Pennsylvania 2012: Casey's Challenge

[Iosif]

The Year of the Pennsylvania Republican could be 2012.

That year was 2010.  Obama would have to lose Pennsylvania for Casey to come anywhere close to losing and that just isnt possible in a Presidential year with the Philly Dem machine turning out 600,000 votes for Democrats. 

Yeah, Obama couldn't possibly get more unpopular to offset Democratic turnout and the Dems will always have insane turnout. 

11 points. Obama won by 11 points. Pennsylvania is not a purple state.

Still living in 2008, eh? Beautiful. Only helps my side. Just a quick reminder...

Victories for the PA GOP in 2010: U.S. Senator, Governor/Lt. Governor, Five Congressional seats to take a 12-7 lead in the delegation, kept the 30-20 margin in the State Senate, net pick up of thirteen seats in the State House to take a 112-91 majority (largest ever for any party in decades).

We also hold the Attorney General spot.

Dems now hold a U.S. Senate seat, the Auditor General and State Treasurer spots.

Yeah, definitely a solid Dem state.

CT has gone 20 years without a Democratic governor. Another purple state I presume?

In the best Republican year for decades, with the Republicans united behind a candidate, on the tails of a bruising democratic primary, with a disillusioned liberal base and with a pathetic turnout in Philly - the Republican won by 3 points. A similar margin in IL, another notorious purple state presumably.

John Kerry won PA while losing the election. Al Gore won PA while 'losing' the election. Obama stormed home in PA despite the protestations of a teenage self-proclaimed PA intheknow political expert that catholics and poor whites and union members wouldn't vote black. He won it by 11 points.

I realise there's no point arguing with you as you're stubborn. I also realise there's no point highlighting the hypocrisy of you ridiculing the comparison of 2008 (a presidential election) to 2012 (a presidential election) while simultaneously bringing up 2010 (not a presidential election) because you're also rather thick. So I'll leave you to it and instead I'll look up this thread in 2 years time to bump to chuckle in how yet again you've embarrassed yourself in a thread about Pennsylvania elections.

[Keystone Phil]

CT has gone 20 years without a Democratic governor. Another purple state I presume?

Good job ignoring the other offices I listed. Obviously a totally different situation.

In the best Republican year for decades, with the Republicans united behind a candidate, on the tails of a bruising democratic primary, with a disillusioned liberal base and with a pathetic turnout in Philly - the Republican won by 3 points. A similar margin in IL, another notorious purple state presumably.

Pathetic turnout? You are pathetically uninformed. Over 40% isn't pathetic for a midterm.

By the way, 2008 was one of the best Dem years in decades. That would explain an eleven point win for Obama. I take it you're willing to retract your argument now, right?

Obama stormed home in PA despite the protestations of a teenage self-proclaimed PA intheknow political expert that catholics and poor whites and union members wouldn't vote black. He won it by 11 points.

Self proclaimed expert? Uh huh.

Yes, Obama won Pennsylvania in a Democratic landslide year. Too bad it isn't 2008 anymore, right?

By the way, the know-it-all from across the pond told us Pat Toomey was unelectable. How did that work out?

I realise there's no point arguing with you as you're stubborn.

Classic coming from you.

 

I also realise there's no point highlighting the hypocrisy of you ridiculing the comparison of 2008 (a presidential election) to 2012 (a presidential election) while simultaneously bringing up 2010 (not a presidential election) because you're also rather thick.

How is that hypocritical? Don't have much of a grasp on the language, do you now?

So I'll leave you to it and instead I'll look up this thread in 2 years time to bump to chuckle in how yet again you've embarrassed yourself in a thread about Pennsylvania elections.

Oh, the arrogance. You are absolutely going to be right about 2012! Just like how you would be right about 2010 when you were still gloating about 2008.

Speaking of bumping threads about Pennsylvania elections, do you really want me to bump all the threads about Pat Toomey over the past six years? I know you had some real gems!

That's the difference between people like yourself and people like me: I took the victory with class. I didn't bump tons of threads like you and BRTD. But if you want to get into that, be my guest because I have plenty to throw your way.

[albaleman]

The Year of the Pennsylvania Republican could be 2012.

That year was 2010.  Obama would have to lose Pennsylvania for Casey to come anywhere close to losing and that just isnt possible in a Presidential year with the Philly Dem machine turning out 600,000 votes for Democrats. 

I'd say right now, there is a 50% chance for 2012 to be a worse year for the democrats than 2010 was.

Seriously? At a minimum it will be significantly better because more Dems will turnout because it will be a presidential year. If PA Republicans could barely win an open senate seat in the most Republican year in at least a decade and a half, how could you possibly think you could beat Casey?

Of course, this is coming from the same person who claimed that an incumbent Democratic senator could have been defeated in 2006.

[Keystone Phil]

Seriously? At a minimum it will be significantly better because more Dems will turnout because it will be a presidential year. If PA Republicans could barely win an open senate seat in the most Republican year in at least a decade and a half, how could you possibly think you could beat Casey?

It would help if you read his argument: he said 2012 could be a worse year for the Dems. If it is, you can't keep that that turnout will be better for your side.

The comparison of the Presidential race and the Senate race isn't that great. Sestak was able to portray himself as an outsider and pick up plenty of votes in areas where Obama will get destroyed if he's still sitting at a 40% approval rating here.

Of course, this is coming from the same person who claimed an incumbent Democratic senator could be defeated in 2006.

That would be me. It would also help if you got your people straight because getting so cocky. 

And yes, polling showed he could have been beaten.

[albaleman]

Seriously? At a minimum it will be significantly better because more Dems will turnout because it will be a presidential year. If PA Republicans could barely win an open senate seat in the most Republican year in at least a decade and a half, how could you possibly think you could beat Casey?

It would help if you read his argument: he said 2012 could be a worse year for the Dems. If it is, you can't keep that that turnout will be better for your side.

What I said is that 2012 WILL be a better year for Dems, simply because it will be a presidential year and thus more people will turn out, which almost always helps the Dems. The biggest reason we got swamped this year is because turnout was 42%, which won't happen in a Presidential year.

And yes, polling showed he could have been beaten.

That polling was taken back when people thought 2006 would be a Lean Rep/Neutral year.

And yes, I did mix you and J.J up.

[Keystone Phil]

Seriously? At a minimum it will be significantly better because more Dems will turnout because it will be a presidential year. If PA Republicans could barely win an open senate seat in the most Republican year in at least a decade and a half, how could you possibly think you could beat Casey?

It would help if you read his argument: he said 2012 could be a worse year for the Dems. If it is, you can't keep that that turnout will be better for your side.

What I said is that 2012 WILL be a better year for Dems, simply because it will be a presidential year and thus more people will turn out, which almost always helps the Dems. The biggest reason we got swamped this year is because turnout was 42%, which won't happen in a Presidential year.

So forget any policy issues or other events over the next two years; 2012 will just be better because turnout is higher in Presidential election years. Excellent analysis!

That polling was taken back when people thought 2006 would be a Lean Rep/Neutral year.

Nelson had a 44% approval rating in July of 2006. Who thought it would be a lean Republican or neutral year then?

[albaleman]

Seriously? At a minimum it will be significantly better because more Dems will turnout because it will be a presidential year. If PA Republicans could barely win an open senate seat in the most Republican year in at least a decade and a half, how could you possibly think you could beat Casey?

It would help if you read his argument: he said 2012 could be a worse year for the Dems. If it is, you can't keep that that turnout will be better for your side.

What I said is that 2012 WILL be a better year for Dems, simply because it will be a presidential year and thus more people will turn out, which almost always helps the Dems. The biggest reason we got swamped this year is because turnout was 42%, which won't happen in a Presidential year.

So forget any policy issues or other events over the next two years; 2012 will just be better because turnout is higher in Presidential election years. Excellent analysis!

Basically, yes, but that isn't saying much considering that 2010 was one of the greatest midterm landslides in, well, ever. The turnout was so bad for Dems this election that it may very well never be duplicated.

Furthermore, anybody who thinks there's even a sliver of a chance that 2012 will be better that 2010 for the Republicans is badly misreading the meaning of 2010. 2010 was not a mandate for Republicans, nor was it a rejection of Democrats. Rather it was just a rejection of the incumbent party. Had the Republicans been in office, they would have been hammered just as badly. Republicans who fail to recognize this do so at their own peril.

Nelson had a 44% approval rating in July of 2006. Who thought it would be a lean Republican or neutral year then?

The Democratic wave of that year was going to carry him to victory regardless. In 2006, for the first and only time in history, no incumbent Democratic governor, senator, or U.S. representative was defeated.

[Keystone Phil]

Had the Republicans been in office, they would have been hammered just as badly. Republicans who fail to recognize this do so at their own peril.

Ok, that's like any election, dude. If the Dems had the White House going into 2008, it would have been a disaster for them. If they had Congress going into 2006, it would have been a disaster for them. 

Guess what. You're still the incumbent party in the Senate and the White House so it could be another anti incumbent year.

The Democratic wave of that year was going to carry him to victory regardless.

And I disagree so let's end it at that.

[Former Moderate]

I don't think they'd be favorites or anything, but it's hard to believe that Gerlach or Dent wouldn't be competitive, credible GOP candidates. Casey ain't perfect.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't think they'd be favorites or anything, but it's hard to believe that Gerlach or Dent wouldn't be competitive, credible GOP candidates. Casey ain't perfect.

They both are considered that.    Dent likely won't run because Toomey is from the same area and the party leadership won't go for two Senators from the Lehigh Valley.

[Keystone Phil]

State Senator Kim Ward considering a challenge - http://www.politicspa.com/breaking-state-senator-kim-ward-exploring-challenge-to-bob-casey-in-2012/19227/


She represents a sizably Democratic district just outside of Pittsburgh.

[Keystone Phil]

Dent won't rule out a run against Casey - http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-dent-casey-121010,0,3717021.story

I was at the weekend long event - Pennsylvania Society - mentioned in the article. It's our annual Pennsylvania political tradition...in New York City. We consider it sort of a retreat. Anyway, I saw Dent and another possible challenger - State Senator Jake Corman. I didn't see Gerlach or Ward there but I have no doubt that they were in attendance. I didn't see Casey either but I did see his predecessor working the individual events. I hear he has his eyes on something a little bigger than this instead of looking for a rematch. The weird thing is that I didn't hear any talk about this race; all I saw were two people wearing "Casey for Senate" lapel pins. Pennsylvania Society is usually buzzing with rumors.

Aside from the obvious problem for Dent (which I've noted), here's another thing standing in the way of a Senate run: he has been given a spot on the Appropriations committee. Probably not as big of a deal with the earmark ban but it's still obviously prestigious.

Gerlach got a spot on Ways and Means so that throws a wrench into things, too.

[redcommander]

State Senator Kim Ward considering a challenge - http://www.politicspa.com/breaking-state-senator-kim-ward-exploring-challenge-to-bob-casey-in-2012/19227/


She represents a sizably Democratic district just outside of Pittsburgh.

She would probably be one of the strongest based on her geography. Casey needs to do badly in the suburbs to lose.

[J. J.]

Dent won't rule out a run against Casey - http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-dent-casey-121010,0,3717021.story

I was at the weekend long event - Pennsylvania Society - mentioned in the article. It's our annual Pennsylvania political tradition...in New York City. We consider it sort of a retreat. Anyway, I saw Dent and another possible challenger - State Senator Jake Corman. I didn't see Gerlach or Ward there but I have no doubt that they were in attendance. I didn't see Casey either but I did see his predecessor working the individual events. I hear he has his eyes on something a little bigger than this instead of looking for a rematch. The weird thing is that I didn't hear any talk about this race; all I saw were two people wearing "Casey for Senate" lapel pins. Pennsylvania Society is usually buzzing with rumors.

Aside from the obvious problem for Dent (which I've noted), here's another thing standing in the way of a Senate run: he has been given a spot on the Appropriations committee. Probably not as big of a deal with the earmark ban but it's still obviously prestigious.

Gerlach got a spot on Ways and Means so that throws a wrench into things, too.

Corman might be a good choice.  He is fairly well known in the T.  Ward is in Westmoreland, which helps a great deal as well.  I think either could take down Casey.

I hope you enjoyed the Pennsylvania Society dinner (and yes, it is a bit upper class).

[Keystone Phil]

Casey apparently mentioned that he'd vote for the tax compromise in a speech at Pennsylvania Society.

Sestak vs. Casey primary in 2012, anyone? 

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Casey apparently mentioned that he'd vote for the tax compromise in a speech at Pennsylvania Society.

Sestak vs. Casey primary in 2012, anyone? 

I wouldn't be surprised to see some SE liberal take him on in the primary in the hopes of repeating 2002. Whether its someone as big as Sestak or a nobody would determine how it develops. It would be a hell of a thing to see though.

[Keystone Phil]

Casey apparently mentioned that he'd vote for the tax compromise in a speech at Pennsylvania Society.

Sestak vs. Casey primary in 2012, anyone? 

I wouldn't be surprised to see some SE liberal take him on in the primary in the hopes of repeating 2002. Whether its someone as big as Sestak or a nobody would determine how it develops. It would be a hell of a thing to see though.

Casey would be especially weak in a primary. It can't automatically be compared to 2002 because he was facing Rendell then. The man is a master campaigner. That being said, Casey fails when he faces real challenges.

I think things have to get a bit worse for Casey to receive a serious challenge. Though the situation was different, this year proved that the liberal grassroots organization here isn't afraid to take on the establishment and with the Dems at historic lows here, the establishment doesn't even have the prestige it boasted this year.

If grassroots could convince Sestak to make another run, it would be an instant must see fight. The thing is that Sestak might be looking to take back his House seat.

[Keystone Phil]

Former Governor Schweiker to be "drafted" to run against Casey? - http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/harrisburg_politics/PA_Society_De-Briefing.html


He might be our best candidate. 

[Grumps]

Former Governor Schweiker to be "drafted" to run against Casey? - http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/harrisburg_politics/PA_Society_De-Briefing.html


He might be our best candidate. 

I don't think any politician left office with more goodwill toward him/her than Schweiker.  In my view he'd crush Casey.......he's well liked by both sides of the aisle.

Run Mark, Run!!!

[Keystone Phil]

Former Governor Schweiker to be "drafted" to run against Casey? - http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/harrisburg_politics/PA_Society_De-Briefing.html


He might be our best candidate.  

I don't think any politician left office with more goodwill toward him/her than Schweiker.  In my view he'd crush Casey.......he's well liked by both sides of the aisle.

Run Mark, Run!!!

Consider the circumstances though. He was very popular and very well respected by Dem leaders but he had several unique incidents to explain that.

He wouldn't crush Casey. Unfortunately, no one will unless it's a total disaster of a year for the Dems/Obama. Plus, Schweiker hasn't had to run for office in his own right for a long time and has been out of the spotlight for awhile. He won't be nearly as popular as he was in 2002. If he went back on his word and ran for a full term as Governor, he would have crushed Rendell. No doubt about it. But that won't be the case against Bobby especially in a Presidential election year and after being away for so long.

[J. J.]

Former Governor Schweiker to be "drafted" to run against Casey? - http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/harrisburg_politics/PA_Society_De-Briefing.html


He might be our best candidate. 

I don't think any politician left office with more goodwill toward him/her than Schweiker.  In my view he'd crush Casey.......he's well liked by both sides of the aisle.

Run Mark, Run!!!

Consider the circumstances though. He was very popular and very well liked but he had several unique incidents to explain that.

He wouldn't crush Casey. Unfortunately, no one will unless it's a total disaster of a year for the Dems/Obama. Plus, Schweiker hasn't had to run for office in his own right for a long time and has been out of the spotlight for awhile. He won't be nearly as popular as he was in 2002. If he went back on his word and ran for a full term as Governor, he would have crushed Rendell. No doubt about it. But that won't be the case against Bobby especially in a Presidential election year and after being away for so long.

I'd make the sames points as Phil.  He had a lot good will 8 years ago, but it will be 10 years prior to the 2012 election.  His tenure was brief.

That said, Casey is much weaker than he was 4 years ago.

[Keystone Phil]

Conservative columnist Chris Freind is down on our chances against Casey - http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/12/14/gop’s-chances-to-unseat-bob-casey-good-luck/

He suggests Hart and English which is interesting. I've never heard English mentioned for the Senate before. Hart makes sense since she is known and well liked by the base. She was seen as a successor to Santorum or Specter anyway. However, she and English have the problem of losing their most recent elections though (and, in Hart's case, losing once in an embarrassing upset and again in a rematch by a comfortable margin).

I wonder if Hart even cares to run for office again. English might be a different story. He did host an event for incoming and outgoing members of the Congressional delegation at Pennsylvania Society...

[Keystone Phil]

A defeated statewide candidate now out of work usually doesn't visit every county to thank supporters without another statewide run in mind - http://citizensvoice.com/news/sestak-tours-state-thanking-supporters-1.1076387


In other news, State Senator Kim Ward is apparently dismissing the idea of a Senate run while another Pittsburgh area elected official - Congressman Tim Murphy - is starting to talk about it.

[Grumps]

Hart is second in the line of most hated PA pubs.  No chance.

[Torie]

Hart is second in the line of most hated PA pubs.  No chance.

How did she get on your sh*t list, and apparently that of a lot of other folks, Grumps?