Pennsylvania 2012: Casey's Challenge

[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.

[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.

[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.