Quinnipiac (12/8-14, registered voters, 9/22-28 in parentheses):
Arlen Specter (D-inc): 44 (42)
Pat Toomey (R): 44 (43)
Don’t know: 11 (13)Joe Sestak (D): 35 (35)
Pat Toomey (R): 40 (38)
Don’t know: 22 (25)
(MoE: ±2.6%)Arlen Specter (D-inc): 53 (44)
Joe Sestak (D): 30 (25)
Don’t know: 15 (28)
(MoE: ±3.9%)
Things have actually been pretty stable between Arlen Specter and Pat Toomey for the last few months; the previous two Q-polls gave a 1-pt. edge to Specter and then a 1-pt. edge to Toomey, and this month they’re flat-out tied. Specter’s problem, more than anything, is that everyone knows him, and they’re pretty even split on him (47/45 job approvals, with a re-elect of only 38%). Toomey puts up surprisingly high favorables (35/10), suggesting there’s lots of room for his negatives to go up once Specter starts filling in some of those blanks concerning Toomey’s Club for Growth nuttiness.
Joe Sestak still remains little-known, at 20/9, so the usual caveats about “room for growth” apply, but his head-to-head numbers seem to be eroding a little. He loses some ground against Toomey, and while he picked up some support in the Dem primary, Specter picked up even more support, pushing past 50%. A lot of that may have to do with Specter proving himself to a slice of the state’s liberals with his advocacy for the public option — which you’ve gotta wonder if he’d even be doing if he weren’t preoccupied with his left flank thanks to Sestak’s presence.
Quinnipiac (12/8-14, registered voters, 9/21-28 in parentheses):
Dan Onorato (D): 30 (28)
Tom Corbett (R): 45 (47)
Don’t know: 22 (24)Jack Wagner (D): 33 (29)
Tom Corbett (R): 43 (44)
Don’t know: 23 (25)Joe Hoeffel (D): 30 (NA)
Tom Corbett (R): 46 (NA)
Don’t know: 23 (NA)
(MoE: ±2.6%)Dan Onorato (D): 14 (14)
Joe Hoeffel (D): 8 (12)
Jack Wagner (D): 7 (11)
Chris Doherty (D): 6 (8)
Tom Knox (D): 5 (5)
Don’t know: 59 (46)
(MoE: ±3.9%)Tom Corbett (R): 38 (42)
Jim Gerlach (R): 12 (13)
Don’t know: 47 (43)
(MoE: ±4%)
Things look more dire in the Governor’s race, although it looks like a positive trend is underway as the Democratic candidates become (slightly) better known, and the numbers aren’t as bad as Rasmussen‘s data from earlier this week (which found, for instance, a 13-point spread on Corbett/Wagner).
The problem, as I’ve diagnosed at other times, is twofold: no one knows who any of the Democrats are (Auditor Jack Wagner has favorables of 22/5 and Allegheny Co. Exec Dan Onorato is at 18/9 — and the “don’t knows” in the Democratic primary are huge, and actually getting bigger) — but that part’s easily fixable, as the campaign season escalates. The other problem, though, is that AG Tom Corbett is constantly in the news with the Bonusgate investigation (which seems to climaxing conveniently timed with his gubernatorial campaign, not that I’d ever accuse anyone of orchestrating something like that…). Corbett manages to be the one wearing the white hat here (good for a 43/6 favorable), since he’s facing off against key figures in the state legislature, by far the least popular entity in the state (the lege gets a 25/64 approval, compared with Gov. Ed Rendell, who’s rebounding to a mediocre 43/49). There’s one other intangible the Dems have to overcome, too (although trends are meant to be broken, yadda yadda): the Governor’s chair changes between the parties like clockwork every eight years, with the same precision it does in Virginia.
The Pennsylvania governor’s seat is an important one for redistricting, but with it looking like there’s little chance of Dems flipping the GOP-held (30 R, 20 D) state Senate (after the Dems lost both special elections this year that offered potential pickups), it looks like we might be headed for a compromise map regardless of the gubernatorial race’s outcome. In fact, the Dems should emphasize shoring up their hold on the state House, where their edge is kind of shaky (104 D, 98 R). Simultaneous 2010 loss of the governor’s seat and the House would be disastrous; it would actually give the trifecta to the Republicans again, and they might actually be more successful with a GOP-controlled gerrymander this time than their 2000 dummymander that eventually wound up exploding in their faces.
But it would have been better if someone decent had decided to run without putting a House seat at risk. Some of us did predict this.
What is the most important Governor’s seat for the Democrats to hold (defense)?
Pennsylvania or Michigan? Both were 2000 Republican gerrymanders, only PA turned into a Dummy-mander and incumbent protection seems likely to me with the Rs in charge while in Michigan Democrats have secured the state House, but the 2000 map has held up very well the Republicans.
So, which do we need to hold onto more? PA or MI?
Primary day.
In addition, if Specter were to win re-election (I don’t think so, but could be wrong), PA-Gov becomes more important because of Specter’s age/health.
While Specter’s doing a fine job cozying up to the left, I still firmly believe he’s too unpopular with Indies and the GOP to garner re-election. Sestak, on the other hand, I believe could have a similar appeal to Pennsylvania moderates and conservaDems as Bob Casey did in ’06. I’m not saying Sestak would necessarily beat Toomey by 19%, or even 9%, but I still believe he’s a far more appealing commodity than Specter.
when I said that Corbett was a favorite for Governor. OTOH, I’m still thinking that Specter will pull through. Great thanks to Joe Sestak for making him comport himself as a real Democrat, though.
The DCCC keeps winning the fundraising battle. The committee pulled in $3.65 million in November, bringing its cash on hand to $15.35 million. Meanwhile, the NRCC raised $2.3 million and increased its cash on hand slightly.
The Republican committee spent about $2.2 million and now has $4.35 million in the bank. It did not pay down any of its $2 million in debt in November. The DCCC, which is carrying a debt of $2.66 million, spent $2.8 million last month.
For the cycle to date, the DCCC had outraised the NRCC $51.85 million to $32.9 million.
On the Senate side, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) outraised the DSCC, $3.3 million to $3 million, and also closed the cash gap slightly.
The NRSC upped its cash on hand from $5.9 million to $7.3 million. The DSCC spent $2.5 million and wound up with $11.9 million in the bank. It still has $1.7 million in debt after paying down about $400,000 in November.
The DSCC has outraised the NRSC by about $4 million this year. When adjusted for debt, it’s cash advantage stands at $10.2 million to $7.3 million
Pennsylvania concerns me. But not in the Senate race. The only reason Toomey is even in the race right now is because his favorables are so good. Once the campaign actually begins he’s going to sour on a lot of independents and moderate democrats, particularly in Scranton/Wilkes Barre, the Lehigh Valley, and the Philadelphia suburbs. I also have a hard time believing that Toomey will out-perform John McCain’s strong showing in the greater Pittsburgh area. Specter’s going to win this by at least 4-6%, assuming he beats Sestak.
I do think Sestak has really helped Specter sell himself to the democratic base. I’m not sure there’s much that Sestak can do to help himself win the primary. His mere presence is helping Specter.
The governor’s race though, is a little scary. It looks like the Republicans got a really good candidate. Granted, the Dems are unknown, particularly Jack Wagner, who I think is going to win the primary. My hunch is that the national mood is going to decide this race. If the anti-democratic sentiment is high, then Corbett will win.
The house races in PA-11 and PA-7 are intimidating. I have a bad feeling that the Dems are going to lose PA-7 as Meehan is a strong candidate, and that Chester/Deleware counties have some historical Republican tendencies, the inverse of the rural south. PA-11 is likely gone too. It could be offset by pickups in PA-6 and PA-15 though, as the Dems have strong candidates in both of those races.
Undoubtedly, the biggest order of business in Pennsylvania is to retain control of the state house.
This really puzzles me. How can a guy who spent the last two decades tormenting PA Democrats and was douching out on his new party to the point that he made Joe Lieberman look good by comparison still have such a lead over Sestak? Not to mention, he’s an 80 year-old cancer survivor. Who in the hell would vote for someone with that profile when you have a younger, well-respected, and acceptably progressive alternative in Sestak? I’m not here to proclaim Sestak as the second coming, but are PA Dems really that enthralled with their Specter rental? If (and that’s a big if) he were to be re-elected, what would stop Specter from crapping all over top Democratic priorities when he no longer has to worry about an election, as that was what got him to vote so loyally to begin with?
Anyone on the ground who can explain this to me?
Sestak supports the surge and Specter does NOT support the surge in Afganistan.
I sent money and supported Sestak till I read that. Now I am back in Specter’s camp. But Pennsylvania should pass a law that Senate appointments must be of same party as the incumbent who retires/dies.