Pennsylvania 2010 - The Official Thread

[TeePee4Prez]

So even if Laffey had not run against him, Chafee still would have lost most likely.

Yeah, that's what us normals have said from the beginning. The man had a 62% approval rating on Election day and still lost by about eight points. He wasn't going to win. They wanted a Democrat elected.

Not to bring up a previous point, but that link you provided shows in a General, Toomey would have a strong uphill battle to climb.  Could he make up for it in the Lehigh Valley and elsewhere?

[Ronnie]

If Specter dares to support card check, the most divisive issue in Washington, he'll go down by 15 points or more.

[Keystone Phil]

So even if Laffey had not run against him, Chafee still would have lost most likely.

Yeah, that's what us normals have said from the beginning. The man had a 62% approval rating on Election day and still lost by about eight points. He wasn't going to win. They wanted a Democrat elected.

Not to bring up a previous point, but that link you provided shows in a General, Toomey would have a strong uphill battle to climb.  Could he make up for it in the Lehigh Valley and elsewhere?

I believe that the SE won't be that bad. Midterm turnout will very likely favor us and, yes, Toomey's advantages in the Lehigh Valley will be a big plus.

If Specter dares to support card check, the most divisive issue in Washington, he'll go down by 15 points or more.

He's on course to lose by that much now. If he votes for Card Check, it'll be even more hilarious.

[Ronnie]

He's on course to lose by that much now. If he votes for Card Check, it'll be even more hilarious.

Right now, I would say he is on track to lose by 10.  15 seems like a little too much since there will be some Democratic switches in registration to vote for him.

15-20 is likely, though, if he votes for card check.

[Keystone Phil]

He's on course to lose by that much now. If he votes for Card Check, it'll be even more hilarious.

Right now, I would say he is on track to lose by 10.  15 seems like a little too much since there will be some Democratic switches in registration to vote for him.

Some but not that many. Plus, you have to remember how many Republicans (in the most conservative areas of the state) there will be for Toomey. Take a look at this...



See those red Specter counties in the center of the state? No way they would have ever gone for Specter if it wasn't for Bush and Santorum. It's hilarious that a few are even dark red! Granted, there aren't tons of votes there but add them all up and it's a huge margin.

If Specter votes for Card Check, he's definitely headed towards a twenty point (or probably worse) defeat.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

If Specter votes for Card Check, he's definitely headed towards a twenty point (or probably worse) defeat.

So instead he should just run as a Democrat, and defeat Toomey in the general instead of the primary.   We get it.

[Keystone Phil]

If Specter votes for Card Check, he's definitely headed towards a twenty point (or probably worse) defeat.

So instead he should just run as a Democrat, and defeat Toomey in the general instead of the primary.   We get it.

I love how you act like such a child. You really make yourself look so foolish. Now you don't even try to defend him because you know he's wrong. You resort to "Haha, your guy loses in the end!" nonsense.

Grow up, Don. The game is over. Your guy is hated by basically everyone here. You don't even like him anymore. When the debate becomes "Will he switch or not?" it ought to be a sign to give it up already and move on.

[Ronnie]

He's on course to lose by that much now. If he votes for Card Check, it'll be even more hilarious.

Right now, I would say he is on track to lose by 10.  15 seems like a little too much since there will be some Democratic switches in registration to vote for him.

Some but not that many. Plus, you have to remember how many Republicans (in the most conservative areas of the state) there will be for Toomey. Take a look at this...



See those red Specter counties in the center of the state? No way they would have ever gone for Specter if it wasn't for Bush and Santorum. It's hilarious that a few are even dark red! Granted, there aren't tons of votes there but add them all up and it's a huge margin.

If Specter votes for Card Check, he's definitely headed towards a twenty point (or probably worse) defeat.

Yeah, that map is way too lopsided toward Specter.  If Specter is lucky he'll get the map to look like the 2008 election.

[Keystone Phil]

He's on course to lose by that much now. If he votes for Card Check, it'll be even more hilarious.

Right now, I would say he is on track to lose by 10.  15 seems like a little too much since there will be some Democratic switches in registration to vote for him.

Some but not that many. Plus, you have to remember how many Republicans (in the most conservative areas of the state) there will be for Toomey. Take a look at this...



See those red Specter counties in the center of the state? No way they would have ever gone for Specter if it wasn't for Bush and Santorum. It's hilarious that a few are even dark red! Granted, there aren't tons of votes there but add them all up and it's a huge margin.

If Specter votes for Card Check, he's definitely headed towards a twenty point (or probably worse) defeat.

Yeah, that map is way too lopsided toward Specter.  If Specter is lucky he'll get the map to look like the 2008 election.

Take a look at the actual numbers by county...

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=15&ElectionID=10&OfficeID=2

I'll still give Specter (as near guarantees) - Philly, Montco, Delaware, Bucks and Chester - but they'll be close. He'll probably still take Lackawanna, Luzerne and maybe Erie. I'm sure he'll have some county organizations stay loyal to him in random areas (especially if State Committee still backs him) but that map is going to look totally different in 2010. There is no way that Arlen carries most of the counties again. Absolutely no way.

[Ronnie]

This is a bit off topic, but the silver lining for the GOP in PA, is that they *probably* won a majority of congressional districts in the state.  That's pretty impressive despite losing the state by 10 points.

[Verily]

This is a bit off topic, but the silver lining for the GOP in PA, is that they *probably* won a majority of congressional districts in the state.  That's pretty impressive despite losing the state by 10 points.

Technically, yes, but the close shaves were all on the McCain side...

PA-01: Obama
PA-02: Obama
PA-03: McCain (by 17 votes)
PA-04: McCain
PA-05: McCain
PA-06: Obama
PA-07: Obama
PA-08: Obama
PA-09: McCain
PA-10: McCain
PA-11: Obama
PA-12: McCain (by 0.31%)
PA-13: Obama
PA-14: Obama
PA-15: Obama
PA-16: McCain (close but not marginal)
PA-17: McCain (ditto)
PA-18: McCain
PA-19: McCain

And one of the Pittsburgh-area Republican districts will be evaporating in 2010. And a gerrymander is nothing to be happy about in any case.

[Lunar]

How is this a Gerrymander?

[Ronnie]

How do they get away with something like that?

[Verily]

How do they get away with something like that?

Pennsylvania has no laws restricting this sort of thing, and the federal government doesn't have any, either. So, the Republicans drew a crazy map in 2002 that gave them an absurd number of seats. Consider, the Republicans held all of the seats McCain won except PA-12 and PA-17 after the 2004 election, but also held PA-06, PA-07, PA-08 and PA-15 of the districts Obama won. That is, despite Pennsylvania being around 5 points more Democratic than the country as a whole, the Republicans held 12 of the 19 seats, to only 7 for the Democrats.

Pennsylvania is one of the worst gerrymanders, along with Illinois (pro-GOP), Texas (pro-GOP), Florida (pro-GOP), Ohio (pro-GOP), North Carolina (pro-Dem) and Maryland (pro-Dem). Of course, some of those gerrymanders have been "broken" recently, but they worked in 2002. New York is an odd example of a state that's not particularly partisanly gerrymandered but is overwhelmingly for one party anyway. Michigan is gerrymandered to favor Republicans but the designs are mostly not egregious. Massachusetts is sort of a technical gerrymander where the gerrymander is a holdover from the 1990s but isn't necessary any more.

[Lunar]

How do they get away with something like that?

Murtha

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How do they get away with something like that?

Bush was President, so he certainly wasn't going to try to stop them.
They spent $400,000 of taxpayer money having a computer pick the most optimal districts for the Republican party. Of course recent elections weren't so favorable to Pennsylvania Republicans

[Keystone Phil]

How do they get away with something like that?

Murtha

The PA House was run by the GOP at the time. They had to create very favorable Republican districts in that area. They kept Murtha in a relatively easy district but made it so that even that district would be competitive.

I am a big critic of our re-districting here in PA. Before people go crazy about gerrymandering like this stuff...

They spent $400,000 of taxpayer money having a computer pick the most optimal districts for the Republican party. Of course recent elections weren't so favorable to Pennsylvania Republicans

...please realize that the Dems were in on it as well. They knew that they wouldn't get their ideal plan since they weren't in the majority but don't fall for the hack arguments that this is just the Republicans fault. The Dems make their deals, too, my friends.

Anyway, I don't like the way we do it. I want it completely non-partisan.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Why did Toomey do so well in Pittsburgh? I guess Specter's voters there aren't registered Republicans?

[Smash255]

Why did Toomey do so well in Pittsburgh? I guess Specter's voters there aren't registered Republicans?

Toomey very unlikely did well in Pittsburgh proper, he did well in Allegheny County.  Keep in mind the city of Pittsburgh, only makes up about 25% of the population of Allegheny County, and when it comes down to voters in a Republican Primary, its a much lower % than that.

[Brittain33]

Not to bring up a previous point, but that link you provided shows in a General, Toomey would have a strong uphill battle to climb.  Could he make up for it in the Lehigh Valley and elsewhere?

I'm far from an expert on Pennsylvania politics, but the Lehigh Valley is only 1/19 of the state's population and I don't think it pays dividends in Scranton or Wilks-Barre.

[Brittain33]

Another thing with the PA-12 gerrymander: they were merging Murtha's district with Frank Mascara's PA-20 in the southwest corner of the state, and needed to draw a district that included both men's bases without giving one such a light footprint in the district he'd go elsewhere. The weird carve-outs in the northern part of the district reflected how few directions Shuster's PA-9 district had to go in once you assume you're combining PA-12 and PA-20 and yet have to maintain equal population. Shuster couldn't drive to the southwest, but Murtha's bases in the northeast had to be kept in.

[Brittain33]

...please realize that the Dems were in on it as well. They knew that they wouldn't get their ideal plan since they weren't in the majority but don't fall for the hack arguments that this is just the Republicans fault. The Dems make their deals, too, my friends.

What on Earth did Democrats contribute to this map? It was one of the most lopsided maps in the country. Any advantages to Democrats came out of miscalculations by Republicans (PA-13 and PA-4), not because the Democrats had any say in the outcome.

[TeePee4Prez]

Not to bring up a previous point, but that link you provided shows in a General, Toomey would have a strong uphill battle to climb.  Could he make up for it in the Lehigh Valley and elsewhere?

I'm far from an expert on Pennsylvania politics, but the Lehigh Valley is only 1/19 of the state's population and I don't think it pays dividends in Scranton or Wilks-Barre.

The Lehigh Valley is a critical swing area though.  Despite the Jewish popiluation only being 2% of the nation, many political scientists also consider then a deciding factor because of their presence in states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Florida.

[Keystone Phil]

...please realize that the Dems were in on it as well. They knew that they wouldn't get their ideal plan since they weren't in the majority but don't fall for the hack arguments that this is just the Republicans fault. The Dems make their deals, too, my friends.

What on Earth did Democrats contribute to this map? It was one of the most lopsided maps in the country. Any advantages to Democrats came out of miscalculations by Republicans (PA-13 and PA-4), not because the Democrats had any say in the outcome.

I said that the Democrats ultimately sign off on everything and that they make their deals. I didn't say that they made a deal on this district.

Why did Toomey do so well in Pittsburgh? I guess Specter's voters there aren't registered Republicans?

First of all, Toomey probably didn't win the city but I wouldn't be shocked if he did very well. His strong showing came from suburband Pittsburgh. Secondly, the voters there are more conservative. Finally, Specter hasn't been liked out west for some time. This goes for both the General and primary elections. This dates back to decades.

Interesting note - Specter beat the Mayor of Pittsburgh in the 1980 General. It was a very close race. I believe Specter won by only two points.

[Brittain33]

...please realize that the Dems were in on it as well. They knew that they wouldn't get their ideal plan since they weren't in the majority but don't fall for the hack arguments that this is just the Republicans fault. The Dems make their deals, too, my friends.

What on Earth did Democrats contribute to this map? It was one of the most lopsided maps in the country. Any advantages to Democrats came out of miscalculations by Republicans (PA-13 and PA-4), not because the Democrats had any say in the outcome.

I said that the Democrats ultimately sign off on everything and that they make their deals. I didn't say that they made a deal on this district.

But I wasn't singling out the 12th district. I can't identify any district anywhere on the map where the Democrats "made a deal." From one end of the state to the other, the map was a total Republican creation with no intentional benefits for Democrats. There's nothing in the legislative process that would have required the Democrats to sign off on anything, either. The only modification to an ideal Republican map that helped Democrats--the preservation of PA-4 much as it was under Ron Klink--came at the request of Melissa Hart over the objections of the legislators who wanted a safe district.

Gerrymandering is not a uniquely Republican sin. The maps in Georgia and Maryland in 2002 were every bit as gerrymandered and ugly as the Pennsylvania map. However, I would need to hear something specific the Democrats did to contribute to this map.