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

[Badger]

Patty Murray - again. I will probably be waiting patiently for her retirement for the balance of my sojourn on this mortal coil.

So, what? 6 months tops?

Man, that was mean. I almost feel guilty like I kicked a puppy.

[feeblepizza]

Definitely Harry Reid

[Niemeyerite]

Harry Reid will probably retire in 2016. but he will never be defeated.

[Badger]

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?

I think we can easily predict that over the next 6 years Toomey will continue to be Santorum 2.0 in every way (other than possibly not the same penchant for comparing homosexuality to bestiality). I also readily predict that, despite your insistence, PA will continue to be a blue state more than a purple one (born out by both history and the fact 2010 did not change the ungodly voter registration advantage Dems picked up in the late 2000's).

Hard core conservative freshman plus at least light blue state with deep Dem bench = prime target. Nothing short of the second coming is likely to change this basic political algebra between now and 2016.

[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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[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.

[Nichlemn]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rings eerily of the "Hawaiians always re-elect their incumbents" "rule". Toomey is a lot more conservative than most (all?) PA Senators have been, so history may not be a reliable guide.

[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.

[Zarn]

Patty Murray or Barbara Boxer

[SvenssonRS]

Harry Reid will probably retire in 2016. but he will never be defeated.

Oh, trust me, if he's stupid enough to run again, he will be crushed next time around. He should have destroyed Angle, but only won by 9%. The man is toast if he ever runs for anything, ever again.

[Nichlemn]

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.

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.

 

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.
[/quote]

It's never too early to make predictions (though I agree you can't make predictions with great certainty). I actually agree with you that Toomey probably isn't as vulnerable as many here make him out to be, since the "craziness" of statements or a voting record is probably more important than how right-wing (or left-wing as the case may be) it is.

[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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Pennsylvania hasn't voted a Republican for President since 1988. That makes it a lean Dem state. Heck, even Joe Scarborough said back in 2008 that Republicans are fooling themselves if they think that Pennsylvania is truly swing and isn't tilting towards the Democrats.

If anything may turn Pennsylvania voters against Toomey, it's the fact that he is anti-labor. The state still has a big union presence and they were key allies of Specter all these years, hence Democrats' difficulty to dislodge him.
Also, if he becomes vocal in the Senate about his desire to privatize social security, cut Medicare, etc., he will surely find it difficult to survive in the second most senior state in the union.

And the guys here always said that Santorum was reelected in 2000 because the Democrats fielded a weak candidate who was seen with suspicion by the liberal base.  

[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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

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

3)I wasn't interested in American politics back then so I didn't follow that race. I just mentioned what the other guys here said, who obviously know more than me.

Anyway, at least I offered detailed answers why Toomey could lose in six years, not a general "OMG!!! He is sooooooo conservative!". 

[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. 

[Ronnie]

Babs needs to go.  She has been an embarrassment for CA.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

[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).

[Nichlemn]

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).

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.

I can see PA becoming a true swing state if the West continues to trend Democratic though, making PA more Republican by comparison.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could just as easily argue that a week before the election is too early to make predictions because of everything that could happen between then and election day. Obviously, a lot more can happen in two years. That doesn't mean that predictions are complete craps shoots, they just have more variance. If they were craps shoots, then predictions years out would be no better than a monkey randomly pulling a "D" or "R" lever for each race. Clearly that's not true - there is a consistent pattern in election results.

[Badger]

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.

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.

BTW, re: bench---Even after the beating Dems took we still have strong contenders like Altmire and Holden ready in the gates. This assumes of course that Sestak and/or Murphy won't make comebacks for their House seats. But obviously that's laughable to you because on this point, like every other in your argument, it's going to be 2010 forever.

Yes, I suppose it could be another 2010 in 6 years if people finally get sickened of the economic recovery from Obama's second term . But regardless of the of course unpredictable micro-political climate of 2016, the same macro-level climate will be in place: Hard right freshman running in an historically Democratic with heavy Dem. registration advantage state. Toomey will have to hope for a 2010 level GOP advantage in the political climate for even the chance of avoiding a strong challenge.

On another note, please drop the attitude. It wasn't compelling or your best moments--moments which you are demonstratively capable of--when you were watching your political hero go down 4 years ago (a tough process, I know), and its no more impressive now. Thanks.

On yet another note, as the forum's Santorum expert, would you be willing to explain your take on the 2000 Senate race? I've always wondered.... On paper Klink should've been a strong candidate--"Caseyesqe" pro-life, pro-gun moderate with a Western PA base running against a hard line conservative in a state Gore carried, albeit not by the hugest margins. From my faded recollection nominally following the race from Columbus, I took it appears Klink had $ problems, wasn't taken that seriously as a challenger by the party organization and donors until late in the game, and the SE PA realignment just hadn't happened yet.

This request is open to any PA or other forumites familiar with that race, btw. Thanks!

[HappyWarrior]

I've just got to say Rand Paul, its an embarressment that he was elected.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Gillibrand & McCain (assuming he doesn't retire)