McCain Loses 27% of Pennsylvania Vote

Yes, of course, John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

But don't think that means that grassroots Republicans -- especially movement conservatives who have never really trusted the guy -- are united in their support for the senator from Arizona.

Pennsylvania had a Republican primary on Tuesday.

It certainly did not get the attention that was afforded to the Democratic contest.

But McCain had opponents on the ballot -- Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the libertarian, anti-war candidate who is still sort of campaigning, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who has folded his prayer tent. And McCain's foes won a lot of voters.

And more than 800,000 Pennsylvanians took Republican ballots. That's only about a third as many as voted in the Democratic primary, but its still a significant GOP turnout.

And a significant portion of that GOP turnout rejected the man who will carry the Republican banner in November.

McCain finished with an uninspiring 73 percent of the vote Tuesday.

Paul got 16 percent.

Huckabee's non-candidacy took 11 percent.

When all the Republican votes were counted, more than 200,000 ended up in the columns of what can best be described as the Anybody-but-McCain candidates.

Comments (49)

1. Haha awesome.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/22/2008 @ 11:38pm

2. I don't think this means very much. If you are a McCain supporter, what motivation would you have for voting today? If you are a Paul or Huckabee supporter, you would certainly have some motivation for at least making a statement.

   I really don't think you can interpret this the way Nichols is.

   Posted by smmerino at 04/23/2008 @ 12:03am

3. Seems like the republicans are crossing over to vote for Hillary.

   Posted by pribfam at 04/23/2008 @ 12:15am

4. Losing 28% doesn't sound all that bad. One way at looking at it is that that was 28% that didn't go to Hillary or Obama and therefore is not likely to go that way in November either. Sort of those who hold their nose and vote for McCain.

   My thinking is that Republicans should be praying for an Obama victory in the primaries. Hillary carries less baggage than Obama who would be a lot more vulnerable to a range Republican attacks.

   Posted by harvey 79 at 04/23/2008 @ 04:07am

5. This thing is becoming beyond ridiculous.

   Posted by eniobob at 04/23/2008 @ 08:08am

6. Posted by HARVEY 79 04/23/2008 @ 04:07am

   Hillary starts with FORTY-SEVEN percent saying they would "Never vote for her"....that's a few bits of Samsonite, HARV.

   Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 08:54am

7. Posted by MASK 04/23/2008 @ 08:54am

   There are too many question marks surrounding Obama such as his long association with the radical black liberation movement, his seemingly poor grasp of his own economic policies, his inability to mix it "extempore" with his opponents and a seeming arrogance or impatience with questioners. The latter may be because of a messiah complex, whereby he feels entitled but that attitude will lose him the 'blue collar' white vote.

   Clinton is a consummate politician who is more interested in winning than policy purity or consistency. So she, unlike Obama who is beginning to look decidedly wimpish, has the balls for the job, as her politically brilliant promise to nuke Iran (a bit different from offering to bomb our ally Pakistan) if necessary shows. She no doubt warmed the hearts of a few Republicans who thought she had gone all soft since giving Bush the OK to disarm Saddam but more importantly most likely garnered quite a few votes in PA by her belligerent statement.

   Thus I think Clinton would give that old battle hardened warhorse, McCain, a better run for the White House than would Obama. So lets (Repubs) hope Obama gets past the "super" gate keepers

   Posted by harvey 79 at 04/23/2008 @ 10:34am

8. Hillary carries less baggage

   oh really? how about sharing the white house with an impeached pres? Obama could have eviscerated her, but chose not to.

   Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 10:40am

9. Posted by HARVEY 79 04/23/2008 @ 10:34am

   Well, HARV despite a lot of dubious EMOTIONAL defenses for Her Majesty....I'm looking at the numbers.

   And she has MONUMENTALLY higher negatives than Obama does, even if you simply put it down to "People don't know him"....which is even WORSE for Hillary because the people that DO "know her"...47% of them don't like her...at all.

   Plus at this point how does she actually "win"?

   Say she SOMEHOW convinces Dean to seat Florida, even Michigan, and they and the Supers basically GIVE her the nomination...despite Obama having more delegates, more popular votes, more states, AND...more money....

   Doesn't that strike you as eerily familiar?....say a President winning the Electoral College vote on a dubious Florida election, while losing the popular vote?

   Hillary "selected not elected"?!?!??

   Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 10:43am

10. This thing is becoming beyond ridiculous.

    Posted by ENIOBOB 04/23/2008 @ 08:08am

    i say we put these candidates through the rigours of "Pussycat Dolls Present: Girlicious".

    then we'll really see who's got mettle and/or metal.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/23/2008 @ 10:59am

11. or "Flava of Love"?

    ewwwwwww

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 11:03am

12. that old battle hardened warhorse, McCain,

    old old. battlehardened? he was in no battle. warhorse? that old nag?

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 11:12am

13. HRC wins in Pennsylvania!

    Let the "Conversation" continue . . . .

    (And don't forget-- she is qualified because she is "so ready to be your President!")

    Best to just crown her now, don't you think?

    Posted by goyadad at 04/23/2008 @ 11:43am

14. In case you didn't hear it today on NPR Morning Edition, the best analysis of the HRC win in Penna came from a professional dog trainer from Philly named "Shug Davis." Priceless. Check the audio file at NPR.org. It tells you everything you need to know.

    Posted by goyadad at 04/23/2008 @ 11:46am

15. I am sure someone has mentioned: How come McCain can't close the deal?

    Posted by Lil at 04/23/2008 @ 11:52am

16. Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 11:44am | ignore this person

    yeah right, the winner should bow out. thanks repub shill for the good advice. if the loser refuses to bow out, then it's surely up to the winner to do so. last I heard, Barry is ahead in votes and delegates.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 12:01pm

17. Obama....more popular votes

    Obama....more pledged delegates

    Obama....more states won

    Obama....MUCH more money donated than HRC

    Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 11:44am....he should quit and give it to the 2nd place candidate, no way he can win!

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 12:07pm

18. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Euler

    right wing gov't shill. nothing more. don't believe a word of it.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 12:50pm

19. Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 12:30pm

    So, don't give it to the person who's actually WINNING the Democratic Primaries...

    let's give it to the one coming in 2nd, because HER supporters BELIEVE she's the best to defeat McCain!

    Uh........huh. Gotcha!

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 1:04pm

20. it means he has little support from the wacko conseratives in the republican party,they will sit out the election instead of selling out and voting for him.the paul supporters will likely vote libertian

    Posted by pdxpaul2 at 04/23/2008 @ 1:11pm

21. Yes, of course I'm making the $50 donation.

    But:

    http://www.dos.state.pa.us/voting/cwp/view.asp?a=1218&Q=446365

    _______________________+_____________________

    http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/PA.html

    =

    It is curios that Obama won counties that each used a different type of machine. No way to say that a particular 'type' of un-audit-able machine was more suspect than another for,... er, failures.

    Also Bradblog (http://www.bradblog.com/) reports that there actually were a lot of voting irregularities that MSNBC totally said the opposite about! Either just lousy reporting or it wasn't in the script. And Faux Spews was the one that made a report about a voting irregularity!

    I may do a matching $50 donation to the national verifiable voting cause too.

    BTW, my computer is in the shop. My taxes apparently caused it to crash. I had to do them the old fashion way... But more to the point-- no late night comments from me for a while 'til it's up and running again.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/23/2008 @ 1:17pm

22. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/23/2008 @ 1:17pm

    It's a worthy cause, HSUB. They do more for the world's poor, than I think a lot of the "food drops" ever do.

    BTW, want to go for another? On "a brokered Convention ending up with a Gore/Obama ticket"?

    Some family in Africa, Asia, or South America could get a llama or cow out of it!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 1:20pm

23. Oh, and a good point to keep making (since it isn't made nearly enough) about the people in either of the dem campaigns that won't vote for other in the general-- is that they 'will' vote for Al Gore at the top over McCave, and in a heartbeat.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/23/2008 @ 1:22pm

24. Some family in Africa, Asia, or South America could get a llama or cow out of it!

    Posted by MASK 04/23/2008 @ 1:20pm

    To eat or starve?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/23/2008 @ 1:26pm

25. MCCAIN N 2008! SEEMS MORE AND MORE INEVITABLE.

    Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 12:30pm

    I can't fathom how anyone could want more of the same of what's been going on. Bush has effed this country up beyond measure, and McIdiot promises to follow suit like the doorknob that he is.

    Everytime McIdiot opens his mouth, he proves just how unaware he is of what is going on in the world. I recall him uttering that the Iranians were training AQ soldiers. Keep in mind that this is the same guy who claims we should stay in Iraq 100 years but doesn't even know the differences between the Shiite and the Sunni. Just recently he was claiming that he is against everything that is anti-everything. What the hell does that mean?! McIdiot has basically come out and said he's pro-Bush policies since he's against opposing Bush. Considering W's performance ratings are in the high 20's or low 30's speaks volumes of his chances of being elected promising to continue W's policies.

    You people making less than oh say, $200k a year and are still voting Republican are proven morons. You are aiding and abetting the ultra wealthy and screwing yourself. Since you are into self destruction, you might as well fire up your lawn mowers and run them over your feet a few times. I wonder if you'd notice that you cut your feet off.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/23/2008 @ 1:26pm

26. Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 12:30pm

    Funny most of the states are givens except Florida and Michigan which, she was the only one on the ballot in Michigan from the big three so why does that translate to a victory in the generals? In Florida I guarantee you a Dem will not win this year no matter what. She has won only blue states, states that will be won no matter what come the generals. She will not win the generals your logic is completely lacking. If she can't beat Obama in the primaries how will she beat McCain in the generals?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 1:36pm

27. Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 12:39pm

    Funny considering you are saying Obama the current front runner should drop out because only Hillary can win against McCain. So you are basically saying we should run AGAINST McCain not FOR the winner.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 1:37pm

28. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/23/2008 @ 1:26pm

    Did you not read how their program works, when you made your donation, HSUB?

    They milk the animals or shear their fur and breed them, and then must give one of the sires to another poor family.

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 1:45pm

29. If she can't beat Obama in the primaries how will she beat McCain in the generals?----Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 1:36pm

    Maybe (like Michigan), she and McCain could strike a deal to take their names off the ballots in 45 states (do it like a "write-in")...then she agrees, then cheats and leaves her name on the ballot while McCain takes his off....then she wins and claims we MUST count the votes for her or else we're not being democratic!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 1:49pm

30. re: my polls,

    Posted by EULER 04/23/2008 @ 11:44am

    who's that?

    you, your cousin ralph, and the paperboy?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/23/2008 @ 2:05pm

31. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/23/2008 @ 2:05pm

    Whoa whoa whoa.... The gardener too.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/23/2008 @ 2:08pm

32. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/23/2008 @ 2:08pm

    Plus he asked FRANKGRITS, MYPARADIGM, HELENDAO, and the H.T.O.T.D.....

    you can't get more "Zogby" or "Rasmussen" that that, can you?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 2:25pm

33. I doubt very many people who voted for Ron Paul are going to vote for McInsane. Most probably won't vote for Obama either, but it should be a good year, relatively speaking, for the LP, Constitution Party, Nader, etc.

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 04/23/2008 @ 2:34pm

34. but it should be a good year, relatively speaking, for the LP, Constitution Party, Nader, etc.---Posted by KEVIN_OKEEFFE 04/23/2008 @ 2:34pm

    Yeah, they might TOTAL UP to almost 2-3%!

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 2:38pm

35. Hillary won by 9.4 % points. this is with 99% of the precincts reporting. thus she did not win a two digit lead. everything else is lies.

    she won ONE more delegate than Barry did. ONE. a pyrrhic victory.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 2:41pm

36. Hillary won by 9.4 % points. this is with 99% of the precincts reporting. thus she did not win a two digit lead. everything else is lies.

    she won ONE more delegate than Barry did. ONE. a pyrrhic victory.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 2:42pm

37. If Hillary is the nominee, you're pretty much guaranteed to get another result like the last two elections. It'll be close, but the Democrats will lose in the end (irrespective of any suspicious electoral irregularities; there will always be some irregularities in elections, and they don't always favor the Republicans - its not like Mary Landrieu really beat Woody Jenkins in 1996, after all, but she still holds the Senate seat). If Obama is the nominee, anything could happen; he could do about as well as Dukakis did in '88, or more like Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide. At least with Obama, victory is included within the range of possible scenarios. With Hillary as the nominee, get ready to savor her 240 Electoral Votes....

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 04/23/2008 @ 2:52pm

38. "Yeah, they might TOTAL UP to almost 2-3%!"

    Yes, and 2-3% of the vote, taken out of the Republican column, should be more than enough to defeat John McInsane, as any intelligent observer would readily note (and not require it to be explained to them). I'm a Republican who voted for Ron Paul, and I plan to vote for Bob Barr for President. But if I lived in a swing sate, I'd probably vote for Obama (I'm not sure I could bring myself to pull the lever for Hillarious Rotten Klinton, however). I've spoken with a lot of fellow Ron Paul enthusiasts, and that's probably a fairly representative view of how many of us feel at present.

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 04/23/2008 @ 2:59pm

39. Posted by KEVIN_OKEEFFE 04/23/2008 @ 2:59pm

    But, KEVIN, you threw NADER into that mix...and we got enough of the dopey "pure progressives who will NOT vote for a lesser of two evils" who play into that figure as well.

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 3:11pm

40. They milk the animals or shear their fur and breed them, and then must give one of the sires to another poor family.

    Posted by MASK 04/23/2008 @ 1:45pm

    I was only partially kidding-- as in if it were mistakenly given to a staving family unable to even feed themselves, that that would make the circumstance rather stressed not to gain relief from just going ahead and eating it...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/23/2008 @ 3:23pm

41. To hear the MSM this morning one would assume that Billary won by the required 65% she would need in every remaining state to catch up. NOT.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/23/2008 @ 3:28pm

42. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/23/2008 @ 3:23pm

    Not to keep repeating myself, but it IS a good cause.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/23/2008 @ 3:28pm

    We're discussing that elsewhere. Any Hillary cultists able to come up with a means by which Hillary actually WINS the nomination....not is GIVEN it by the Super Delegates?!??!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 3:30pm

43. I know, maybe Obama will suddenly, sporadically decide to move to some other country, for good. He'd have to immigrate, cease to be a citizen of the United States, and therefore be ineligible to run. Yeah, that sounds about right. Then the Dems would have no choice but to elect her magesty.

    Posted by shadow master at 04/23/2008 @ 4:06pm

44. Anyway to be slightly on topic, 200,000 people making a statement, is definitely a statement worth paying attention to. That's a lot of people who hate the idea of a McCain presidency, they go through the trouble of voting for someone who has no chance.

    Posted by shadow master at 04/23/2008 @ 4:08pm

45. Posted by SHADOW MASTER 04/23/2008 @ 4:08pm

    Part of the two-prong approach the Dems could use against McCain.

    For most, it should be a reminder that ALL that McCain is promising is..."a third Bush term".

    But for the Hard Right, the DNC could fund a few ads in Red States pointing out a lot of the "maverick" moves of "Maverick John"....like stem-cells....campaign finance...global warming....or even find his "agents of intolerance" line about Falwell and Robertson.

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 4:18pm

46. Posted by SHADOW MASTER 04/23/2008 @ 4:08pm

    Not like PA voting for Billary knowing it's a mathematical impossibility for her to win the dem nom... Must be the 'hope' Obama speaks to? I'm sure they'll turn right around and vote for him in the general.

    Or they'll vote for Al Gore.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/23/2008 @ 4:36pm

47. Or they'll vote for Al Gore.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/23/2008 @ 4:36pm | ignore this person

    no one is voting for Gore.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 4:39pm

48. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/23/2008 @ 3:23pm

    Not to keep repeating myself, but it IS a good cause.

    Posted by MASK 04/23/2008 @ 3:30pm

    How much have you donated to them?

    I need to more donating for tax purposes next year, having just done mine... good thing I'm not running for office. YUK.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/23/2008 @ 4:39pm

49. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/23/2008 @ 4:39pm

    We bought a llama. (Have some ties to South America).

    They're great pack animals (leaving few soil distressing hoof marks) and their fleece can be sheared and sold or made into handicrafts that can be sold for cash money.

    (Hopefully not to CHIMICHENGA!...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 4:45pm