s *ss.

      • Bob San Diego
        Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

        Fair enough.

        I just don’t see how with the early polling worse for the Dems than 2008 by any objective measure the party ID can be higher.

        Just can’t see it.

      • PeterJ
        Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

        Between the solid left and the solid left is the great fickle middle that goes back and forth between elections and decides them. White turnout as a proportion of census demographics is very on point though, and many of those so-called “pros” are making wild assumptions about it being lower than it likely will be, just because it was in 2008 when they were unenthused.

      • Medicine Man
        Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

        Bob, you are right. It goes to the point again of looking deeper than the top line results. Polls today must be extremely difficult to do correctly.

        Bottom line is that reporting a poll can have an effect both positivey or negatively on a campaign and its turnout. If the data isn’t correct or reflective, what is the purpose?

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It used to not matter, in the days before there was the current 2% response rate. But with the opt-in and opt-out now becoming self-selecting along party lines, its become a necessity. The landscape has changed, we know have polls with party alligence breaking 97-1 (Absolutely Amazing) and 93-5 (seems normal).

    • Kardinal11
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:12 am | Permalink | Reply

      I think that they try and construct the polls to accurately represent demographics and “let the chips fall where they may” with party affiliation. That’s why a lot of the polls end up being garbage and why you might see CNN for instance have a D+4 in one poll and a d11 in the next.

      I actually don’t share the prevailing theory around here that CNN deliberately made a D11 poll for today. I think that’s how it ended up.

      What does bother me and what I do think is dishonest is that the people reporting the poll don’t mention this fact.

  3. allthingsgeography1
    Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

    As a New England Republican, Romney probably fares the best opportunity to make PA red since George H.W. Bush in 1988. I think he very strong chance in that state. Unfortunately for Obama, he took it for granted and I think he may cost him.

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The term “New England Republican” usually connotes someone who is conservative on fiscal and defense matters while being liberal on social issues. That is not the case with Romney and hence why he has no shot in the state for which he was governor. The reasons he has a shot in PA are the crappy economy and coal. And I guess that he is not John McCain and Obama now has a record to run against.

      • Nick in South Bend
        Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

        I think allthings was referring to the fact that Mitt is actually from New England. Not the traditional Lincoln Chafee political style.

      • PeterJ
        Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

        Well if being from NE does not confer any advantage in NE itself past NH, then how does it carry over to PA?

      • displacedRhodeIslandConservative
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:11 am | Permalink

        As a New Englander, now living in PA, there are many many similarities between the Philly Suburbs and Boston/Providence…Money, some old some new, a focus on fiscal and economy above conservative social issues…these all resonate well here and are the ONLY shot a republican has up north….thankfully I am outta there for good now and hoping to move further south and west soon!

      • Ron
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:05 am | Permalink

        It’s a matter of style rather than substance. Successful politicians in the NE don’t go around wearing their religions on their sleeves. They don’t talk much about issues like abortion or gay rights. They may be conservative socially–but they’ve learned to avoid discussing these issues. They know from experience this loses votes. Red staters don’t understand this. Their politicians brag about how religious they are and bring up the social issues all the time–while giving short shrift to economics. Santorum and Huckabee come to mind. They confuse this avoidance by NE pols with “being liberal” or being a “rino.”

      • Ron
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:06 am | Permalink

        Of course Santorum’s not from a red state–but he might as well be.

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:00 am | Permalink | Reply

      I think so too. Romney is going to win Buck county.

    • Ron
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:01 am | Permalink | Reply

      Interesting take by Jay Cost:

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mitt-s-pennsylvania-push-real-or-fake_660255.html

      • AC
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:56 am | Permalink

        Rick Santorum made some good points on Neil Cavuto’s program this afternoon. 97% of PA will vote on election day. Repubs hold the Governor’s office, both houses of the legislature, the majority of the Congressional seats, etc.

  4. Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I just saw two great Romney commercials coming out of Buffalo, NY, on my TV. They are in it for real!

    • Guest
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’m pretty sure they’re not advertising in NY…

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Unless those commercials reach northern PA they must just be trying to pull up congressional and state legislative candidates. The rest of the state can never overcome the 4 biggest boroughs of NYC.

    • stuckinmass
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:02 am | Permalink | Reply

      maybe they are intended for one of Obama’s 57 states? Ontario? :p

      • displacedRhodeIslandConservative
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:13 am | Permalink

        That is concerning, internals must have changed I thought Romney already had a solid lead in Ontario??

      • stuckinmass
        Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

        the real problem is that neither campaign is quite sure how many electoral votes Ontario holds. nobody knows how to convert that number from metric!

      • Mike
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:42 am | Permalink

        Lol…..that was good!!

  5. M. White
    Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I posted this earlier but some may not have seen it so I wanted to post again…Please read, my gut tells me I’m right. When it hit me I was thinking and praying, please Lord, let Romney win if it’s your will. (I won’t go into that right now) But that’s when all this came to me, not saying it’s a prophesy or anything just saying that’s the moment it came to me.

    *Something just hit me like a ton of lead. I was standing outside smoking a cigarette and thinking…this is happening! The Obama campaign has not prepared for what is happening. Their whole plan was to destroy Romney during the summer and they did just that, Romney was down in the polls, not getting many people at his rallies then the 1st debate came and Romney did away with all the negatives and hundreds of millions of dollars Obama had spent in just 90 minutes. Obama’s campaign never anticipated this, they thought they could cruise through the debates and on to victory but something started happening in the month of October, Republican enthusiasm started to well up inside and now all of the huge crowds coming out of the woodwork, Republicans that stayed home in 2008. Obama’s campaign never thought Romney could consolidate the Republican base; they thought they would be running against a destroyed candidate at this point in time, they never imagined Romney could draw huge crowds resembling Obama’s crowds in 2008, they just never thought it was possible, that it would never happen. And before Oct. 3, I would have thought the same thing. Obama’s entire campaign has built itself around the idea that by destroying Romney, Republicans would just stay home like they did 2008. But lo and behold something organic happened, an undertow of enthusiasm for Romney, in one month all the Republicans have consolidated, they are ready, they are motivated, they know now we have a candidate that can and will win. I believe on Tuesday we will see so many Republicans voting it will scare the hell out of Obama’s campaign and there will be many Reagan democrats that will vote for Romney. I also believe inside the Obama campaign is nervous, very nervous. The polls aren’t picking up on this enthusiasm; the media is trying to tamp down Republican enthusiasm because they know something is happening, that’s what Michael Barone is seeing along with Pat Caddel. Just think about what I am saying, this has hit Obama’s campaign like an asteroid falling out of the sky, they never prepared for this! This was not how it was supposed to turn out. Reporters on the ground know it but they don’t want the people to know it. A huge tsunami is coming, can’t you feel it, and it will be here in about 48 hours!*

    Also, at the end of the week Obama’s campaign saw how huge Romney’s rallies were becoming and now they have started busing people in from surrounding areas to give the appearance of enthusiasm and trying to gin it up with all the celebrities, but Romney doesn’t need them, he’s doing it on his own and that should be very disturbing to Obama’s campaign.

    Like I said, it just hit me. I go from exited to fearful and earlier I was a little fearful then I started thinking about all of this and it just came to me especially after seeing almost 35,000 showing up to see Romney in PA, damn that’s a ton of people in the cold, windy weather. Nobody would stand out there in that unless they were motivated!

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Despite their constant smug assurance and Axelrod’s sarcastic replies, they have to actually be worried to counter Romney from PA to MI to MN. It cannot just be “not leaving anything to chance”. And notice that Axelrod said he would shave his mustache on national TV if Romney won PA or MI or MN, instead of saying he would shave the rest of the hair on his head.

    • Di
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:14 am | Permalink | Reply

      Great post, M. White! I think you’re right…every Republican I know, and several independents who voted for Obama in 2008 CANNOT WAIT to vote! The catch phrase has been that we are willing to drag ourselves across broken glass in order to vote. I just read a tweet from someone who said her absentee ballot never arrived, so she’s packing her bags and driving 8 hours back to her home state to vote. We will win because we are committed like we have never been before in our lives. We are going to turn this country around. The media and the Democrats won’t know what hit them! It will be a tsunami indeed! Keep the faith!

    • spottedreptile
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:19 am | Permalink | Reply

      Believe me, we’ve seen it. Enough.

      • Mike
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:43 am | Permalink

        Yeah, I am with you on that….lol..

  6. M. White
    Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    One thing I want to mention…Obama campaign doesn’t have a contingency plan for this because they never gave it any consideration, too much of an ego for that.

  7. Pa John
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:06 am | Permalink | Reply

    Romney must get to 38.5% in Philly and 4 surrounding counties. Those 5 account for 33.3% of the state vote. Bush 2004 was at 36.5 and lost by 2.5. McCain was 32.5 and lost by 10.3. Gov Corbett was 40.5 and won by 9. Sen Toomey was 38.2 and won by 2. The remaining 62 counties always go Rep but can’t make up getting less than 38 in SE PA. These numbers have held for every Pa election the last 24+ years.

    • displacedRhodeIslandConservative
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:15 am | Permalink | Reply

      I think its possible…as long as the Obama machine can’t kick into gear…a godsend that PA has no early vote….depending on outcomes, for both sides I think this campaign season will make them look hard at their PA strategies going forward.

    • Ron
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:10 am | Permalink | Reply

      I think I read somewhere that if we keep the Philly vote to around 377,000 votes, victory is assured. Higher than that, we need to work our butts off.

  8. Matthew
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:14 am | Permalink | Reply

    As a York County Pennsylvania resident I can tell you the expected turnout in York and Adams county is between 70% and 80% of registered voters according to all the local papers…that will bode well for Romney because we are a reflection of Lancaster county and that will give him quite a lift to offset Philly. We are 600,000 strong in our 3 county area and will slant 65%+ toward Romney this year. Pennsylvania Believes!!!

    • Pa John
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Matt..live in Dauphin County. Great living amongst the like minded. Believe our area will smoke BO. Spent last 15 y in Montgomery County was tough dealing with those types. However there are many of them that could be flipped.

  9. WolvenOne
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:55 am | Permalink | Reply

    For what little it matters, TCJ Research’s Ohio Poll has Romney +3, slight improvement over their previous Ohio poll.

    http://tcjresearch.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/tcj-research-ohio-mitt-romney-51-barack-obama-48/

  10. AC
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:53 am | Permalink | Reply

    Rick Santorum is now campaigning for Romney. (Don’t know whether he has been there all along.) I am glad to see it. He was at the 6R rally, and appeared on Neil Cavuto’s program this afternoon.

One Trackback

  1. […] Also note this rally in Bucks County, PA with over 30,000 supporters…an area that went for Obama +9 in 2008 and Kerry +3 in 2004. This area is very much blue-collar Democrat. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: