DOCSLIB.ORG

March 2010 Franklin & Marshall College Poll

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
March 2010 Franklin & Marshall College Poll For immediate release Wednesday, March 24, 2010 March 2010 Franklin & Marshall College Poll SURVEY OF PENNSYLVANIANS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Prepared by: Center for Opinion Research Floyd Institute for Public Policy Franklin & Marshall College BERWOOD A. YOST DIRECTOR, FLOYD INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR OPINION RESEARCH HEAD METHODOLOGIST, FRANKLIN & MARSHALL COLLEGE POLL G. TERRY MADONNA DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR POLITICS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, FRANKLIN & MARSHALL COLLEGE POLL JENNIFER L. HARDING PROJECT MANAGER, CENTER FOR OPINION RESEARCH PROJECT MANAGER, FRANKLIN & MARSHALL COLLEGE POLL KAY K. HUEBNER PROGRAMMER, CENTER FOR OPINION RESEARCH March 23, 2010 Table of Contents METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 2 KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 4 THE RACE FOR PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR ...................................................................4 THE RACE FOR U.S. SENATE ...............................................................................................5 PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATIVE CORRUPTION TRIALS .....................................................6 PENNSYLVANIA TAX PROPOSALS ......................................................................................7 TABLE A-1 ............................................................................................................................... 8 TABLE A-2 ............................................................................................................................... 9 MARGINAL FREQUENCY REPORT .....................................................................................10 Methodology The survey findings presented in this release are based on the results of interviews conducted March 15-21, 2010. The interviews were conducted at the Center for Opinion Research at Franklin & Marshall College under the direction of the poll’s Director Dr. G. Terry Madonna, Head Methodologist Berwood Yost, and Project Manager Jennifer Harding. The data included in this release represent the responses of 1119 adult residents of Pennsylvania, including 964 registered adults (483 Democrats, 353 Republicans, 102 registered as Independent/Other, and 26 who refused to identify party). Telephone numbers for the survey were generated using random digit dialing, and respondents were randomly selected from within each household. Survey results were weighted (age, education, race, region, and gender) using an iterative weighting algorithm. The sample error for this survey is +/- 2.9 percentage points. The sample error for registered adults is +/- 3.2 percentage points and is slightly higher for registered Democrats (+/- 4.5 percentage points) and registered Republicans (+/- 5.2 2 percentage points). In addition to sampling error, this poll is also subject to other sources of non-sampling error. Generally speaking, two sources of error concern researchers most. Non-response bias is created when selected participants either choose not to participate in the survey or are unavailable for interviewing. Response errors are the product of the question and answer process. Surveys that rely on self- reported behaviors and attitudes are susceptible to biases related to the way respondents process and respond to survey questions. The Franklin & Marshall College Poll is produced in conjunction with the Philadelphia Daily News, WGAL-TV (South Central PA), Pittsburgh Tribune Review, WTAE-TV (Pittsburgh), WPVI-TV6/ABC (Philadelphia), Times-Shamrock Newspapers, Harrisburg Patriot-News, and Lancaster Newspapers. It may be used in whole or in part, provided any use is attributed to Franklin & Marshall College. 3 Key Findings The March 2010 Franklin & Marshall College Poll finds that many Pennsylvanians remain undecided about the primary candidates for governor, and Republican Pat Toomey currently enjoys an advantage over both Democratic candidates in the race for U.S. Senate. It also finds Pennsylvanians are paying little attention to the legislative corruption trials, and there is more support than opposition for taxing smokeless tobacco and tolling interstate 80. The Race for Pennsylvania Governor Many Pennsylvanians still have not chosen a candidate in the state’s gubernatorial primaries. The Democratic race for governor in particular remains fluid. On the Republican side, State Attorney General Tom Corbett is favored by one in four respondents, but two in three Republicans are undecided at the moment. This indecision is consistent with February’s poll results. Table 1. Pennsylvania Gubernatorial Primary Preferences If the 2010 Democratic/Republican primary election for GOVERNOR were being held today and the candidates included (rotated) [fill candidates], would you vote for [fill candidates], or aren't you sure how you would vote? Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Democrats (n = 483) Dan Onorato 10% 6% 11% Jack Wagner 4% 6% 7% Joe Hoeffel 4% 6% 5% Anthony Williams - 1% 4% Other 10% 9% 2% Don’t know 72% 72% 71% Republicans (n = 353) Tom Corbett 23% 26% 28% Sam Rohrer 5% 4% 4% Other 3% 5% 2% Don’t know 69% 65% 66% 4 The Race for U.S. Senate The Democratic primary for U.S. Senate has fewer undecided voters (52%). Arlen Specter is favored (32%) over Joe Sestak (12%). Two in three (64%) Republicans claim to be undecided about their primary vote choice for Senate. Pat Toomey has an advantage over both Specter and Sestak in the general election race for U.S. Senate (see Figure 1). Figure 1. 2010 Pennsylvania U.S. Senate Election Preferences If the 2010 election for U.S. SENATOR were being held today and the candidates included (rotated) Arlen Specter/Joe Sestak, the Democrat, and Pat Toomey, the Republican, would you vote for Arlen Specter/Joe Sestak, Pat Toomey, some other candidate, or aren't you sure how you would vote? Specter Toomey Other Don’t know 29 33 6 32 Mar 2010 Feb 2010 33 29 9 29 Jan 2010 30 30 5 35 Sestak Toomey Other Don’t know 19 27 5 49 Mar 2010 Feb 2010 22 25 6 47 Jan 2010 16 28 5 51 5 The pattern of support for Toomey is mostly consistent regardless of his challenger (see Tables A-1 and A-2). Republicans overwhelmingly favor him against both opponents, while his opponents’ support among Democrats is much weaker. Independents favor Toomey over Specter (32% to 17%) and over Sestak (35% to 5%). A majority of registered Pennsylvanians say they don’t know enough about Pat Toomey (59%) and Joe Sestak (73%) to have an opinion, while Arlen Specter continues to be viewed unfavorably by the state’s electorate. More respondents have an unfavorable (45%) than favorable (30%) opinion of him. Fewer than one in three (30%) registered Pennsylvanians say he is doing an excellent or good job as U.S. senator, and even fewer (28%) believe he has done a good enough job as senator to deserve re-election. Those who feel he doesn’t deserve relection most often mention his party switching (31%) and time in office (24%) as reasons for change. Pennsylvania Legislative Corruption Trials Nearly half (44%) of registered Pennsylvanians have read, seen, or heard something about the legislative corruption trials, but only twelve percent of these respondents (5% of registered Pennsylvanians) are following the trials very closely. Two in three (67%) registered respondents believe most Pennsylvania state legislators use state employees and tax money for political campaign activities. 6 Pennsylvania Tax Proposals Registered Pennsylvanians were asked about five changes to state tax laws that recently have been proposed. More respondents favor than oppose only two of these five proposals – taxing smokeless tobacco and tolling interstate 80 (see Figure 2). Respondents are least supportive of increasing taxes on natural gas extraction and reducing the sales tax while taxing more items. Figure 2. Support for Tax Proposals I am going to describe some proposals regarding state taxes. For each, please tell me if you FAVOR or OPPOSE the proposal. Favor Oppose Don’t know Placing new taxes on the sale of smokeless 64 33 3 tobacco and cigars Collecting tolls on interstate 80 to raise money 49 44 7 for state highway and bridge improvements Changing the state income tax to a progressive tax, meaning the more you make, the higher 44 49 7 your tax rate Increasing taxes on companies that extract and 35 49 16 sell natural gas Reducing the sales tax from 6 percent to 4 percent, but extending it to cover many items 33 54 13 that are not currently taxed 7 Table A-1 If the 2010 election for U.S. SENATOR were being held today and the candidates included (rotated) Arlen Specter, the Democrat, and Pat Toomey, the Republican, would you vote for Arlen Specter, Pat Toomey, some other candidate, or aren't you sure how you would vote? Specter Toomey Other Don’t know Gender* Female 32% 23% 5% 39% Male 25% 43% 7% 25% Age* 18-34 25% 29% 5% 41% 35-54 27% 36% 6% 30% 55 and over 33% 33% 7% 28% Education High school or less 27% 31% 6% 36% Some college 27% 34% 6% 33% College degree 33% 35% 6% 25% Household Income* Less than $35,000 31% 26% 6% 38% $35-75,000 27% 32% 5% 36% Over $75,000 31% 38% 6% 25% Race* Non-white 48% 8% 6% 38% White 25% 37% 6% 31% Marital Status* Not currently married 32% 23% 7% 37% Single, never married 30% 22% 6% 42% Married 27% 40% 5% 27% Religious Affiliation* Other/unaffiliated 43% 17% 6% 34% Protestant 24% 41% 6% 30% Catholic 21% 39% 6% 33% Born Again Christian or Fundamentalist Yes 26% 36% 6% 32% No 31%
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Long Red Thread How Democratic Dominance Gave Way to Republican Advantage in Us House of Representatives Elections, 1964
    THE LONG RED THREAD HOW DEMOCRATIC DOMINANCE GAVE WAY TO REPUBLICAN ADVANTAGE IN U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTIONS, 1964-2018 by Kyle Kondik A thesis submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Baltimore, Maryland September 2019 © 2019 Kyle Kondik All Rights Reserved Abstract This history of U.S. House elections from 1964-2018 examines how Democratic dominance in the House prior to 1994 gave way to a Republican advantage in the years following the GOP takeover. Nationalization, partisan realignment, and the reapportionment and redistricting of House seats all contributed to a House where Republicans do not necessarily always dominate, but in which they have had an edge more often than not. This work explores each House election cycle in the time period covered and also surveys academic and journalistic literature to identify key trends and takeaways from more than a half-century of U.S. House election results in the one person, one vote era. Advisor: Dorothea Wolfson Readers: Douglas Harris, Matt Laslo ii Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………....ii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..iv List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..v Introduction: From Dark Blue to Light Red………………………………………………1 Data, Definitions, and Methodology………………………………………………………9 Chapter One: The Partisan Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution in the United States House of Representatives, 1964-1974…………………………...…12 Chapter 2: The Roots of the Republican Revolution:
    [Show full text]
  • January 2010 Franklin & Marshall College Poll
    For immediate release Wednesday, January 27, 2010 January 2010 Franklin & Marshall College Poll SURVEY OF PENNSYLVANIANS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Prepared by: Center for Opinion Research Floyd Institute for Public Policy Franklin & Marshall College BERWOOD A. YOST DIRECTOR, FLOYD INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR OPINION RESEARCH HEAD METHODOLOGIST, FRANKLIN & MARSHALL COLLEGE POLL G. TERRY MADONNA DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR POLITICS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, FRANKLIN & MARSHALL COLLEGE POLL JENNIFER L. HARDING PROJECT MANAGER, CENTER FOR OPINION RESEARCH PROJECT MANAGER, FRANKLIN & MARSHALL COLLEGE POLL KAY K. HUEBNER PROGRAMMER, CENTER FOR OPINION RESEARCH January 26, 2010 Table of Contents METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 2 KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 4 THE RACE FOR PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR ...................................................................4 THE RACE FOR U.S. SENATE ...............................................................................................5 ARLEN SPECTER ...................................................................................................................6 TABLE A-1 ............................................................................................................................... 8 TABLE A-2 ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Pennsylvanians on the 2004 Presidential Election
    The Morning Call/ Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion SURVEY OF PENNSYLVANIANS ON THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION KEY FINDINGS REPORT October 22, 2004 KEY FINDINGS: 1. The race for Pennsylvanian’s crucial electoral votes for president remains extremely close with John Kerry leading George Bush by 2 percentage points. This lead is well within the poll’s margin of error 2. Pennsylvanians remain extremely divided in their views of President Bush, with almost identical percentages of commonwealth voters viewing him favorably in relation to those viewing him unfavorably. 3. Pennsylvanians rate president Bush as the candidate who would better handle the issue of terrorism, while Senator Kerry is rated higher on his ability to handle the issues of the economy and health care. 4. While a majority of Pennsylvania voters feel that the war in Iraq was not worth the costs paid by the United States, the state’s electorate is split on which candidate would better handle the situation in Iraq. 5. The war in Iraq and the economy are identified as the two most important issues upon which Pennsylvania voters will make their decision in the presidential race, with terrorism a close third. 6. For individuals that identified terrorism as the main issue that will decide their presidential vote, Bush is preferred by an overwhelming 4 to 1 margin. 7. Pennsylvanians demonstrate significant pessimism about the direction of the state’s economy, with John Kerry the overwhelming choice of voters who see the state’s economy as worse than last year. METHODOLOGY: The following key findings report summarizes data collected in a telephone survey of 787 registered voters in the state of Pennsylvania between October 17 and 21, 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania House of Representatives Bipartisan Management Committee
    PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BIPARTISAN MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ORAL HISTORY PROJECT INTERVIEW WITH: The Honorable David Sweet (D) 48th District Washington County 1977-1988 INTERVIEW CONDUCTED BY: Jesse Teitelbaum, Research Analyst July 19, 2011 Transcribed by: Erin Miller © Copyright, Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Office of the Chief Clerk 1 Jesse Teitelbaum (JT): Good morning. The Honorable David Sweet (DS): Hello, Jesse. How are you? JT: I‟m well, thank you. DS: Good. JT: I‟m sitting here with David Sweet, who represented the 48th District, a Democrat from Washington County, from 1977 to 1988. Thank you for being with me. DS: Well, thank you for having me. It‟s great to be able to memorialize some of the memories and the things that happened over the years while I was in the Legislature, and I‟m not sure, like many things, I‟m not sure anyone will ever view this or read it, but it‟s probably good to have it all on the record. It‟s great. JT: Absolutely, absolutely. What I‟d like to do is start out just by asking you some questions about your early life. DS: Sure. JT: Tell me about your childhood, where you grew up, your family, and some of your early education. 2 DS: Well, I grew up in Washington, Pennsylvania, which is a little town. It was about 20 thousand then – it‟s probably not much more than 12 or 13 thousand now –25 miles southwest of Pittsburgh. JT: Okay. DS: And Washington – Little Washington to some people because people would drive through – Route 40 was the old national pike, and the interstate was actually built when I was a very small child that went around Washington, Pennsylvania, but many people knew of Washington, Pennsylvania, because they had to slog right through the main street of the town, as you did many towns before the interstate highway system, and it was Little Washington, but it was a good little town.
    [Show full text]
  • Muhlenberg College/Morning Call Poll Uses a Three Step Process
    MUHLENBERG COLLEGE /MORNING CALL 2010 Pennsylvania General Election Tracking Poll RELEASE #13 – November 1, 2010 FIELDING PERIOD – October 28-31, 2010 SAMPLE – 474 Likely Voters in Pennsylvania MARGIN OF ERROR - +/- 4.5% at 95% Level of Confidence TOTALS MAY NOT EQUAL 100% DUE TO ROUNDING METHODOLOGY: Beginning on October 20 and ending on November 1, 2010, The Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion and the Morning Call will be releasing daily results from their statewide general election tracking poll. The results are drawn from telephone surveys of likely voters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Each day’s release will be based on the results of interviews conducted during the previous four days. For example, the initial release on Wednesday, October 20th was produced from interviews conducted between October 16th and 9th. While the total sample size will alternate from day to day because of varying completion rates, the average sample sizes will be approximately 400. Precise margins of error will be identified with each release and average around +/-5% at a 95% level of confidence. All interviews will be conducted by individuals who have been trained in standard interviewing procedures. The sampling frame for this research is a list of registered voters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. To determine if an individual is a likely voter the Muhlenberg College/Morning Call poll uses a three step process. First, the individual must be registered to vote in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This is validated through the use of registered voting records provided by the Secretary of State in Pennsylvania. Second, the individual must identify their likelihood of voting in the November, 2010 election as either “definite” or “very likely.” Finally, the individual must have voted in at least half of the general elections in which they were eligible since 2002 or who had registered to vote since 2008 and voted in the 2010 primary election.
    [Show full text]
  • SURVEY of LEHIGH VALLEY RESIDENTS on the 2004 PRESIDENTIAL, PENNSYLVANIA SENATE, and 15Th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT ELECTION RACES
    The Morning Call/ Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion SURVEY OF LEHIGH VALLEY RESIDENTS ON THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL, PENNSYLVANIA SENATE, AND 15th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT ELECTION RACES KEY FINDINGS REPORT October 3, 2004 KEY FINDINGS: 1. John Kerry leads George W. Bush in a survey of Lehigh Valley voters by six points – 47% - 41%. 2. Kerry is pulling on traditionally Democratic bases, such as female voters, people under the age of 35 and people over the age of 65 3. In general, people in the Lehigh Valley believe the country is safer from terrorism than it was prior to September of 2001, but do not believe that going to war with Iraq has made the country safer from terrorism. 4. Local opinion on the worth of the War in Iraq continues to have a large impact on preferences for the candidates seeking the White House, with individuals viewing the value of the war negatively overwhelmingly supporting John Kerry and those viewing the war’s worth positively supporting the president in large numbers 5. It appears likely that there will be significant ticket splitting occurring in the Lehigh Valley this fall, with more local voters leaning towards Senator Kerry in his election bid in comparison with support for other Democrats seeking seats in Congress. 6. Senator Arlen Specter maintains a strong lead over Congressmen Joe Hoeffel among Lehigh valley voters in the race to represent Pennsylvania in the United States Senate. 7. In the race for the 15th Congressional Seat being vacated by Pat Toomey, State Senator Charlie Dent is holding a considerable lead over his Democratic opponent Joe Driscoll.
    [Show full text]
  • 05A N N U a L R E P O
    05 ANNUAL REPORT | CONVERGENCE | COLLABORATION | COMPETITIVENESS | ALLEGHENY CONFERENCE ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ITS AFFILIATES PITTSBURGH REGIONAL ALLIANCE GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PENNSYLVANIA ECONOMY LEAGUE OF SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA ABOUT THE CONFERENCE The PENNSYLVANIA ECONOMY LEAGUE OF SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, LLC Founded in 1944, the Allegheny Conference established in 1936, provides public policy on Community Development is the leading research and analysis. economic and community development organization for the 10-county Pittsburgh The GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAMBER OF region of southwestern Pennsylvania. COMMERCE, southwestern Pennsylvania’s Together with public and private sector leading business organization for more partners, we work to stimulate growth and than 100 years, advocates at all levels of improve our region’s quality of life. Our government to secure public sector focus is 0n economic competitiveness and investment and legislative and regulatory regional promotion. The Conference relies improvements to the region’s public sector upon the Regional Investors Council, a business climate. broad-based coalition of more than 270 member companies and organizations, to The PITTSBURGH REGIONAL ALLIANCE provide time, talent and resources to further markets southwestern Pennsylvania to the Conference agenda. employers across the region and around the world, to encourage job creation and Through three affiliated organizations, capital investment. which also have long and impressive legacies, the Conference provides research and analysis, advocacy and marketing to advance the vision of its leadership. | CONVERGENCE | COLLABORATION | COMPETITIVENESS | FROM THE CHAIRMAN Simply put, the people of Pittsburgh live in a 250-year tradition of world-changing in which we have built a competitive advan- a great region – and the list of evidence is innovation to accelerate the growth of tage, including life sciences, information long and compelling.
    [Show full text]
  • Muhlenberg College/Morning Call Poll Uses a Three Step Process
    MUHLENBERG COLLEGE /MORNING CALL 2010 Pennsylvania General Election Tracking Poll RELEASE #2 – October 21, 2010 FIELDING PERIOD – October 17-20, 2010 SAMPLE – 420 Likely Voters in Pennsylvania MARGIN OF ERROR - +/- 5% at 95% Level of Confidence TOTALS MAY NOT EQUAL 100% DUE TO ROUNDING METHODOLOGY: Beginning on October 20 and ending on November 1, 2010, The Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion and the Morning Call will be releasing daily results from their statewide general election tracking poll. The results are drawn from telephone surveys of likely voters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Each day’s release will be based on the results of interviews conducted during the previous four days. For example, the initial release on Wednesday, October 20th was produced from interviews conducted between October 16th and 9th. While the total sample size will alternate from day to day because of varying completion rates, the average sample sizes will be approximately 400. Precise margins of error will be identified with each release and average around +/-5% at a 95% level of confidence. All interviews will be conducted by individuals who have been trained in standard interviewing procedures. The sampling frame for this research is a list of registered voters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. To determine if an individual is a likely voter the Muhlenberg College/Morning Call poll uses a three step process. First, the individual must be registered to vote in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This is validated through the use of registered voting records provided by the Secretary of State in Pennsylvania. Second, the individual must identify their likelihood of voting in the November, 2010 election as either “definite” or “very likely.” Finally, the individual must have voted in at least half of the general elections in which they were eligible since 2002 or who had registered to vote since 2008 and voted in the 2010 primary election.
    [Show full text]
  • Entire Issue
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 107 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 148 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2002 No. 8 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. Mr. TIAHRT led the Pledge of Alle- Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, every The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. giance as follows: day for a year I spoke out on inter- Coughlin, offered the following prayer: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the national child abduction. Today I will O Lord, our guardian and our refuge, United States of America, and to the Repub- focus on one case, that of Ludwig in times of war it is difficult to pray. lic for which it stands, one nation under God, Koons, who is being illegally kept in When living under the threat of attack, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Rome, Italy. Until Ludwig is returned anxieties and fear can steal Your abid- f to the United States, I will speak with ing presence. CONGRATULATING JENNIE WEISS outrage at the injustice that is being At such times, there is so much to BLOCK FOR HER NEW BOOK EX- done to this family, an example of pray about. To lift up to You all the PLORING THEOLOGY AND THE what thousands of American parents names of the victims of war is in itself DISABILITY MOVEMENT and their children face every day. a heavy task. To remember them in Ludwig Koons was born in New York prayer keeps our love alive and unveils (Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives Transmitting a Subsidy Budget Authority Request for US Airways, Inc. March 28, 2003
    Mar. 29 / Administration of George W. Bush, 2003 troops in the theater of operations, and new Thank you for listening. high-tech munitions to replace the ones we have used in the war. The supplemental would also provide funds to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq and to help protect NOTE: The address was recorded at 10:31 the American homeland in this time of high a.m. on March 28 in the Cabinet Room at alert. I hope the Congress will act quickly the White House for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. to pass this essential measure. on March 29. The transcript was made avail- The people who serve in the military are able by the Office of the Press Secretary on giving their best to this country. We have March 28 but was embargoed for release the responsibility to give them our full sup- until the broadcast. In his remarks, the Presi- port as they fight for the liberty of an op- dent referred to President Saddam Hussein pressed people, for the security of the of Iraq. The Office of the Press Secretary United States, and for the peace of the also released a Spanish language transcript world. of this address. Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives Transmitting a Subsidy Budget Authority Request for US Airways, Inc. March 28, 2003 Dear Mr. Speaker: et and Emergency Deficit Control Act of In accordance with provisions of Public 1985. Law 107–42, the Air Transportation Safety The details of this request are set forth and System Stabilization Act, I hereby sub- in the enclosed letter from the Director mit a request pursuant to section 101(b) of the Office of Management and Budget.
    [Show full text]
  • Corbett Leads Unknowns in Pennsylvania Governor's Race, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Voters Oppose Rendell Sales Tax
    Peter Brown, Assistant Director, Quinnipiac University Polling Institute FOR RELEASE: MARCH 3, 2010 CORBETT LEADS UNKNOWNS IN PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR’S RACE, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLL FINDS; VOTERS OPPOSE RENDELL SALES TAX PLAN Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett has a 43 – 5 percent lead over State Representative Sam Rohrer for the Republican nomination for governor and holds double-digit leads over the top Democratic candidates, all of whom who are virtual unknowns even to their own party members, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. “Don’t know” leads the field for the Democratic nomination with 59 percent, followed by Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato with 16 percent, State Auditor General Jack Wagner with 11 percent, 2004 U.S. Senate nominee Joel Hoeffel at 10 percent and State. Sen. Tony Williams at 2 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Gov. Ed Rendell remains unpopular with voters as he completes his final year in office, as voters disapprove 49 – 43 percent of the job he is doing, unchanged from December 17. Voters say 49 – 6 percent Gov. Rendell’s plan to increase state spending next year by 4.1 percent was too much rather than too little. Another 35 percent say it’s about right. By a 53 – 40 percent margin, voters oppose the Governor’s plan to raise more money by cutting the state sales tax but expanding items covered by it. “The Democratic candidates for Governor are almost invisible men as far as the voters are concerned. One of them will win the nomination, but at this point they are so closely bunched together and such mystery men to the vast majority of primary voters that any result is possible, given that the primary is little more than 10 weeks away,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania's Political Odd Couple November 18, 2004 by Dr
    Pennsylvania's Political Odd Couple November 18, 2004 by Dr. G. Terry Madonna and Dr. Michael Young Will a Democrat ever win a Senate seat in Pennsylvania again? Joe Hoeffel's recent loss to Arlen Specter was just the latest in a string of regular election defeats for Democrats in this State going back to 1962. The last time a Democratic candidate won a full term in Pennsylvania, John Kennedy was in the White House, a guy named Bill Scranton had just been elected Governor of Pennsylvania, and George W. Bush was 16 years old. That was a long time ago. But apparently not long enough for state Democrats to figure out how to beat their Republican opponents. And the list is a long one: Hugh Scott, Richard Schweiker, John Heinz, Arlen Specter, and Rick Santorum. Collectively these long serving US Senators were elected and re-elected over the better part of a half century-- in spite of the fact that Democrats have been the majority party in the state for the past 40 years. There are many theories advanced to explain why the GOP dispatches its Democratic opponents with so much consistency. Some believe it's the Republicans edge in raising funds for campaigns. Some say it's a superior organization. Others argue that Republicans simply nominate better candidates. And there are other explanations as well. But one reason is really no mystery at all; when the going gets tough, Republicans stick together. This prominent party trait has been clearly on display lately as the furies have been unleashed on Pennsylvania's junior US Senator, Rick Santorum, for his unwavering support of the state's senior Senator Arlen Specter's bid to be selected as the next Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
    [Show full text]