Pennsylvania 2012: Casey's Challenge

[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.

[Keystone Phil]

Since it seems like people here don't want Sestak to run, tell me: would you honestly support Casey over Sestak in a Democratic primary?

[Keystone Phil]

While I'm ticked over Casey's stem cell and choice votes

Casey has voted Pro Choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some people still haven't learned their lesson...

39% approval rating and only 40% say he deserves re-election. A sign of the times? Sure but also a sign that outside of safe districts, no one is invincible (and even then they aren't always safe).

That said, if Sestak runs, it is hard for me to see Casey losing anything whatsoever outside of Philadelphia, Montgomery, and maybe a few other collar counties.

Casey would win almost all of the other counties in the state but Sestak would obviously win Delaware county, too. Please note that Rendell only won ten counties in 2002 and beat Casey 56% to 44%.

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.

Well, he isn't that popular. 39% approval rating might be common for these times but it proves that he isn't popular.

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.)

That's totally subjective.

"I am confident speaking on this issue because Sestak going against my advice is clearly a bad idea." That doesn't provide enough background to back up your points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't mean you know how they feel elsewhere.

Just because Casey hasn't made comments to piss off liberals doesn't mean they care for him.

And too many of you are simply arguing with me on this subject instead of looking at what's actually being said. Take issue with the source, not me. There's an update today - http://nepartisan.com/?p=2658

[Keystone Phil]

Phil believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there is a secret liberal Tea Party-like society awaiting to unleash primary challenges against Democrats they don't deem good enough. From what I see when the Democratic grassroots and netroots put someone in their cross-hair they are hardly silent about it. In fact they are quite vocal in order to push them to the left (just like Specter did).

Px, I know you don't like to debate with anything more than ridiculous rhetoric. You love using boogey man arguments. Not sure what your point is in saying the Democratic base isn't silent about putting someone in their cross-hair. The Tea Party is? They aren't vocal in order to push their officials further right? Your point makes zero sense here but that's common. You don't want to argue about the story so you change the subject.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, that's just the left's excuse after the fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They didn't get to. They forced Bayh out. You better believe he would have had a challenge if he ran again. Maybe nothing serious though since it's Indiana. Same with Nelson.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Totally disagree but that's beyond the point. Again, you fail to argue about the story. You ignore the issue and want to make this a discussion about me alleging something I'm not alleging at all.

I'll provide you another opportunity; argue against the story itself - http://nepartisan.com/?p=2658

Stop saying, "Sestak isn't doing this. This movement doesn't exist. There's no leftist Tea Party." Argue the facts of the story.

[Keystone Phil]

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?

Of course. Would you agree that Casey should start prepping for what's probably only his second serious challenge ever if Sestak is talking about running? 

[Keystone Phil]

1)What's there that you don't understand? If liberals wanted to take on Casey then we'd already been reading on the blogs what a horrible senator he is and how he is a traitor to liberal causes.
Kos took potshots against Tester today for voting against the DREAM act. Do you have anything similar about Casey?

Believe it or not, politics doesn't always revolve around what happens from day to day on one blog!

By the way, I take that as admitting Kos is the left wing's version of a Tea Party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I made a second point about why he didn't get a challenge. Didn't expect you to have trouble reading.

Plus, that was before he really went off against the left. If he ran for Governor, you don't think the left would be clamoring for a primary opponent (again, not that he'd get a serious one because it's Indiana)?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, the Tea Party isn't behind primary challenges to Republicans. It's always the mob or Murdoch.

You take rhetoric to a whole new level.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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

In other words, you made it all up.

I can deal with all of your other nonsense but saying I lied? No.

What did I make up? I said his issues with the left led to his retirement. He has essentially said the same. I said if he ran for Governor, after all of his recent comments, you better believe he would have received a primary challenge. I also said that if he ran in 2010, he would have received a challenge. Now it obviously wasn't going to be anything serious but if he went against the left as often as he did after his announcement, they would have been screaming for a real challenge.

We're only discussing this because you're not making a point when it comes to Sestak. You don't want to argue the facts of the story. You're only interested in straw man arguments.

[Keystone Phil]

In your next post, px, please address at least one of the two article I posted concerning a possible Sestak run. None of your usual laughable rhetoric about Tea Parties or Chris Christie or Evan Bayh. Try your hardest!

[Keystone Phil]

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?

There is none. Bayh always whines about the liberals but I think that he just chickened out when he saw that he might have to fight for his reelection.
The rest are conspiracy theories.

...and it is pretty well known that he didn't like what they were doing to the party. That's part of his "whining" - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6214377-503544.html

Still waiting on you to address the Sestak stories, px.

[Keystone Phil]

http://www.politicspa.com/sestak-throws-water-on-senate-2012-rumors/19404/


Not a total dismissal yet. 

[Keystone Phil]

Bob Casey 2016, anyone?

You mean Sestak? It might be too long for him but who knows? If Casey is re-elected in 2012, he's going for Governor in 2018 to round out his political career with the only job he has truly wanted.

[Keystone Phil]

Bob Casey 2016, anyone?

You mean Sestak? It might be too long for him but who knows? If Casey is re-elected in 2012, he's going for Governor in 2018 to round out his political career with the only job he has truly wanted.

I meant for President.

...

The GOP would never get that lucky.

[Keystone Phil]

What about Jim Matthews?

...

Without going into detail (you really have to be involved or follow local politics here to understand), I can say it is one of the safest bets out there that Jim Matthews won't ever stand a chance in statewide Republican politics ever again. It's very unlikely that he'll even survive his challenge next year. He is very unpopular with both parties but especially with the GOP after some of the stuff he pulled after he was re-elected in 2007.

[Keystone Phil]

Casey's approval rating remains in the low 40s - http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_716843.html

"(Casey) went into Washington with all kinds of ideas, but once he got elected, I feel like we never heard from him again," said Joyce Keith, 57, a Democrat from McKeesport.

I actually was cornered into meeting and shaking hands with Casey today outside of Toomey's reception. I'm sure you can just imagine how weird that was for me.    He was actually literally two feet from Santorum and they awkwardly bumped into each other. Surprisingly, they are apparently very friendly to each other.

[Keystone Phil]

Boehner and Pelosi have comparable approval ratings--I think he has 36% to her 34%

Totally irrelevant since the country doesn't vote for either of those individuals.

Two senators from the same state, they almost need to be to bring home buck$. That isn't always the case, of course, but it helps.

I wasn't saying it was odd that Casey was there. I expected it.

[Keystone Phil]

Keystone, I find the need to call you out. You do realize that Casey unseated an incumbent by 17 points? Add that Pennsylvania hasn't voted for a republican nationally since 1988 and that 2012 won't be anywhere as bad as 2010 and he's pretty much safe. Did I not mention he is family royalty.

No, I haven't realized that. 

Yes, he beat a very controversial Senator in a Democratic wave year. Yes, thank you for reminding me that he's family royalty. Now time for me to call you out: Casey winning by seventeen points in 2006 doesn't affect 2012. I'm not saying 2012 will be as bad as 2010 but you shouldn't be saying it definitely won't be. We don't know what it will be.

If Obama is unpopular, he can lose Pennsylvania and take Casey with him since Casey has been so close to the President. Casey also is finally in a position where he has to perform. Read the article. More people are saying they haven't heard much from the guy. This isn't like being State Treasurer where he got away with doing nothing. During these are times when people are paying more attention to what their members are doing in Congress and Casey isn't performing. He's irritating moderate to conservative Independents and even Republicans that supported him in the past. Also, to be rather blunt about this, the people that still think he is Casey, Sr. are dying off.

All of that having been said, I'm simply pointing out his weaknesses and the fact that he'll be targeted. Everywhere I have posted, I have said it is an uphill battle for a challenger. Casey definitely has advantages but you're out of it if you think he's "pretty much safe" with the voting record he has built and the fact that this is Pennsylvania.

[Keystone Phil]

The other wildcard is if the GOP nominee is someone pro-choice like Gerlach. With Casey being pro-life, things could get interesting.

Gerlach is Pro Life.

[Keystone Phil]

The other wildcard is if the GOP nominee is someone pro-choice like Gerlach. With Casey being pro-life, things could get interesting.

Gerlach is Pro Life.

I guess I made assumptions based on his membership in the Republican Main Street Partnership but I somehow doubt he is pro-life in the sense that Toomey and Santorum are, or else he would lose in the 6th.

Being vocally Pro Life really wouldn't cost him that seat. The people voting on that weren't voting for him anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He won't run. He'll be too old and he has no desire to be there. It would easily be the most boring major Senate race we would see in 2012.

[Keystone Phil]

Tom Ridge or the female House candidate in 2004, the doctor - what was her name again (KP was an avid supporter, he should know her)?

...

Ridge isn't doing it. I won't even bother to put together a serious response for the second "possible candidate."

[Keystone Phil]

Tom Ridge or the female House candidate in 2004, the doctor - what was her name again (KP was an avid supporter, he should know her)?

...

Ridge isn't doing it. I won't even bother to put together a serious response for the second "possible candidate."

Can you at least tell me her name, anyway?

Stop it.