What Senator in 2016 do you most want to see lose?

[Keystone Phil]

he is a very conservative republican representing a leaning blue state

Republican Governor and Lt. Governor
Republican Attorney General
Republican U.S. Senator
Republican majority (12 to 7) in the Congressional delegation
Republican majority (112 to 91. One of the highest majorities ever) in the State House
Republican majority (30 to 20) in the State Senate

Obama approval rating at 40%.

We can stop the "leaning blue state" talk now.

3)Pat Toomey(R-PA)-has a 50-50 chance of getting knocked off.

Six years out and you're already assigning odds of someone losing. Hilarious. Some people still haven't learned the lessons of the past four years.

By the way, repeat for me the odds placed on Blanche Lincoln's re-election about this time six years ago. Anyone that said she would lose by a 57% to 37% margin would have been banned from the forum for excessive stupidity.

[Keystone Phil]

Johnson? What on earth has he done?

Because he is an empty suit who won by saying absolutely nothing?

Thank you for your support of Rick Santorum over Bob Casey in 2006! 

[Keystone Phil]

Johnson? What on earth has he done?

Because he is an empty suit who won by saying absolutely nothing?

Thank you for your support of Rick Santorum over Bob Casey in 2006! 

Casey was a statewide elected official.

Ok? He got that by being an empty suit and saying nothing, too.

[Keystone Phil]

Johnson? What on earth has he done?

Because he is an empty suit who won by saying absolutely nothing?

Thank you for your support of Rick Santorum over Bob Casey in 2006! 

Casey was a statewide elected official.

Ok? He got that by being an empty suit and saying nothing, too.

Apparently the people of Pennsylvania disagree with you since he was reelected twice by landslide margins.

It helps when so many people just vote for your name and/or still think you're Dadddy.

And Wisconsin disagrees with you about Johnson being an empty suit. I know losing Feingold (by a comfortable margin, too) really stings but the guy that beat him isn't necessarily an empty suit because he hasn't served in public office.

[Keystone Phil]

Johnson on the contrary was so vague and non-committal that even conservative newspapers in Wisconsin refused to endorse him saying that he wasn't ready for prime-time.  

Johnson did receive one important endorsement though...

[Keystone Phil]

nkpatel makes an excellent point. After their recent actions I think I'd look forward more to Grassley's and McCain's retirements than any particular Republican losing.

Toomey and Kirk are likely to be one-termers. Paul and Johnson could be too depending on their voting records.

What were your predictions for Russ Feingold and Blanche Lincoln this time six years ago?

[Keystone Phil]

Johnson on the contrary was so vague and non-committal that even conservative newspapers in Wisconsin refused to endorse him saying that he wasn't ready for prime-time.  

Johnson did receive one important endorsement though...

Casey has received the same endorsement multiple times, yet you don't seem terribly impressed.

And thank you for ignoring my points.

You wanted to talk about endorsements. That doesn't mean someone isn't an empty suit though.

[Keystone Phil]

Before the 2010 Election occured
Feingold-WI and Lincoln-AR were expected to face tough re-election campaigns.

No, they weren't. Huckabee was asked to challenge Lincoln (who had high ratings) after 2008 and he said he'd rather light his hair on fire or something. Feingold wasn't thought to be in trouble until the early Fall of this year.

Nice try though.

[Keystone Phil]

You wanted to talk about endorsements. That doesn't mean someone isn't an empty suit though.

No, I didn't talk about endorsements per se. I said that even conservative newspapers refused to endorse Johnson to emphasize my point about how inadequate he is for the office he is about to assume.

They said he wasn't ready for primetime. What we're their reasons?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who the hell said that he wasn't? That doesn't negate the fact that Lincoln was very popular even after 2008.

[Keystone Phil]

1)http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20101021/GPG0602/10210698

Feingold's opponent, Oshkosh businessman and political newcomer Ron Johnson, also has voiced his support for spending controls and fiscal responsibility in Washington. His plan for righting the U.S. economy, however, comes across as one-note: establish a hard spending cap, reduce government interference and allow businesses to flourish.

These are principles with which we agree; however, Johnson seemed unable to further articulate his plan for job creation — especially for the middle class — during a recent meeting with the Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board. Basic principles of restraint are one thing; a detailed proposal to spur job creation and get our economy moving is another.

We don't doubt Johnson's sincerity as it relates to his campaign and point of view. He speaks passionately about the issues, including the controversial health care reform bill and what he perceives as a threat to the kind of top-notch medical care he credits for saving his now-adult daughter's life. We think that with time, Johnson could become a viable candidate for national office — but as things stand now, he needs more time to develop and articulate his positions on a range of issues from jobs to foreign policy.

Not promising, I'll admit, but I'll side with the guy who has created hundreds of jobs but doesn't have a clear jobs plan yet when it comes to job creation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It wasn't that way just a few months before that.

[Keystone Phil]

Looks like Lisa won the 2004 primary handily.

Ah, I remember those days. I was a supporter of the other Miller as well.

[Keystone Phil]

I also readily predict that, despite your insistence,

...and the facts...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Results mean more than registrations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where's the deep bench? Your team was annihilated here! And how can you continue to say it's "at least" light blue? Get a clue, dude.

Here's another harsh reality for you: unless there's a wave or serious scandal, Pennsylvanians stick with incumbents. Toomey isn't the type to invite controversy so you better be hoping for a wave.

[Keystone Phil]

If a legitimate Democrat runs against Toomey, he'd likely be defeated, no scandal necessary. Seeing as he was only elected because of the enthusiasm gap and just barely means that he's not a permanent lock on the seat.

Nobody said he has a lock on the seat but no sane person can say someone will likely be defeated six years in advance when the person in question isn't an off-the-wall type of politician. Factor in the fact that Pennsylvania is pretty Pro Incumbent and, if anything, you're not likely to see him defeated.

And, for the record, there wasn't much of an enthusiasm gap here. Philly turnout was high for a midterm election. Toomey ran strong everywhere else.

[Keystone Phil]

Where's the deep bench? Your team was annihilated here! And how can you continue to say it's "at least" light blue? Get a clue, dude.

Republicans did well pretty much everywhere in 2010. When we speak of the lean of the state, we mean (or at least we should) relative to the national average. And relative to the national average, the results in PA were quite typical.

We were the top state (along with Ohio and New York) for GOP House pickups. We picked up a Senate seat. We made huge gains in our State Legislature. I think that at least offsets the idea that we're "lean" anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Might not be but it's too early to predicting (and to be predicting with near certainty!) what the hell will happen six years from now.

Santorum was conservative in 2000. He won and ran ahead of Al Gore that year. "But, Phil, that was before Santorum got controversial." Well, again, no one is expecting Toomey to go that route.

[Keystone Phil]

That's mainly because of weak Democratic incumbents from 2006 and 2008 losing. The House delegation has seen no net change since 2004, when Kerry was winning the state. That Senate seat was already GOP in 2004 anyway.

So it's back to being a total swing state at the very least (not a "lean Dem" state at the very least).
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course it can be too early to make predictions! It's too early to predict what will happen in 2012, let alone what will happen six years from now. I'm amazed that some people still haven't learned that lesson.

[Keystone Phil]

Pennsylvania hasn't voted a Republican for President since 1988. That makes it a lean Dem state.

Ok, ignore all of the other areas I mentioned, give one example in your favor and call it a lean Dem state. 

It's lean Dem on the Presidential level. Big deal. At this rate, it certainly is going to be lean Dem going in 2012. Hate to burst that bubble for you, too.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks. That was 2008.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, that's nice for "the guys here" but that doesn't make sense. The left wing voters voted for Santorum - the supposed "far right wing extremist" - over the more moderate Klink because Klink wasn't liberal enough? Does that make sense to you? Tons of people didn't skip that office. The liberal voters voted for Santorum. Santorum just happened to have much more support among Independents, giving him the comfortable win. There's no reason why Toomey can't do the same thing.

Santorum not only won but he outpaced Gore here. It's a shame that he can't even be given credit for pulling off something that impressive.

[Keystone Phil]

By the way, I just assigned every single person that skipped the Senate race to the Democratic nominee. The margin went from 52% Santorum/46% Klink to 51% Santorum/48% Klink.

Santorum still outpaces Gore and still has a good victory (all things considered that year). By the way, running someone more liberal (like then State Senator Allyson Schwartz who came in second to Klink that year in the primary) might have excited the base but Santorum would have put up even bigger numbers out west (where both he and Klink are from but Klink ended up doing better). Take a look at the map. Klink won those Southwest counties comfortably. A more base friendly candidate would have made up for the undervotes in the Southeast but would have taken a beating out west.

[Keystone Phil]

1)Of course we follow the Presidentials results or else Arkansas and West Virginia would have been considered Solid Dem states like California.

Any one with any sense/not trying to troll doesn't just base it off of Presidential results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure where point number two went... 

Check the numbers and my analysis above. I know they'd love to come up with a more favorable story but it doesn't add up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough but I still think anyone marking any candidate as likely to lose this far out isn't being reasonable.

Sure, these people could lose. Don't think that I'm saying he's safe or likely to win. I'm just saying it's six years away, for God's sake. 

[Keystone Phil]

For your point two, I just don't believe that states change so dramatically in two years unless something monumental happens (Great Depression, Civil Rights Act).
We will see that in 2012.

We're caught in the middle of two (or three. 2006 is debatable) elections. I'm not saying we're suddenly a likely Republican state but, if anything, we're back to being a real swing state. And we're still a ticket splitting state, too. So even if we remain "lean Dem" on the Presidential level, that's not exactly bad news for Toomey in 2016 (look at Specter 1992, Santorum 2000 and Specter 2004).

[Keystone Phil]

It hasn't been a "total" swing state for a long time now. It's leaned Democratic relative to the national margin in every Presidential election since 1948 (which is in fact the longest run of any state). Granted, it's always been by a small to moderate margin, but the tilt is there.

Again, we don't just judge states on how they vote in Presidential elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right...but obviously more can happen within six years. Am I really having this argument?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the pattern here clearly doesn't follow what you're saying but no doubt that you'll continue saying it anyway because it favors what you want.

No Phil, in looking at the long term registration numbers are far more important than a single election's result. Yes, the Dems got clobbered throughout PA---this year. Yet you seem to insist 2016 will be the exact same as 2010. Even then, Santorum 2.0 won an open seat running against a liberal (an image softened by Sestak's military background, but still) in the most successful GOP year in over half a century, but with less than 51% of the vote.

And you only have that huge registration advantage because of two of the best Democratic wave years we've seen in decades. It goes both ways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dude, don't play those games with me. I've never hinted that I think every year will be 2010. Any respected person here will tell you that I've been warning both sides that the good times don't last forever and can change within two years. When you're losing an argument, don't make stuff up. Thanks.

Holden and Altmire? If you think they are winning a Democratic primary for statewide office, you might want to do a bit more reading up on both of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And continue to ignore my Santorum 2000 example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ha! You're one to talk. You're chomping at the bit to see Toomey lose and have to come up with reasons why it's almost definite. You're losing that battle so you have to make stuff up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, he did have money problems but someone without money problems wasn't going to get the numbers he got out west. Such a person might have done better in the Southeast but not nearly enough to make this race a nail biter.

Some people need to get over this simple fact: there was a time in this state when Santorum was popular.

[Keystone Phil]

No Phil, in looking at the long term registration numbers are far more important than a single election's result. Yes, the Dems got clobbered throughout PA---this year. Yet you seem to insist 2016 will be the exact same as 2010. Even then, Santorum 2.0 won an open seat running against a liberal (an image softened by Sestak's military background, but still) in the most successful GOP year in over half a century, but with less than 51% of the vote.

And you only have that huge registration advantage because of two of the best Democratic wave years we've seen in decades. It goes both ways.

But it hasn't gone both ways, Phil. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC GOP gains in registration in the last cycle are nowhere near what the Dems built up in the previous two cycles. That's my point: after two Dem wave election and one GOP tsunami wave, the net Dem gain in registration during that time, even after this recent drubbing, is still staggering. Accordingly, that's still quite likely to be the same numbers Toomey has to deal with in 6 years, not to mention 60+ years of Democratic lean in elections as Nichlemn correctly noted....

You only have that huge registration advantage because of wave years. Take them away and we're back at square one.

60+ years of Democratic lean in Presidential elections. You conveniently ignore Pennsylvania's long history of a) returning incumbents (especially to the Senate) and b) Republican Senators. You'll continue to ignore that though because it doesn't fit your argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...ok? That does't mean the Dems have a great bench.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And why do you think he ran unopposed? Klink benefitted from a crowded primary field. Holden and Altmire wouldn't have that advantage.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Analyzing a primary and a General are two very different things. Holden and Altmire's problems are just with healthcare; they are regarded as socially moderate (at best) or conservative (at worst). Those are huge road blocks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Klink being underfunded didn't matter (as I have pointed out and you continue to ignore). It would have been a wash, at best, with someone more liberal making up the numbers in the Southeast.

Toomey doesn't need to win those areas by double digits. Just barely winning them in a Presidential election year would mean lights out for any Democratic nominee. End of story.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Based on things right now? Sure, he'd be a top target. I'm just not a fan of saying what the parties plan on doing six years out. Did the GOP ever expect Lincoln to not only be a top target but a sure win? How about Feingold as a top target? Things change. Pennsylvania likes incumbents. Pennsylvania has a history of electing Republican Senators. Don't try to give me a history lesson here then refuse to acknowledge facts that actually matter. You seriously told me that Pennsylvania is lean Dem because of how it votes in Presidential elections, totally ignoring the ass-kicking you received weeks ago and turning a blind eye to the historical advantages the GOP clearly has in Senate races here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His ratings after his most controversial statements in 2003 had him at mid 50s in the approval ratings. That's about where Casey is now.

[Keystone Phil]

Giannoulias-D a young inexperienced controversial liberal Democratic Nominee from Chicago

I remember when one of those became President.

[Keystone Phil]

The fact that PA switches parties in the governors mansion every 8 years is meaningless to your point. ANY governors race has little to nothing to do with federal issues and you know it. That's why states like WY and OK have popular 2 term Democratic governors (stepping down) even though their states aren't going to elect Dems to the Senate anytime in the next decade.

I...didn't even bring up the Gubernatorial race so...uh...yeah...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mmm. Yeah. Good point. Senator-elect Raese will certainly agree with you there.

I didn't say there wasn't a correlation. You're clueless if you think a Presidential and a Senatorial race are the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But Toomey clearly has the support of a majority of moderates and Independents. As did that right winger Rick Santorum in 2000.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're clearly missing the point that the registration advantage ballooned only because of wave years and - now here's the important part you aren't addressing - registration doesn't mean anything if you aren't winning elections!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're twisting my words. I said there would be an even split if the Dems ran a more liberal candidate in 2000 (gaining votes in the Southeast but losing way more in the Southwest).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, you keep the registration advantage while the rest of us worry about winning elections. Hell, you can have a 75% to 25% registration advantage for all I care. It didn't mean anything for you this year.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure he'll be targeted. I never said he wouldn't However, I'm also not foolish enough to assign him a ceiling six years in advance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you're right. Pennsylvania is definitely a strong lean Dem state that would elect someone like that in the first place. You win.

[Keystone Phil]

And unless Toomey reinvents himself as a moderate Republican in the mold of the aforementioned Hugh Scott, I doubt he will win a majority of moderates and independents in six years. And if he does that, then expect his old allies at the CfG to run a primary challenge against him.

Yes because standard conservatives clearly can't wing moderates and Independents. Only liberals can. 

[Keystone Phil]

So this "strong lean Dem" state elected a "far right winger," Smash? That goes against what you were saying for years.