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

[nkpatel1279]

Obama -a two term State Senator from Chicago won the DEM primary for the 2004 IL US Senate Race with over 50% of the popular against a crowded field included the safe but boring establishment candidate- Dan Hynes, the controversial wealthy billiniore Blaire Hull and Local Chicago politicians- Gerry Chico and Maria Pappas.  In the general election. the GOP nominee Alan Keyes was the IL version of Christine O'Donnell.  If Obama faced Jack Ryan,Mark Kirk or Peter Fitzgerald- the 2004 IL US Senate Race would have been highly competitive but Obama would have narrowly won due to Kerry coattials.
Giannoulias-a one term Statewide elected official narrowly won the DEM primary for the 2010 IL US Senate Race against David Hoffman- who basically was an outsider/reformer candidate by a 39-34 with Cheryl Jackson- the black candidate from Chicago getting 25%.  Giannoulias won because he was the establishment candidate and he was progressive. Had Hoffman did an effective job advertising his progressive credentials- hed actually win the DEM primary. Hoffman needed to out liberal teabag Giannoulias- clerking for David Boren did not help. I am surprised that Gery Chico did not run because unlike Madigan,Kennedy, he was available to run for the US Senate and he was less controversial and more progressive enough to stop Alexi from getting the Democratic nomination. Chico was a non factor in the 2004 IL DEM US Senate Primary because he had to compete against Obama-who was the rock star, Hull who had the money, Hynes and Pappas who had name recognition and electoral experience.

[Badger]

Oh Phil....

If you reread my posts you will see I am directly addressing your points quite directly. The fact you don't like what I'm pointing out does begin to mean I'm "ignoring" your arguments.

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.

Equally odd is your insistence that there's no correlation between senate races and presidential races. They're both federal races dealing with the same national issues. Do you really think Obama wasn't an issue in this last election? How on earth does one separate the two?

Yes, PA has historically reelected GOP senators---moderate to liberal GOP senators. Look at the history: Specter, John Heinz, Dick Schweiker, Hugh Scott. These people personified the moderate to liberal Rockefeller Republican wing of the GOP---which is now not only dead and buried, but reviled by the modern tea party infused GOP. To put it mildly, Toomey does NOT represent this tradition, and PA's historical support of moderate to left of center Republicans is hardly mere coincidence.

Actually your statement here brought up an interesting question, with a surprising answer: In almost 60 years not only is Santorum the only conservative reelected to the Senate from PA, but in that time no conservative running for Senate or President has won more than 53.4% of the vote in PA! (Reagan, 84).

"You only have that huge registration advantage due to wave years. Take them away and we're back at square one". HUH? That's like saying "Take away the fact Toomey won more votes and Sestak would've won". The point is the registration advantage from those wave years DID happen and--now here's the important part you aren't addressing--2010 didn't reverse the numbers that much!

Nor does the tradeoff of SE voters for SW voters equal an "even split of one region each switching sides". Sure Westmoreland casts a considerable number of votes (120k in last election) and has switched markedly away from Democrats in the last two decades. But then in SW PA its a question of Republicans achieving parity/slim advantages in smaller vote counties like Washington (67k), Beaver (57k) Greene (under 11k), etc. On the other hand Dems have achieved advantages  or near parity in counties like Delaware (almost 200k), Bucks (219k) and Montgomery (286k and now reliably lean Democratic). The vote totals here do NOT benefit the GOP, and again if 2010 didn't so much reverse that tide as stem it, how is that realistically going to change in the next 6 years?

Enough is enough. My point is simple: PA is an historically Democratic leaning state and if the huge registration advantage built up over 2006-06 wasn't hurt too bad by the 2010 results, little else will change that in the next 6 years. Add to that an unapologetically right wing freshman--arguably the most hardline in any "blue" state--and Toomey will be threatened. Unless the Dems screw up their primary or 16 is such a Republican year the GOP nominee carries PA, Toomey's absolute ceiling is low--maybe mid--50's tops.

But I'm not going to argue this point anymore. You are convinced beyond any doubt that PA is exactly the type of "moderate" and "purple" state that will allow a senator with a lifetime 98 ACU rating to achieve widespread popularity just like Santorum.

Well, on this last point at least we agree.

[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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Registration advantage doesn't mean everything. But then again Pennsylvania isn't Kentucky or Oklahoma where the huge registration advantage that Democrats have is a mirage and a relic of the Dixiecrat era.

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.

[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. 

[Smash255]

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. 

Name one other 'standard conservative' who has a 97 lifetime rating from the ACU??  You don't get a rating that high unless you are FAR right.

[Keystone Phil]

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

[tpfkaw]

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. 

Name one other 'standard conservative' who has a 97 lifetime rating from the ACU??  You don't get a rating that high unless you are FAR right.

Uh . . . Eric Cantor?

You don't get too much more "standard conservative" than he.

[Smash255]

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

Yes it did,  I will admit I was wrong and in an absolutely brutal year for the Dems it elected a far right winger by 2 points.

[Smash255]

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. 

Name one other 'standard conservative' who has a 97 lifetime rating from the ACU??  You don't get a rating that high unless you are FAR right.

Uh . . . Eric Cantor?

You don't get too much more "standard conservative" than he.

Cantor is pretty far to the right.   A 97 lifetime rating from the ACU doesn't come easily, you basically can never vote across the aisle and be right on virtually every single issue to get a rating like that.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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

Massachusetts elected Scott Brown. Of course he is not a right-winger but then again Massachusetts ain't Pennsylvania either.

And Toomey isn't a "standard conservative". He was the head of Club for Growth after all.
Unless of course you really believe the inanities he spouted to get elected, like the one where he said that would have voted to confirm Sotomayor.

[Keystone Phil]

Unless of course you really believe the inanities he spouted to get elected, like the one where he said that would have voted to confirm Sotomayor.

He caught hell for that and it wasn't going to be a major issue in the General election so I have no reason to believe he wasn't being honest about that. He also supports repealing DADT but I guess you know the Senator-elect better than anyone else, px.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Unless of course you really believe the inanities he spouted to get elected, like the one where he said that would have voted to confirm Sotomayor.

He caught hell for that and it wasn't going to be a major issue in the General election so I have no reason to believe he wasn't being honest about that. He also supports repealing DADT but I guess you know the Senator-elect better than anyone else, px.

If Olympia Snowe, a bona fide moderate, takes such a hard turn to the right to avoid being primaried then I don't see why Toomey won't do the same. After all it will be just returning to his true form.

The Sotomayor issue of course wasn't anything that would move votes. I just mentioned it as proof that Toomey knew that he had to appear moderate to have a chance to win, hence his statements about confirming her and supporting the DADT repeal. If he started talking like Santorum about man-dog and had called Sotomayor a racist like Gingrich, then today we would be talking about Senator Sestak.

[Keystone Phil]

Unless of course you really believe the inanities he spouted to get elected, like the one where he said that would have voted to confirm Sotomayor.

He caught hell for that and it wasn't going to be a major issue in the General election so I have no reason to believe he wasn't being honest about that. He also supports repealing DADT but I guess you know the Senator-elect better than anyone else, px.

If Olympia Snowe, a bona fide moderate, takes such a hard turn to the right to avoid being primaried then I don't see why Toomey won't do the same. After all it will be just returning to his true form.

Uh...except this isn't him taking a turn to the right so...

And what's his true form, px. Again, I know you know him so well so I'm very interested in your insight.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if it wasn't going to make a difference with the General election electorate, why bother? If anything, the former position was only going to piss off people and Toomey took the position anyway.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, if only, right? Keep thinking of what could have been.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Unless of course you really believe the inanities he spouted to get elected, like the one where he said that would have voted to confirm Sotomayor.

He caught hell for that and it wasn't going to be a major issue in the General election so I have no reason to believe he wasn't being honest about that. He also supports repealing DADT but I guess you know the Senator-elect better than anyone else, px.

If Olympia Snowe, a bona fide moderate, takes such a hard turn to the right to avoid being primaried then I don't see why Toomey won't do the same. After all it will be just returning to his true form.

Uh...except this isn't him taking a turn to the right so...

And what's his true form, px. Again, I know you know him so well so I'm very interested in your insight.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if it wasn't going to make a difference with the General election electorate, why bother? If anything, the former position was only going to piss off people and Toomey took the position anyway.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, if only, right? Keep thinking of what could have been.

1)He was the chairman(?) of Club for Growth. You don't get there by being moderate or even "standard conservative".
He has a 0% lifetime score from enviromental groups.
He supported the amendment to ban gay marriage.
Will he abandon all these positions and become a moderate? I doubt.

2)Because he wanted to create a "see, I'm moderate narrative' among the "lamestream" media and soften his hardcore conservative image. He didn't have to worry about conservatives since he was unopposed in the primary.

3)You doubt it? Ask senators Sharron Angle and Ken Buck.

[Keystone Phil]

Will he abandon all these positions and become a moderate? I doubt.

The Club for Growth supports plenty of standard conservatives, for the record.

As for your last point here, I don't see the relevance but that's nothing new for this argument. I never once said Toomey would become a moderate; I said he can remain appealing to moderates and Independents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was hardly noted and no one really cared. The only people that did care were some conservative grassroots supporters and that could have hurt him. You saw the margin. Take a few dedicated volunteers away from the effort and we could have been waiting for recounts to finish here. I believe he truly believes he would have supported Sotomayor and wants to repeal DADT and it was worth the risk with the base.

By the way, he wasn't unopposed in the primary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say I doubt it. I just love how certain people keep bringing up things that never would have happened to live this fantasy of a Senator Sestak.

Keep praying, keep hoping, keep wishing that Toomey will be as controversial as you want him to be to make himself "Santorum 2.0." It's not going to happen. People that are truly interested in politics here have noted the differences between Santorum and Toomey and have laid out why you won't hear certain comments from the latter. But you keep hoping otherwise.

Keep saying how such comments would have cost him this election. I could ask myself, "Would those comments have meant a Senator Sestak?" but I don't have to. Why? Because it didn't happen. Toomey won. You doubt it? Turn on C-SPAN on January 5th.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Will he abandon all these positions and become a moderate? I doubt.

The Club for Growth supports plenty of standard conservatives, for the record.

As for your last point here, I don't see the relevance but that's nothing new for this argument. I never once said Toomey would become a moderate; I said he can remain appealing to moderates and Independents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was hardly noted and no one really cared. The only people that did care were some conservative grassroots supporters and that could have hurt him. You saw the margin. Take a few dedicated volunteers away from the effort and we could have been waiting for recounts to finish here. I believe he truly believes he would have supported Sotomayor and wants to repeal DADT and it was worth the risk with the base.

By the way, he wasn't unopposed in the primary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say I doubt it. I just love how certain people keep bringing up things that never would have happened to live this fantasy of a Senator Sestak.

Keep praying, keep hoping, keep wishing that Toomey will be as controversial as you want him to be to make himself "Santorum 2.0." It's not going to happen. People that are truly interested in politics here have noted the differences between Santorum and Toomey and have laid out why you won't hear certain comments from the latter. But you keep hoping otherwise.

Keep saying how such comments would have cost him this election. I could ask myself, "Would those comments have meant a Senator Sestak?" but I don't have to. Why? Because it didn't happen. Toomey won. You doubt it? Turn on C-SPAN on January 5th.

If Toomey can become a Lugar type sane conservative then yes, he may survive. But you see that even someone like Lugar is in danger of being teabagged. That's a very fine line to stand on.

His statement about Sotomayor was noticed by the people that mattered: the DC and national media who have branded him a movement conservative, unable to win statewide. They took notice and in the end congratulated him for running a low-key, disciplined campaign, away from wedge issues that damaged Santorum.

Nobody doubts Toomey's victory. Stop being touchy. We have an entire subforum based on What If? scenarios.
And as a matter of fact I don't think that Toomey will be more vulnerable than Kirk or Johnson.
 

[nkpatel1279]

Toomey was able to campaign as a moderate because he did not face any opposition in the Republican primary.  Arlen Specter was going to lose in the Republican Primary.  and Peg Lusik was not a serious candidate. Since Toomey knew he was favored to win the GOP primary- he had a luxury of running as a Moderate Republican ie Rubio-FL-Post Crist defection,Kirk-IL,Portman-OH and Blunt-MO.

[Brittain33]

I want to ask people what they hope to accomplish in this particular discussion. If it's a question of laying down your facts for the audience to decide, that's been done. If it's about winning over someone on the other side, well...

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why would you even bother arguing about Toomey's re-election right now?

[tpfkaw]

Cantor is pretty far to the right.   A 97 lifetime rating from the ACU doesn't come easily, you basically can never vote across the aisle and be right on virtually every single issue to get a rating like that.

You think Cantor is right on virtually every single issue?

[Keystone Phil]

His statement about Sotomayor was noticed by the people that mattered: the DC and national media who have branded him a movement conservative, unable to win statewide. They took notice and in the end congratulated him for running a low-key, disciplined campaign, away from wedge issues that damaged Santorum.

They were congratulating him on how he ran his campaign throughout the race while still branding him as a conservative. No one in DC or the national media ever once suggested he was a moderate and his positions on Sotomayor and DADT were hardly ever mentioned.

[Badger]

Phil, most of your response could be summed up by saying "But Toomey won!" Sure he did---with less than 51% of the vote in the biggest GOP wave in over half a century. That hardly indicates PA is ready to embrace a hard right conservative long term, but rather that he was marginally more acceptable than an Obama-supporting Democrat. In 2010. Think about that.

I didn't post to continue this back and forth, but rather to note you make a very good point about Sotomeyer and DADT. IF he actually follows through with supporting DADT repeal and Obama's next similar Supreme Court nominee--which I doubt, but wouldn't bet the farm against--his long term chances of survival go up exponentially.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, most of your response could be summed up by saying "But Toomey won!" Sure he did---with less than 51% of the vote in the biggest GOP wave in over half a century. That hardly indicates PA is ready to embrace a hard right conservative long term, but rather that he was marginally more acceptable than an Obama-supporting Democrat. In 2010. Think about that.

Not sure where you're getting under 51% when he got over 51%...

Well, it doesn't matter what type of year it was. Pat Toomey was never going to win...or at least that's what many of the prognosticators here had to say for six years between laughing at Toomey and ridiculing anyone that thought he had a shot.

Sestak benefitted from being an "outsider." He was an "admiral" this time around and Toomey was the Wall Street businessman who worked in China. Oh no. Sestak was the one that was supposed to save the seat. He didn't.

If Pennsylvania is a strong lean Dem state then voters would have went with the left winger over the right winger even in a great GOP year. Don't forget that turnout was high overall, not just in the Republican areas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't saying he'd support another Obama Supreme Court nominee. In fact, he didn't support Kagan.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, most of your response could be summed up by saying "But Toomey won!" Sure he did---with less than 51% of the vote in the biggest GOP wave in over half a century.

I had to check some other results a few minutes ago and decided to double check the Senate numbers. I'm glad you brought this up, otherwise I wouldn't have noticed that Toomey is now at 52%. 

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=39&OfficeID=2