Senator Casey is "still alive."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Gerlach wouldn't win SE PA. He never wins Montco, and I don't see how he'd win Delaware either.

He could win Bucks and Chester though.

Even Bush won Chester, and I don't think either side would win Bucks by enough to make a difference either way.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No,  and I never said it did, nor did anyone else The 90% chance of Dems winning had to do with one thing and one thing only, what would happen if the GOP was able to knock out Specter in a Primary.  That is what it was about.  It was never about it being a 90% chance of the Dems winning if someone like Gerlach was running, it was about Specter being knocked off in the Primary.  Before you start chewing my ear off, maybe you need to get your eyes checked and brush up on your reading comprehension skills to see what that 90% comment actually was about.

And, yet again, I say if someone like Gerlach ousted him in a primary whether or not that would actually happen not being the case...

You have such difficulties understanding the simplest of things. I'm sorry if that made your brain hurt.

Brush up on your reading comprehension skills, Smash, since I clearly posted that about five times. Gerlach primary challenge to Specter - not likely but what if? Would it still be a 90% chance? Ok, got it? Good.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not that unlikely. Toomey would win the Lehigh Valley (splitting their ticket between Toomey and Kerry).

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd love to see how that math makes sense but I'm not even going to go into that with you. You spew so much nonsense about the simplest things so I can only imagine what trying to follow your math would feel like.

[Smash255]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No,  and I never said it did, nor did anyone else The 90% chance of Dems winning had to do with one thing and one thing only, what would happen if the GOP was able to knock out Specter in a Primary.  That is what it was about.  It was never about it being a 90% chance of the Dems winning if someone like Gerlach was running, it was about Specter being knocked off in the Primary.  Before you start chewing my ear off, maybe you need to get your eyes checked and brush up on your reading comprehension skills to see what that 90% comment actually was about.

And, yet again, I say if someone like Gerlach ousted him in a primary whether or not that would actually happen not being the case...

You have such difficulties understanding the simplest of things. I'm sorry if that made your brain hurt.

Brush up on your reading comprehension skills, Smash, since I clearly posted that about five times. Gerlach primary challenge to Specter - not likely but what if? Would it still be a 90% chance? Ok, got it? Good.

Well the original comment was about a realistic challenge, not an un realistic one.  Why bring an unrealistic option up?? 

To answer the question, no, but I still think he would lose.  Any Republican who knocks off Specter in a Primary (barring some scandal with Specter coming out) is going to have to deal with the fact they are going to piss off his base in SE PA

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not that unlikely. Toomey would win the Lehigh Valley (splitting their ticket between Toomey and Kerry).

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd love to see how that math makes sense but I'm not even going to go into that with you. You spew so much nonsense about the simplest things so I can only imagine what trying to follow your math would feel like.
[/quote]

I'll do the math for you

            Total vote     Bush vote        Kerry vote
State    5,769,590       2,793,847     2,938,095

Bucks     319,816        154,469           163,438
Chester   230,823        120.036          109,708
Delaware 284,538   120,425           162,601
Montco     399,591       175,741           222,048
Philly         674,069      130,099           542,205

SEPA   1,908,837     700,770        1,200,000
total

SEPA %  Kerry 62.87  Bush 36.71%

state 5,769,590       2,793,847   2,938,095
SEPA   1,908,837      700,770     1,200,000

Rest    3,860,753      2,093,077    1,738,095
of PA

rest of state total  Bush  54.21%    45.02%

Bush won the rest of PA by 9.19%, now if you were to add 2.9% to Bush and take that away from Kerry in the rest of the state you have 57.11%- 42.12% (14.99%)



rest of PA   3,860,753   2,204,876    1,626,149
SE PA         1,908,837    700,770       1,200,000
  Total       5,769,590     2,905,646    2,846,149

50.36-  49.33

was slightly high on the 15, what would be needed is 13, still would be very tough for anyone to do, and the factors mentioned earlier it would be more than that

[Keystone Phil]

Well the original comment was about a realistic challenge, not an un realistic one.  Why bring an unrealistic option up??

Just curious. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone like Gerlach wouldn't piss them off that much.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not all that hard for Toomey since, as I stated, he'd have a nice win in the Lehigh Valley (while Kerry won there).

[Smash255]

Well the original comment was about a realistic challenge, not an un realistic one.  Why bring an unrealistic option up??

Just curious. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone like Gerlach wouldn't piss them off that much.

Still going to be an issue.  Their is a pretty big difference between Gerlach and Specter, regardless the whole point is mute because it won't happen

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really.  He may do a little better than Bush did there, but not enough to win it.  Also whatever gains he does get there from Bush's #'s would be offset by losses from Bush's #'s in the southeast.  Toomey would not win Chester, he wouldn't come close to 3 in Bucks, his loses in Montco & Delaware would likely be quite a bit closer to Santorum's losses there than Bush's

[Conan]

Well the original comment was about a realistic challenge, not an un realistic one.  Why bring an unrealistic option up??

Just curious. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone like Gerlach wouldn't piss them off that much.

Still going to be an issue.  Their is a pretty big difference between Gerlach and Specter, regardless the whole point is mute because it won't happen

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really.  He may do a little better than Bush did there, but not enough to win it.  Also whatever gains he does get there from Bush's #'s would be offset by losses from Bush's #'s in the southeast.  Toomey would not win Chester, he wouldn't come close to 3 in Bucks, his loses in Montco & Delaware would likely be quite a bit closer to Santorum's losses there than Bush's

At the end of the day, it doesnt really matter. Specter leaves, dem pick up. Specter stays, right now his chances of reelection are 70%+.  When we know who the challenger is, he is favored but vulnerable, in a state which is democratic.

[Keystone Phil]

Not really.  He may do a little better than Bush did there, but not enough to win it.

Bush just barely lost the area. Toomey would definetley win there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well the original comment was about a realistic challenge, not an un realistic one.  Why bring an unrealistic option up??

Just curious. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone like Gerlach wouldn't piss them off that much.

Still going to be an issue.  Their is a pretty big difference between Gerlach and Specter, regardless the whole point is mute because it won't happen

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really.  He may do a little better than Bush did there, but not enough to win it.  Also whatever gains he does get there from Bush's #'s would be offset by losses from Bush's #'s in the southeast.  Toomey would not win Chester, he wouldn't come close to 3 in Bucks, his loses in Montco & Delaware would likely be quite a bit closer to Santorum's losses there than Bush's

At the end of the day, it doesnt really matter. Specter leaves, dem pick up. Specter stays, right now his chances of reelection are 70%+.  When we know who the challenger is, he is favored but vulnerable, in a state which is democratic.

Favored but vulnerable? If Specter survives the primary, he'd easily be favored against the Dem unless that candidate is amazing. You go on about how my state is so Dem favored yet didn't address any of my previous points.

Specter was fine in a Presidential election year. He'll be fine in a midterm unless the Dems recruit someone insanely talented to challenge him. Saying he is automatically vulnerable proves you are a hack.

[Smash255]

Not really.  He may do a little better than Bush did there, but not enough to win it.

Bush just barely lost the area. Toomey would definetley win there.

Ok, I looked at it wrong, was thinking Kerry won by 5 or so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is that stupid face for??  Toomey is not going to come close to Bush's margins in suburban Philly, especially Chester & Bucks

[Keystone Phil]

We now know that Casey is definetley alive...

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=2957&comments=1

What a tough guy. You show them, Bob!

[Padfoot]

CQPolitics is reporting that Casey is part of a new moderate gang of Senators similar in nature to the Gang of 14.  This new Gang of 13 seeks to reach a compromise on Iraq by inserting the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group into the defense authorization bill (HR 1585). 

Sen. Ken Salazaar (D-CO) is the bill's author and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is the leading Republican co-sponsor.  The following 11 Senators complete the "gang":

Up for re-election in 2008
Pete V. Domenici R-NM
John E. Sununu R-NH
Susan Collins R-ME
Mary L. Landrieu D-LA
Mark Pryor D-AR
(Alexander is also up for re-election)

Not up for re-election
Robert F. Bennett R-UT
Judd Gregg R-NH
Bob Casey D-PA
Bill Nelson D-FL
Blanche Lincoln D-AR
Claire McCaskill D-MO

[CPT MikeyMike]

Sen. Ken Salazaar (D-CO) is the bill's author and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is the leading Republican co-sponsor.  The following 11 Senators complete the "gang":

Up for re-election in 2008
Pete V. Domenici R-NM
John E. Sununu R-NH
Susan Collins R-ME
Mary L. Landrieu D-LA
Mark Pryor D-AR
(Alexander is also up for re-election)

Not up for re-election
Robert F. Bennett R-UT
Judd Gregg R-NH
Bob Casey D-PA
Bill Nelson D-FL
Blanche Lincoln D-AR
Claire McCaskill D-MO

A very respectable bunch (on both sides) - I hope they can get some good things done.

[Keystone Phil]

CQPolitics is reporting that Casey is part of a new moderate gang of Senators similar in nature to the Gang of 14.  This new Gang of 13 seeks to reach a compromise on Iraq by inserting the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group into the defense authorization bill (HR 1585). 

Sen. Ken Salazaar (D-CO) is the bill's author and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is the leading Republican co-sponsor.  The following 11 Senators complete the "gang":

Up for re-election in 2008
Pete V. Domenici R-NM
John E. Sununu R-NH
Susan Collins R-ME
Mary L. Landrieu D-LA
Mark Pryor D-AR
(Alexander is also up for re-election)

Not up for re-election
Robert F. Bennett R-UT
Judd Gregg R-NH
Bob Casey D-PA
Bill Nelson D-FL
Blanche Lincoln D-AR
Claire McCaskill D-MO

Hey, I guess that's something. I wonder how much he'll contribute. Again, please remember that Casey's main thing is showing up to things. His big thing is how he'll make every vote and while that's admirable, it's only because he needs something to boast about on his Senate resume.