Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those PA polls you are talking about were from when Obama's overall #'s were lower, so chances are just like nationally his #'s have improved in PA.
He's gone up an .8 of a point in the average national polls. I wouldn't call that surging.
There is a lifetime until the nov election. Right now, the republicans are basically keeping the powder dry. With the media doing all they can to prop obama up on the economy, I have no doubt he will bump up in the polls.
However, this district in PA hasn't been in GOP hands since the 1930's. McCain carried it - by 900 votes, so to claim this is suddenly a conservative republican district is ludicrous, especially since the registered democrats outnumber Rs 2-1.
I suspect democrat turnout will be high, due to the fact of hotly contested primaries for the Senate and Gov.
This seat would be gravy for the GOP, but is not one of those characterized by conservative republican districts that tossed out GOP incumbents in 2006&2008 in favor of Blue Dog Democrats.
He's gone up an .8 of a point in the average national polls. I wouldn't call that surging.
There is a lifetime until the nov election. Right now, the republicans are basically keeping the powder dry. With the media doing all they can to prop obama up on the economy, I have no doubt he will bump up in the polls.
However, this district in PA hasn't been in GOP hands since the 1930's. McCain carried it - by 900 votes, so to claim this is suddenly a conservative republican district is ludicrous, especially since the registered democrats outnumber Rs 2-1.
I suspect democrat turnout will be high, due to the fact of hotly contested primaries for the Senate and Gov.
This seat would be gravy for the GOP, but is not one of those characterized by conservative republican districts that tossed out GOP incumbents in 2006&2008 in favor of Blue Dog Democrats.
Its actually closer to about 3 points. Granted McCain won very narrowly, but keep in mind Obama's national margin was 7.26%. Also I wasn't suggesting that this was some staunch GOP district. However it is not the Democratic stronghold it was during the vast majority of the time Murtha held the seat.
Its actually closer to about 3 points. Granted McCain won very narrowly, but keep in mind Obama's national margin was 7.26%. Also I wasn't suggesting that this was some staunch GOP district. However it is not the Democratic stronghold it was during the vast majority of the time Murtha held the seat.
Of course it is. When did the POS die? January? Seriously, it hasn't changed that much in 3-4 months.
Of course it is. When did the POS die? January? Seriously, it hasn't changed that much in 3-4 months.
Of course it didn't change that much it a matter of a few months. However, the district Murtha was representing the last few years was not a staunchly Democratic district. It may have been strongly Democratic 10 years ago, but it hasn't been in a number of years.
Of course it didn't change that much it a matter of a few months. However, the district Murtha was representing the last few years was not a staunchly Democratic district. It may have been strongly Democratic 10 years ago, but it hasn't been in a number of years.
Total, complete hogwash.
Of course it was and still is. I really don't think you are fooling anyone. The man owned the seat for 35 years, through all his corruption allegations and still, the democrats continued to vote him in, year after year.
Of course it was and still is. I really don't think you are fooling anyone. The man owned the seat for 35 years, through all his corruption allegations and still, the democrats continued to vote him in, year after year.
yes he was there for 35 years, and he won for so long because he was an entrenched incumbent. However, being an entrenched incumbent doesn't mean that the district is your party. Chris Shays CT-4, and Nancy Johnson CT-5 both lost in recent elections. They were both Incumbents for 20+ years. Even before they lost and even before it looked like they would lose no one was going to suggest either one of those districts were Republican. Similar to Murtha, the two of them were able to hold on as long as they were due to Incumbency.
You don't exactly lose a district (even narrowly) on the Presidential level when you win nationally if its staunchly your party. It use to be a staunch Democratic district, but hasn't been in years, which is why Kerry only barely won it, and why despite winning by more than 7 nationwide, Obama lost it narrowly. Locally the Dems are still strong, but nationally the district is not staunchly Dem and hasb't been in years.
Has anyone other than a couple of us ever been to Murtha's district?
It's mostly rural, the population is aging, it's bleeding young people to states that have jobs, the small towns are in Depression mode (and have been for 30 years), some of those towns have merged to save money (Barnesboro and Spangler whose residents hated each other and would regularly fight on Friday nights are two), schools have over half the students on free lunch, the mines and mills have shut down and railroads have abandoned their ROWs.
Republican John Saylor owned that district until he died and Murtha was elected in the early 70s.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
