Pennsylvania 2012: Casey's Challenge

[Brittain33]

I've been trying to spread this rumor for awhile now even though I simply thought it up on my own after Casey's tax vote. Apparently, it's real - http://nepartisan.com/?p=2641

That is ludicrous. (No, Phil, this is nothing personal against you.) There is virtually no chance that Sestak would challenge Casey in a primary, there are no issues on which he can draw a distinction nor was Casey a Republican for 40 years until last week. Who would give him money, either?

[Brittain33]

Sestak wants to keep his options open for the future and maintain the goodwill he built up from nearly winning a race where he was a double underdog. He needs to maintain connections because otherwise he's facing a long retirement with no next promotion.

As a Democrat, I just don't see how Casey is a reasonable target. Yes, he lost to Rendell big in the 2002 primary when Rendell swept the voters off their feet. But to me, he looks nothing like the kind of senator who draws a primary for being ideologically impure or for having flipped off the base. He's just completed one term, so he's not gone native. He won with an enormous margin in his first election. Most importantly, he has not done anything to antagonize liberals--he's been as invisible in Washington as he was on the campaign trail, has NOT insulted Obama, not held out for special deals in the Senate like a prima donna, did not raise a stink about health care or about cap and trade. There is no way for him to be viably primaried. He's not Joe Lieberman, not at all.

That leaves open the possibility he could be unviably primaried--there are often people who will take runs at sound incumbents because they believe that strongly in their cause or because they think they're setting themself up for a future run. I don't think Sestak is that stupid or has such incredibly poor judgment. I think he's probably a jerk to work for, but he hasn't shown that he takes stupid risks with no reward.

[Brittain33]

And you probably would have said the same thing when he was considering a run against Specter. Again, this is different but you shouldn't speak with such certainty.

That's not what I was saying at the time.

I am confident speaking with certainty on this issue. There is a universe of possible options, but Sestak primarying Casey isn't one of them unless Sestak has extraordinarily poor judgment. In that vein, it's kind of like Palin getting picked as VP. It was impossible because it was an irrational thing to do. Then it happened. Sestak primarying Casey would be a personal disaster for him and he doesn't have the resources to do it. (See below.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't think a liberal has a good sense of what most liberals think? Liberman's challenge was telegraphed by the minions at Daily Kos years before. There was mass revulsion at Specter's comments immediately after switching parties where he sounded like a Republican. There has been nothing comparable critical of Casey.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never rolled my eyes at Sestak's challenge because it made sense for him to do. More to the point, there was always potential there on paper. Specter was an incredibly flawed candidate as a democrat. Casey, not so much.

Anyway, we'll find out the answer soon enough. If Sestak intends to challenge Casey in a primary, there are two things he needs to do: 1) start raising money, because he's broke while Casey is flush, and 2) start making a case for why he should run again, while also making a case why Casey is failing Democrartic primary voters. Until he shows evidence of doing either of those things, which is above and beyond a "thank you" tour of the people who helped him in this past race, I do not see him primarying Casey. I will keep my eyes open for one of these two steps forward.

[Brittain33]

I'd vote for Casey because I think he's a stronger general election candidate by virtue of his incumbency and popularity and I see no reason to replace him.

[Brittain33]

Phil, would you agree with me that Sestak needs to start serious fundraising and making statements about his own candidacy or Casey's deficiencies in order to run in the primary next year? I can accept if you don't accept my arguments, but can we establish a basis for testing your hypothesis that he is running, moving forward?

[Brittain33]

Phil,

What is your evidence that there was going to be a liberal primary challenge to Bayh?

Don't tell me why you think it was going to happen, based on what you think liberals want to do. Cite evidence that there was a challenger or challengers and this drove Bayh out of his seat.

Because if you can't, the absence of a challenge coupled with the facts of how Bayh left office disprove the theory you put forth.

That's where we stand.

[Brittain33]

I didn't say there was an imminent primary challenge; I said it drove him to retirement and he essentially said the same.

What did Bayh say? Can you find a link to that speech or interview?

[Brittain33]

Oh, and his disapproval rating is only 27%.

LOL, that's a significant fact to include. Boehner and Pelosi have comparable approval ratings--I think he has 36% to her 34%--and I was all set to post a sarcastic "Dump Boehner now! Save the Republican majority!" post until I saw that his disapprovals were in the 20s while hers were close to 50.

[Brittain33]

How about Dino Rossi?

[Brittain33]

Casey leads Smith in the latest F&M poll - 42% to 21%

http://triblive.com/state/1921435-74/percent-casey-obama-smith-poll-voters-senate-campaign-race-republican

What the Hell? Is Smith just really not well-known or something, or is F&M not a good pollster?

The Pres poll has high undecideds, too.

[Brittain33]

Harry Reid's Super PAC placed an ad buy in Pittsburgh. They're worried.

How much of a campaign account is Casey sitting on? It must be several million.