The Hill: Van Hollen targeting N.J. seats, but state GOP officials unafraid
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:51:08 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  The Hill: Van Hollen targeting N.J. seats, but state GOP officials unafraid
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
Author Topic: The Hill: Van Hollen targeting N.J. seats, but state GOP officials unafraid  (Read 15751 times)
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2007, 12:18:39 AM »


Someday, the Democrats will find a candidate from Chester County. That day will be the last time Jim Gerlach serves in Congress.

You won't break Gerlach's base. It can't just be "someone from Chester."
Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2007, 12:25:39 AM »


Someday, the Democrats will find a candidate from Chester County. That day will be the last time Jim Gerlach serves in Congress.

You won't break Gerlach's base. It can't just be "someone from Chester."

Congresswoman Barbara McIlvaine Smith

Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2007, 12:29:51 AM »

Here's the candidate who sends shivers down Jim Gerlach's rubber stamp spine: Andy Dinniman

He's extremely popular in Ches Co. and he'll win 60% in Mont Co.

With Ches. and Mont., Dinniman will beat Gerlach by 3-5 points.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2007, 12:33:29 AM »

B
Because the Dems will likely control redistricting and undo the egregious GOP gerrymandering plan. If  NJ loses 1 seat, the new delegation could be 9-3 in favor of the Democrats.

I can't wait till the Democrats get greedy and squeeze out all those worthless NE Republicans.  The GOP plan in the South was to get rid of white Democrats in order to convince anglo voters that the Democrats are the "weird sex and minority party" to quote Grover Norquist. My plan is to get rid of ALL Northeast Republicans.

Chris Shays,  besa mi culo!

No, the GOP plan in the South was to trick blacks into creating majority-minority districts that packed all of the black(read 95% Democratic) voters into one district, leaving the adjecent districts whiter and heavily Republican.  This is a big part of why Republicans took control of the House in 1994. 

In Alabama in 1992, they created a 70% black district which is AL-07(now its 61% black).  The old AL-07 was about 35% black and elected blue dog Democrats.  By packing so many blacks into AL-07, they took blacks out of AL-06 which was once 40% black(now only 7%) in to defeat an incumbent Democrat.  It also took blacks out of AL-02 so the Democrat would fall short in the open seat race in November.  The Democrats lost two House seats in Alabama aloe because of this.

In Georgia in 1992, they created two heavily black districts GA-02(57%) and GA-11(64% black).  GA-02 had previously been 32% black and elected blue dog Democrats and GA-11 was new district.  Well all of this led to a drop in the black percentage in GA-01, GA-03, GA-04, and GA-08 which had all been Democratic seats.  Between the 1992 and 1994 elections, Democrats lost all five seats to Republicans as a result.

Similar situations occured in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida denying Democratic victories in another five seats.

 

Yes, operation rat, as Ben Ginsberg called it. The plan was to pack black voters into heavily black districts, thus diluting the Democratic vote in other non minority majority districts. It worked.

I think my earlier description was apt. No need to jump on a turtle that's already on its back.

I like your conspiracy plan gentlemen, except Democrats drew all those minority-majority seats in the South in the states you're referring to in the early 1990s, with the implicit push of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2007, 12:35:50 AM »

B
Because the Dems will likely control redistricting and undo the egregious GOP gerrymandering plan. If  NJ loses 1 seat, the new delegation could be 9-3 in favor of the Democrats.

I can't wait till the Democrats get greedy and squeeze out all those worthless NE Republicans.  The GOP plan in the South was to get rid of white Democrats in order to convince anglo voters that the Democrats are the "weird sex and minority party" to quote Grover Norquist. My plan is to get rid of ALL Northeast Republicans.

Chris Shays,  besa mi culo!

No, the GOP plan in the South was to trick blacks into creating majority-minority districts that packed all of the black(read 95% Democratic) voters into one district, leaving the adjecent districts whiter and heavily Republican.  This is a big part of why Republicans took control of the House in 1994. 

In Alabama in 1992, they created a 70% black district which is AL-07(now its 61% black).  The old AL-07 was about 35% black and elected blue dog Democrats.  By packing so many blacks into AL-07, they took blacks out of AL-06 which was once 40% black(now only 7%) in to defeat an incumbent Democrat.  It also took blacks out of AL-02 so the Democrat would fall short in the open seat race in November.  The Democrats lost two House seats in Alabama aloe because of this.

In Georgia in 1992, they created two heavily black districts GA-02(57%) and GA-11(64% black).  GA-02 had previously been 32% black and elected blue dog Democrats and GA-11 was new district.  Well all of this led to a drop in the black percentage in GA-01, GA-03, GA-04, and GA-08 which had all been Democratic seats.  Between the 1992 and 1994 elections, Democrats lost all five seats to Republicans as a result.

Similar situations occured in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida denying Democratic victories in another five seats.

 

Yes, operation rat, as Ben Ginsberg called it. The plan was to pack black voters into heavily black districts, thus diluting the Democratic vote in other non minority majority districts. It worked.

I think my earlier description was apt. No need to jump on a turtle that's already on its back.

I like your conspiracy plan gentlemen, except Democrats drew all those minority-majority seats in the South in the states you're referring to in the early 1990s, with the implicit push of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Here's what Jeffrey Tobin wrote in the New Yorker: "It was a version of the unholy alliance which may doom Charlie Stenholm and his fellow Texas Democrats. All the congressmen who are likely to lose their jobs in the new DeLay plan are white. Many of their black constituents have been transferred to safe Democratic seats, where they can’t harm Republicans. The unholy alliance has had the additional side effect, especially in the South, of making the Democrats the party of blacks and the Republicans the party of whites—which presents daunting long-term political problems for the Democratic Party. Many Democrats can’t help but express a perverse admiration for the cleverness of the strategy. Benjamin Ginsberg, a Republican redistricting operative who helped to construct the unholy alliance during the 1990 cycle, referred to the initiative as “Project Rat.”
Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2007, 12:37:49 AM »

Why did  the " f****" in my reference to "Project Ratf****" get  deleted?

The New Yorker for goodness sake used that profane term. Sheesh!
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2007, 12:48:56 AM »

Just a couple of facts here:  Back in the early 1990s, the Republicans didn't have enough clout in most Southern state legislatures (certainly not Texas and Georgia) to implement any plans.  The number of Democratic state legislators who were minorities were much smaller as well.

Democrats like Martin Frost pushed through these plans to create three basic types of seats:  packed urban black CDs that were safe for minority Democrats, packed rural white CDs that were safe for the incumbent white Democrats, and packed suburban white CDs that were safe for Republicans.

Of course, 1994 came along and most of these rural seats got taken over in the wave.  Then the South started expanding and many of these rural areas became suburban and more GOP naturally.

I don't see what DeLay has to do with this:  DeLay's plan was essentially to create as many suburban-majority seats as possible while keeping the minority-majority ones, and secondly it was about 10 years after.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2007, 12:52:53 AM »

B
Because the Dems will likely control redistricting and undo the egregious GOP gerrymandering plan. If  NJ loses 1 seat, the new delegation could be 9-3 in favor of the Democrats.

I can't wait till the Democrats get greedy and squeeze out all those worthless NE Republicans.  The GOP plan in the South was to get rid of white Democrats in order to convince anglo voters that the Democrats are the "weird sex and minority party" to quote Grover Norquist. My plan is to get rid of ALL Northeast Republicans.

Chris Shays,  besa mi culo!

No, the GOP plan in the South was to trick blacks into creating majority-minority districts that packed all of the black(read 95% Democratic) voters into one district, leaving the adjecent districts whiter and heavily Republican.  This is a big part of why Republicans took control of the House in 1994. 

In Alabama in 1992, they created a 70% black district which is AL-07(now its 61% black).  The old AL-07 was about 35% black and elected blue dog Democrats.  By packing so many blacks into AL-07, they took blacks out of AL-06 which was once 40% black(now only 7%) in to defeat an incumbent Democrat.  It also took blacks out of AL-02 so the Democrat would fall short in the open seat race in November.  The Democrats lost two House seats in Alabama aloe because of this.

In Georgia in 1992, they created two heavily black districts GA-02(57%) and GA-11(64% black).  GA-02 had previously been 32% black and elected blue dog Democrats and GA-11 was new district.  Well all of this led to a drop in the black percentage in GA-01, GA-03, GA-04, and GA-08 which had all been Democratic seats.  Between the 1992 and 1994 elections, Democrats lost all five seats to Republicans as a result.

Similar situations occured in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida denying Democratic victories in another five seats.

 

Yes, operation rat, as Ben Ginsberg called it. The plan was to pack black voters into heavily black districts, thus diluting the Democratic vote in other non minority majority districts. It worked.

I think my earlier description was apt. No need to jump on a turtle that's already on its back.

I like your conspiracy plan gentlemen, except Democrats drew all those minority-majority seats in the South in the states you're referring to in the early 1990s, with the implicit push of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Democrats did not draw these seats.  Republicans tricked black Democrats into drawing these seats.  Also, the Bush 41 Justice Department decided to wrongly interpret the VRA as having to create majority-minority districts in order to help Republicans win a majority.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2007, 12:57:29 AM »

B
Because the Dems will likely control redistricting and undo the egregious GOP gerrymandering plan. If  NJ loses 1 seat, the new delegation could be 9-3 in favor of the Democrats.

I can't wait till the Democrats get greedy and squeeze out all those worthless NE Republicans.  The GOP plan in the South was to get rid of white Democrats in order to convince anglo voters that the Democrats are the "weird sex and minority party" to quote Grover Norquist. My plan is to get rid of ALL Northeast Republicans.

Chris Shays,  besa mi culo!

No, the GOP plan in the South was to trick blacks into creating majority-minority districts that packed all of the black(read 95% Democratic) voters into one district, leaving the adjecent districts whiter and heavily Republican.  This is a big part of why Republicans took control of the House in 1994. 

In Alabama in 1992, they created a 70% black district which is AL-07(now its 61% black).  The old AL-07 was about 35% black and elected blue dog Democrats.  By packing so many blacks into AL-07, they took blacks out of AL-06 which was once 40% black(now only 7%) in to defeat an incumbent Democrat.  It also took blacks out of AL-02 so the Democrat would fall short in the open seat race in November.  The Democrats lost two House seats in Alabama aloe because of this.

In Georgia in 1992, they created two heavily black districts GA-02(57%) and GA-11(64% black).  GA-02 had previously been 32% black and elected blue dog Democrats and GA-11 was new district.  Well all of this led to a drop in the black percentage in GA-01, GA-03, GA-04, and GA-08 which had all been Democratic seats.  Between the 1992 and 1994 elections, Democrats lost all five seats to Republicans as a result.

Similar situations occured in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida denying Democratic victories in another five seats.

 

Yes, operation rat, as Ben Ginsberg called it. The plan was to pack black voters into heavily black districts, thus diluting the Democratic vote in other non minority majority districts. It worked.

I think my earlier description was apt. No need to jump on a turtle that's already on its back.

I like your conspiracy plan gentlemen, except Democrats drew all those minority-majority seats in the South in the states you're referring to in the early 1990s, with the implicit push of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Democrats did not draw these seats.  Republicans tricked black Democrats into drawing these seats.  Also, the Bush 41 Justice Department decided to wrongly interpret the VRA as having to create majority-minority districts in order to help Republicans win a majority.

The creation of minority-majority districts did not create a Republican majority.  Please look at the numbers and tell me whether things would have been any different.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2007, 12:58:57 AM »

Just a couple of facts here:  Back in the early 1990s, the Republicans didn't have enough clout in most Southern state legislatures (certainly not Texas and Georgia) to implement any plans.  The number of Democratic state legislators who were minorities were much smaller as well.

Democrats like Martin Frost pushed through these plans to create three basic types of seats:  packed urban black CDs that were safe for minority Democrats, packed rural white CDs that were safe for the incumbent white Democrats, and packed suburban white CDs that were safe for Republicans.

Of course, 1994 came along and most of these rural seats got taken over in the wave.  Then the South started expanding and many of these rural areas became suburban and more GOP naturally.

I don't see what DeLay has to do with this:  DeLay's plan was essentially to create as many suburban-majority seats as possible while keeping the minority-majority ones, and secondly it was about 10 years after.

Republicans had a decent amount of strength, but not majorities in Southern legislatures by 1990.  

Just look at the sudden dropoff in the Democratic percentage in many Southern districts in the 1992 election.  This happened beause a whole bunch of these white Democrats had their bases taken away to create these majority-minority districts.  If this had not happened, Democrats would hold a majority of Southern seats today.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2007, 01:08:05 AM »

B
Because the Dems will likely control redistricting and undo the egregious GOP gerrymandering plan. If  NJ loses 1 seat, the new delegation could be 9-3 in favor of the Democrats.

I can't wait till the Democrats get greedy and squeeze out all those worthless NE Republicans.  The GOP plan in the South was to get rid of white Democrats in order to convince anglo voters that the Democrats are the "weird sex and minority party" to quote Grover Norquist. My plan is to get rid of ALL Northeast Republicans.

Chris Shays,  besa mi culo!

No, the GOP plan in the South was to trick blacks into creating majority-minority districts that packed all of the black(read 95% Democratic) voters into one district, leaving the adjecent districts whiter and heavily Republican.  This is a big part of why Republicans took control of the House in 1994. 

In Alabama in 1992, they created a 70% black district which is AL-07(now its 61% black).  The old AL-07 was about 35% black and elected blue dog Democrats.  By packing so many blacks into AL-07, they took blacks out of AL-06 which was once 40% black(now only 7%) in to defeat an incumbent Democrat.  It also took blacks out of AL-02 so the Democrat would fall short in the open seat race in November.  The Democrats lost two House seats in Alabama aloe because of this.

In Georgia in 1992, they created two heavily black districts GA-02(57%) and GA-11(64% black).  GA-02 had previously been 32% black and elected blue dog Democrats and GA-11 was new district.  Well all of this led to a drop in the black percentage in GA-01, GA-03, GA-04, and GA-08 which had all been Democratic seats.  Between the 1992 and 1994 elections, Democrats lost all five seats to Republicans as a result.

Similar situations occured in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida denying Democratic victories in another five seats.

 

Yes, operation rat, as Ben Ginsberg called it. The plan was to pack black voters into heavily black districts, thus diluting the Democratic vote in other non minority majority districts. It worked.

I think my earlier description was apt. No need to jump on a turtle that's already on its back.

I like your conspiracy plan gentlemen, except Democrats drew all those minority-majority seats in the South in the states you're referring to in the early 1990s, with the implicit push of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Democrats did not draw these seats.  Republicans tricked black Democrats into drawing these seats.  Also, the Bush 41 Justice Department decided to wrongly interpret the VRA as having to create majority-minority districts in order to help Republicans win a majority.

The creation of minority-majority districts did not create a Republican majority.  Please look at the numbers and tell me whether things would have been any different.

OK, here is what I will do.  I am going through my almanac and I will compare the 1988 Bush/Dukakis percentage in the district before the 1991 redistricting and after and then see how much the Democratic candidate lost by in 1992 and 1994.

                                 

AL-02:  Terry Everett(R) vs.  George Wallace(D).  Wallace loses to Everett by one point.  Redistricting made the district six points (68%-32% Bush compared to 62%-38% Bush) more Republican by moving blacks into AL-07.
Result if blacks had been preserved:  Wallace by five points.  -1 Dems

AL-06:  Ben Erdreich(D, I) vs.  Spencer Baucus(R).  Baucus ousts Erdreich by seven points.  Redistricting made the district 20 points more Republican(77%-23% Bush comared to 57%-43% Bush) by moving blacks into AL-07.  Result if blacks had been preserved:  Erdreich by 33 points.  -2 Dems

This is just some of many examples where Democrats lost seats because of Republican/black Democrat deals to create majority-minority districts.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,705
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2007, 01:16:27 AM »


I feel like the press corps after Truman invited many of them to the White House to celebrate their ill-fated prognostications with a dinner of symbolic crow.

By the way, this is still up for some reason - www.house.gov/gerlach



Wink

By the way, this is not up for some reason --

www.house.gov/hart



Wink

or this:

http://santorum.senate.gov/
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,705
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2007, 01:37:45 AM »

I didn't insist Lamont was going to win one week before the election when he was down double digits.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2007, 05:03:45 AM »

B
Because the Dems will likely control redistricting and undo the egregious GOP gerrymandering plan. If  NJ loses 1 seat, the new delegation could be 9-3 in favor of the Democrats.

I can't wait till the Democrats get greedy and squeeze out all those worthless NE Republicans.  The GOP plan in the South was to get rid of white Democrats in order to convince anglo voters that the Democrats are the "weird sex and minority party" to quote Grover Norquist. My plan is to get rid of ALL Northeast Republicans.

Chris Shays,  besa mi culo!

No, the GOP plan in the South was to trick blacks into creating majority-minority districts that packed all of the black(read 95% Democratic) voters into one district, leaving the adjecent districts whiter and heavily Republican.  This is a big part of why Republicans took control of the House in 1994. 

In Alabama in 1992, they created a 70% black district which is AL-07(now its 61% black).  The old AL-07 was about 35% black and elected blue dog Democrats.  By packing so many blacks into AL-07, they took blacks out of AL-06 which was once 40% black(now only 7%) in to defeat an incumbent Democrat.  It also took blacks out of AL-02 so the Democrat would fall short in the open seat race in November.  The Democrats lost two House seats in Alabama aloe because of this.

In Georgia in 1992, they created two heavily black districts GA-02(57%) and GA-11(64% black).  GA-02 had previously been 32% black and elected blue dog Democrats and GA-11 was new district.  Well all of this led to a drop in the black percentage in GA-01, GA-03, GA-04, and GA-08 which had all been Democratic seats.  Between the 1992 and 1994 elections, Democrats lost all five seats to Republicans as a result.

Similar situations occured in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida denying Democratic victories in another five seats.

 

Yes, operation rat, as Ben Ginsberg called it. The plan was to pack black voters into heavily black districts, thus diluting the Democratic vote in other non minority majority districts. It worked.

I think my earlier description was apt. No need to jump on a turtle that's already on its back.

I like your conspiracy plan gentlemen, except Democrats drew all those minority-majority seats in the South in the states you're referring to in the early 1990s, with the implicit push of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Democrats did not draw these seats.  Republicans tricked black Democrats into drawing these seats.  Also, the Bush 41 Justice Department decided to wrongly interpret the VRA as having to create majority-minority districts in order to help Republicans win a majority.

The creation of minority-majority districts did not create a Republican majority.  Please look at the numbers and tell me whether things would have been any different.

OK, here is what I will do.  I am going through my almanac and I will compare the 1988 Bush/Dukakis percentage in the district before the 1991 redistricting and after and then see how much the Democratic candidate lost by in 1992 and 1994.

                                 

AL-02:  Terry Everett(R) vs.  George Wallace(D).  Wallace loses to Everett by one point.  Redistricting made the district six points (68%-32% Bush compared to 62%-38% Bush) more Republican by moving blacks into AL-07.
Result if blacks had been preserved:  Wallace by five points.  -1 Dems

AL-06:  Ben Erdreich(D, I) vs.  Spencer Baucus(R).  Baucus ousts Erdreich by seven points.  Redistricting made the district 20 points more Republican(77%-23% Bush comared to 57%-43% Bush) by moving blacks into AL-07.  Result if blacks had been preserved:  Erdreich by 33 points.  -2 Dems

This is just some of many examples where Democrats lost seats because of Republican/black Democrat deals to create majority-minority districts.

Its actually a bit bigger than that if you would take national margin into account since on a national level 92 was much more Democratic than 88.  even if you assume a GOP swing in the area it doesn't make up for the national margin swing the other way.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 15, 2007, 10:04:11 AM »


Someday, the Democrats will find a candidate from Chester County. That day will be the last time Jim Gerlach serves in Congress.

You won't break Gerlach's base. It can't just be "someone from Chester."

Congresswoman Barbara McIlvaine Smith



Ok so now you just proved to me that you are picking out names for the hell of it.

McIlvaine Smith is a freshman State Representative whose race was decided by about twenty votes in a Dem district. She would refuse to even consider a run and if, for whatever reason, she changed her mind, she is clearly not strong enough to beat Gerlach. Give me a break.

Here's the candidate who sends shivers down Jim Gerlach's rubber stamp spine: Andy Dinniman

He's extremely popular in Ches Co. and he'll win 60% in Mont Co.

With Ches. and Mont., Dinniman will beat Gerlach by 3-5 points.

Now there is someone realistic but I can tell that you still are just looking around for any Dems in the area. Dinniman is popular but I don't know where you are getting the idea that he is beloved. Also, how do you know he'd win 60% in Montco?

I love discussing these races but please brush up on the area, the candidates, etc. I remember how cocky you were about Gerlach going down in flames last year and now you're saying foolish things like Congresswoman McIlvaine Smith which anyone who follows this area's politics would know to be an absolute joke.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 15, 2007, 10:08:49 AM »


I feel like the press corps after Truman invited many of them to the White House to celebrate their ill-fated prognostications with a dinner of symbolic crow.

By the way, this is still up for some reason - www.house.gov/gerlach



Wink

By the way, this is not up for some reason --

www.house.gov/hart



Wink

or this:

http://santorum.senate.gov/

Odd...




I found that on the Governor's website. Hatch looks a lot different since the campaign.

Also, Wetterling must be the only freshman in Congress without a website yet...
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 15, 2007, 11:17:26 AM »



Hmmm...this seems to be missing... http://www.house.gov/fitzpatrick

And Kean must be the only freshman Senator without a website...

That would be hilarious if it didn't take forever for you to think up and if I actually predicted or really, really wanted Kean to win.
Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 15, 2007, 12:00:20 PM »


Someday, the Democrats will find a candidate from Chester County. That day will be the last time Jim Gerlach serves in Congress.

You won't break Gerlach's base. It can't just be "someone from Chester."

Congresswoman Barbara McIlvaine Smith



Ok so now you just proved to me that you are picking out names for the hell of it.

McIlvaine Smith is a freshman State Representative whose race was decided by about twenty votes in a Dem district. She would refuse to even consider a run and if, for whatever reason, she changed her mind, she is clearly not strong enough to beat Gerlach. Give me a break.

Here's the candidate who sends shivers down Jim Gerlach's rubber stamp spine: Andy Dinniman

He's extremely popular in Ches Co. and he'll win 60% in Mont Co.

With Ches. and Mont., Dinniman will beat Gerlach by 3-5 points.

Now there is someone realistic but I can tell that you still are just looking around for any Dems in the area. Dinniman is popular but I don't know where you are getting the idea that he is beloved. Also, how do you know he'd win 60% in Montco?

I love discussing these races but please brush up on the area, the candidates, etc. I remember how cocky you were about Gerlach going down in flames last year and now you're saying foolish things like Congresswoman McIlvaine Smith which anyone who follows this area's politics would know to be an absolute joke.

Dinniman will win if he runs. Remember, this district is essentially a 51/49 seat with a slight GOP edge. If the Dem wins in Ches. Co, game over.

Wofford had little money and he got 48.4%, Murphy was too liberal and she got 49% and 49.4%. The people of the 6th want change and Dinniman is that change. He can win Ches. Co and he likely get around 60% in Mont Co. due to [insert Democratic Presidential Candidate's name]  and their long coattails.

You were shocked in 2002 and 2004 and I was shocked by this seat in 2006.

The reason Jimmy boy Gerlach won was because he had what most poltical consultants consider to be the best campaign team in the country. This guy had fundraisers who worked on Presidential campaigns help him. He started his reelection campaign the day after Murphy got 49%. The fact that he only got 50.6% against an ineffectual opponent is pathetic.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,705
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 15, 2007, 12:01:24 PM »


I feel like the press corps after Truman invited many of them to the White House to celebrate their ill-fated prognostications with a dinner of symbolic crow.

By the way, this is still up for some reason - www.house.gov/gerlach



Wink

By the way, this is not up for some reason --

www.house.gov/hart



Wink

or this:

http://santorum.senate.gov/

Odd...




I found that on the Governor's website. Hatch looks a lot different since the campaign.

Also, Wetterling must be the only freshman in Congress without a website yet...

1-I didn't predict Wetterling would win the weak before the election
2-Hatch wasn't down by double digits, had trailed in every single poll, and had the race written off by the DNC and every pundit. Nor did he lose by 18 points.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 15, 2007, 10:15:06 PM »



Dinniman will win if he runs. Remember, this district is essentially a 51/49 seat with a slight GOP edge. If the Dem wins in Ches. Co, game over.

What do you know of Dinniman? Honestly, what do you know? Why would he definetley win Chester? You do realize that breaking Gerlach's hold on 51% will be tougher in 2008, right? People have now accepted him as the ultimate survivor.



Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it pathetic? That's fine. He'll still beat you guys though even when you swear that he is finished. You say he had one of the best campaign teams in the country and make it sound like it was a strike against him or something. Sounds like you just want to whine about why you lost. It's fine that you want to be upset about a loss but that has nothing to do with how Gerlach will do next year. I honestly have no idea why you would argue about how great his fundraisers were as well as his general team in 2006 and then say he'll lose.

As for Murphy being an "ineffectual opponent," the woman had a lot of money and some big names come in for her and she still lost. She'd lose again, too. It's going to be very hard to break that 51% and if that is a pathetic margin of victory for Gerlach, so what? He's still winning and you're still losing.



1-I didn't predict Wetterling would win the weak before the election
2-Hatch wasn't down by double digits, had trailed in every single poll, and had the race written off by the DNC and every pundit. Nor did he lose by 18 points.

Yeah, but they still lost and that's just awesome.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,705
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 15, 2007, 10:37:13 PM »

Look at it this way Phil. No one would be mocking you for predicting George Allen would win.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: February 15, 2007, 10:40:25 PM »

Look at it this way Phil. No one would be mocking you for predicting George Allen would win.

Look at it this way, BRTD - No one would be mocking you if you just got a life.

Seriously...think about that one for awhile. Think hard...
Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: February 15, 2007, 10:43:05 PM »
« Edited: February 15, 2007, 10:53:10 PM by MarkWarner08 »



Dinniman will win if he runs. Remember, this district is essentially a 51/49 seat with a slight GOP edge. If the Dem wins in Ches. Co, game over.

What do you know of Dinniman? Honestly, what do you know? Why would he definitely  win Chester? You do realize that breaking Gerlach's hold on 51% will be tougher in 2008, right? People have now accepted him as the ultimate survivor.



Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it pathetic? That's fine. He'll still beat you guys though even when you swear that he is finished. You say he had one of the best campaign teams in the country and make it sound like it was a strike against him or something. Sounds like you just want to whine about why you lost. It's fine that you want to be upset about a loss but that has nothing to do with how Gerlach will do next year. I honestly have no idea why you would argue about how great his fundraisers were as well as his general team in 2006 and then say he'll lose.

As for Murphy being an "ineffectual opponent," the woman had a lot of money and some big names come in for her and she still lost. She'd lose again, too. It's going to be very hard to break that 51% and if that is a pathetic margin of victory for Gerlach, so what? He's still winning and you're still losing.



1-I didn't predict Wetterling would win the weak before the election
2-Hatch wasn't down by double digits, had trailed in every single poll, and had the race written off by the DNC and every pundit. Nor did he lose by 18 points.

Yeah, but they still lost and that's just awesome.


What do I know about Dinniman? I know he won 56-44 over some Republican you probably love. He's also very popular in Chester County. How else could he win such as conservative seat by such as lopsided majority. You're just scared he's going to beat Jim Girlach.

My point is there's no reason  Gelrach will win in 2008 if her faces Dinniman. In 2008, he won't have the advantage of being in majority party, he won't have the same fund raisers (they'll be helping the GOP nominee in their losing presidential campaign) and he won't have his top strategists either. Most of his brain trust had left for more "important" races.

Guess what % Gerlach got in Chester County in 2002? 59%


Guess what % Gerlach got in Chester County in 2004? 56%


Guess what % Gerlach got in Chester County in 2006? 55%


Do you see a pattern? Guess who's from Chester County and has won big in Chester County? Andy Dinniman

You know what happens if Gerlach can't break 55% in Ches. Co? Democrats win, that what happens.

If you think 2006 will be a better climate for Republicans, think again. John McCain is a flip-flopper, Rudy Giuliani is a liberal Democrat, Mitt Romney supports gays in the Boy Scouts and then opposed it and Sam Brownback's a nut. Your Presidential slate is a mess and Jim Girlach will suffer because of it.

Mike Fitzgerald has a better shot of winning than Jim Gerlach. Gerlach is done. If we don't get him '08, we'll nab him in '10 and if we don't get him then, we'll gerrymander him out of a district.

Focus your energy on beating Jason Altmire. You can have PA-04 and we'll take PA-06. Melissa Hart for Andy Dinniman is a fair trade.
Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: February 15, 2007, 10:46:03 PM »
« Edited: February 15, 2007, 10:48:01 PM by MarkWarner08 »

It looks like Jim's getting intimate with his boyfriend, W.

Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: February 15, 2007, 10:48:10 PM »

The people of the 6th are proud that Jim stands by our wonderful President.


I hope Gerlach will explain to the citizens of the 6th District we doesn't support the reforming the Alternative Minimum Tax. Must be because he's too cozy with his Big Oil buddies who don't care about middle class families.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.09 seconds with 11 queries.