Pennsylvania 2012: Casey's Challenge

[Keystone Phil]

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. 

[Keystone Phil]

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. 

Obama wont get unpopular enough to lose Pennsylvania.  Not happening. 

He's sitting at a 40% approval rating in Pennsylvania and you really want to be cocky about this? I remember some other cocky, Dem favored predictions from you about two years ago, too...

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Classic coming from you.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[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!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[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.

[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? 

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[Keystone Phil]

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?

She's the female version of the most hated PA pub...she's Santorum with tits........It's funny, Torie, I voted for her more than once.....and she did the closing on my house 25 years ago......but I can't stand her now and I'm glad Altmire unseated her.

That said, Torie, I wouldn't underestimate her.  The pubs love her and she'd do very well in a pub primary.

It's hard to call her the most hated Republican in Pennsylvania when she has never run statewide. She's not known to the general electorate outside of western PA.

Can't argue with his credentials or poise, but I can't imagine him doing well in a primary race.

Tough call.....he's a hard guy to attack.......so Hart couldn't go all  pit bull on him....but he's not a hardliner to my knowledge.  I'm not sure what the pub voter is going to be looking for in 2012 to be honest.

Schweiker might be more moderate but probably conservative overall. That being said, if someone like Hart gets in, he might have an uphill battle.

Whoa, Mark Schweiker may run? That'd be awesome! Then we might actually have a race on our hands. I remember reading that Schweiker, had he ran against Rendell in 2002, would have crushed him.

I'd be disappointed if he threw this out there only to decide not to run.

That was 2002 though. It's not the same now even though he still has great connections.

Schweiker didn't throw this out there either. The article states that our former Lancaster GOP Chairman/ former nominee for Auditor General/2010 Lt. Gubernatorial candidate Chet Beiler wanted to start a draft movement (which is odd because I thought Beiler might look at the race himself) and Schweiker neither encouraged nor dismissed the idea.


Anyway, Quinnipiac is supposedly releasing a poll tomorrow with Casey ratings. Should be fun to see.

[Keystone Phil]

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

[Keystone Phil]

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.

Virtually no chance? The guy is going on a 67 county thank you tour...after losing.

It doesn't matter if they are basically in total agreement on the issues (that will go to show you that Casey isn't a moderate and certainly not conservative). This is all about perception and the liberal base has never been fired up for Casey. It doesn't matter that he hasn't been a Republican for forty years.

Sestak probably sees this as yet another opportunity to take down the establishment. He certainly thinks he can win the General after his performance this year and Casey is proven to be weak in primaries so why not do it? What else does he have to lose?

I don't mind if you think he'll ultimately decide against it but virtually no chance? Not acknowledging Casey's weakness with the base? Come on.

[Keystone Phil]

Some politicians who lose primaries remain active in politics in order to remain political players without necessarily running for office again.  Bob Vander Plaats is still running around in Iowa, and I have no idea what office he'd run for before 2014.

Sestak is going on a 67 county thank you tour. It's a bit different and, again, this isn't just some rumor anymore. It has been confirmed by national and state Democratic sources.

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those are your reasons why he shouldn't get a challenge. That's fine but that's not necessarily what most liberals think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And we were all rolling our eyes at him for taking on Specter as we saw the polls showing him down by twenty to thirty points. Did we think it would get closer? Yeah but so many asked themselves, "Why is he throwing away a seat?"

The guy might think he has nothing to lose. 2014 is out the window if you believe the Gubernatorial election pattern here and since Sestak is more motivated by federal issues and 2016 is an awful long way away for someone that isn't all that young.

This is certainly possible and let's not forget that we're not debating my rumor here. This is something that higher ups are acknowledging.

I doubt this will happen, but as I privately noted if it did and Sestak won, he would've deposed Phil's two least favorite in PA politics. Phil probably would like him quite a bit.

I've always said that I truly respect the guy.

[Keystone Phil]

Let's see how long the smiles last...

[Keystone Phil]

Wow Casey is actually a tall dude.

Very tall. I went to the Senate a few weeks ago and watching from the gallery, I could see him towering over almost everyone else there. Thune was by far the tallest but his height is known (still was taller than I expected though).

[Keystone Phil]

Even if Sestak challenges Casey, which is highly doubtful, I don't see how he could gain any traction. With Specter he had the active and vocal support of liberals and an unpopular incumbent to run against.

Against Casey he will have none of those advantages. As was mentioned, during his term he never aggravated or insulted the base the way people like Lieberman and Lincoln did. And without any electability issues I don't see why Democrats would decide to oust an incumbent.

Liberals would be vocally for him against Casey, too. Sestak is their star now and they have never had a love for Casey. Do they have real gripes with Casey now? No, which many of us will gladly highlight in 2012. Bob Casey isn't a moderate and certainly not a conservative Democrat. That being said, he still doesn't fit in with the base. He doesn't want to be their guy. He'll take their votes but, at the end of the day, he still plays up this "centrist" persona. The base thinks it can do better. They want a champion for their causes. Yeah, Casey votes with them but is his heart in it? Aside from now proudly proclaiming to be a liberal champion, everyone knows where Casey would rather be and it's not in Washington.

I'm not saying this doesn't come with a risk. In ways, yes, this will be more difficult than facing Specter but Sestak probably sees a far greater reward this time. He has to be thinking to himself, "If I could get 49% in 2010, with better turn out in 2012, how the hell do I lose?" That's for the General. For the primary, he and everyone else will be thinking, "Well, we do know how Casey folds under the pressure of a real campaign." If Sestak thinks he can follow the Rendell playbook - or his own playbook from 2010 - to victory, he'll do this and he's apparently telling people he wants to pursue this.

[Keystone Phil]

Liberals aren't Tea Partiers. They know that Pennsylvania isn't Vermont to have someone like Bernie Sanders elected and they are perfectly content with Casey. He is nowhere near a "villain" like Lieberman or Baucus to arouse the passions of the grassroots, and without that passion there can't be a successful primary challenge. He is a reliable liberal vote and you'll never see him on cable whining like Bayh about how liberals destroy the party.
 
If Sestak decided to go against him, I'd expect him to be treated like Kucinich.

Yeah, liberal Democrats don't try to "purge the moderates." That's just the Republicans. I beg you to try to be impartial for once. Just once.

With all due respect, px, you're not in a position to gauge Casey or Sestak's level of passion among the grassroots. And to use such definite language is even more ridiculous.

You must be kidding if you think he'd be Kucinich-like in a primary against Casey though I hope they do treat him that way. They'll end up looking foolish again.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't have to live in Pennsylvania to see that there is zero animus against Casey among liberals. As I mentioned he is a reliable liberal vote and he has never bashed the base the way people like Lieberman and Bayh do regularly. There was enthusiasm this year because Specter was mistrusted due to his history as a Republican and because he was a slimeball. The base wanted to elect a "True Democrat".

And just because he isn't a Lieberman or Bayh doesn't mean there still isn't a distaste for the man. Casey doesn't bash the base but he isn't seen as one of them. Sestak is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, she was challenged on ideological grounds. The electoral liability argument was a convenient excuse thrown around by the left after the fact. Lieberman is another example but you'll claim that that's justified...sort of like how we will justify challenging people like Lincoln Chafee.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I'm sorry but you're a fool if you think Sestak will be ignored. The man has built up an incredible following. They might see Casey as a liberal vote but he's not truly one of them in their eyes.

Let's see if this definitely happens. If so, just watch at how ineffective Casey will be at trumpeting his liberal record. It's not something he's used to doing or wants to do. Sestak could run laps around the guy as a campaigner, too.