A guide to all the seante races in 06.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't need to. In fact, forget that I called you that. Let's focus on you calling NixonNow a hack and you saying that I'm on his jock. We've both proved you wrong. Accept it. Move on.

Some things in the past have made me believe NixonNow is partisan.  Maybe at a local level he isnt, but Ive seen posts before that proves his partisanship.  You being on his jock was more or less a comment to piss you off.  But I rarley see you disagree with him.

NixonNow is far from partisan. He has attacked members of both parties and frequently points out when someone is "drinking the Kool Aid" within the GOP.

As for your comment about me, it was immature. Totally uncalled for and false. I pointed out main areas of disagreement and you refused to accept that earlier. Hopefully you will accept it now. But if for whatever reason we did agree a lot, that does not mean that one is sucking up to the other. I form my own opinions. No one else tells me what to think.

[J. J.]

Daddy's name in NJ is more powerful than Daddy's name in PA. Hate to break that to you.

In PA Casey has been tested at the statewide level and come through, overwhelmingly.  Kean has never ran statewide, hell he's only a state Senator.

You were in the cave with Osama in 2002?

Casey should have won the nomination for governor that year, he didn't.  His "test" on a statewide level have had nothing to do with a real policy making post.  

Another person tested on a state level was Barabara Hafer; she won Auditor General twice (1988, 1992, defeating an incumbent the first time) and Treasurer twice (1996, 2000).  In 1990, she suffered the worst defeat of any major party gubernatorial in the 20th Century.

Casey has lot more weakness than he appears to have.

[Moooooo]

I don't need to.

Because you can't.

We've both proved you wrong. Accept it. Move on.

And you didnt prove anything, but if it helps you sleep better at night.  Ill say it, "You proved me wrong Phil.  Pleaseeeee for give me."

[Moooooo]

You were in the cave with Osama in 2002?

Have you been a cave for last 3 months?  Im one of the few Democrats on this board who has predicted a Casey loss.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't need to.

Because you can't.

Just as you don't post how NixonNow is a hack.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is where people act childish and can't accept that they're wrong. Screw you.

[Moooooo]

This is where people act childish and can't accept that they're wrong. Screw you.

Phil, I love you buddy, goodnight.

[Keystone Phil]

You were in the cave with Osama in 2002?

Have you been a cave for last 3 months?  Im one of the few Democrats on this board who has predicted a Casey loss.

You totally ignored his point. He said that Casey didn't pass a statewide test in 2002. It has nothing to do with you predicting a Casey loss. You have a hard time understanding things tonight, Nick?

[Moooooo]

You totally ignored his point. He said that Casey didn't pass a statewide test in 2002. It has nothing to do with you predicting a Casey loss. You have a hard time understanding things tonight, Nick?

My point of mentioning Casey's statewide "test" was he knows what its like to run statewide.  Kean does'nt.  I could care less if Casey won or lost the 2002 primary.  He won a statewide race last year.  How many has Kean won or even ran in?

[Keystone Phil]

You totally ignored his point. He said that Casey didn't pass a statewide test in 2002. It has nothing to do with you predicting a Casey loss. You have a hard time understanding things tonight, Nick?

My point of mentioning Casey's statewide "test" was he knows what its like to run statewide.  Kean does'nt.  I could care less if Casey won or lost the 2002 primary.  He won a statewide race last year.  How many has Kean won or even ran in?

He didn't pass one of those races overwhelmingly (like you said he did) when he should have is the point J.J. is making.

[Moooooo]

Phil, you have officially given me my first internet inflicted headache.  Im going to bed.  See you guys tomorrow.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I don't think that many people really believe Casey should have won in 2002.   My guess is that most insiders expected the race to turn out as it did...that Casey would have a big lead in name recognition at the start of the race, but that ultimately his comparative inexperience would doom him once Rendell became known outside of Philly.  Rendell was not polling well at this point four years ago, but he was a sleeping giant...he pulled into the lead for good as soon as his ads started running. 

But people though that the race would give Casey good experience for a future run....for Senate, for instance.   I don't know if he's improved over four years, but it's silly to say that he blew his only shot in 2002.

And anyone giving NixonNow credibility on anything is not helping his reputation on this board.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't think that many people really believe Casey should have won in 2002.   My guess is that most insiders expected the race to turn out as it did...that Casey would have a big lead in name recognition at the start of the race, but that ultimately his comparative inexperience would doom him once Rendell became known outside of Philly.  Rendell was not polling well at this point four years ago, but he was a sleeping giant...he pulled into the lead for good as soon as his ads started running. 

But people though that the race would give Casey good experience for a future run....for Senate, for instance.   I don't know if he's improved over four years, but it's silly to say that he blew his only shot in 2002.

And anyone giving NixonNow credibility on anything is not helping his reputation on this board.

Yes, he should have won. He had everything on his side (expect campaigning skills).

Casey couldn't really improve since the defeat in 2002. His State Treasurer campaign was a breeze. There aren't any big debates for the row offices and his opponent was a complete joke so he will be faced with the same obstacle in 2006 that he couldn't get over in 2002.

And NixonNow totally deserves credibility. I don't care how much you dislike him. He knows what's he's talking about when it comes to NJ politics.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

And NixonNow totally deserves credibility. I don't care how much you dislike him. He knows what's he's talking about when it comes to NJ politics.

Stalin knew what he was talking about when it came to Soviet politics.  That doesn't mean you should compliment him for it.

NixonNow is a nasty, bigoted troll who routinely launches unprovoked personal attacks on members of this forum.  I hope that people are not too clouded by partisanship to see this. 

I don't care if he occasionally tries to contribute something substantive...the less we encourage of him on this board the better.

[J. J.]

I don't think that many people really believe Casey should have won in 2002.   My guess is that most insiders expected the race to turn out as it did...that Casey would have a big lead in name recognition at the start of the race, but that ultimately his comparative inexperience would doom him once Rendell became known outside of Philly.  Rendell was not polling well at this point four years ago, but he was a sleeping giant...he pulled into the lead for good as soon as his ads started running. 

But people though that the race would give Casey good experience for a future run....for Senate, for instance.   I don't know if he's improved over four years, but it's silly to say that he blew his only shot in 2002.

And anyone giving NixonNow credibility on anything is not helping his reputation on this board.

Casey, Jr.'s "ultimate inexperience" in 2002 was the had won two statewide elections where Rendell had lost one state wide primary 1986.  Rendell had experience in running a large city that was in no way representitive the state.

Let's look at some of the people who never took the "statewide test."

Heinz, 1976
Thornburgh, 1978*
Wofford, 1990*
Ridge, 1994*
Santorum, 1994*

*These ran against someone that passed the "statewide test."

Let's look at some of the people that passed the statewide test, only to lose the governorship or a senate race:

Flaherty, 1978 G**
Casey, Sr., 1978 G
Flaherty, 1980 S
Bailey, 1986 S **
Scranton, III, 1986 G **
Hafer, 1990 G
Singel, 1992 S **
Wofford, 1994 S  **
Singel, 1994 G  **
Casey, Jr. 2002 G **
Fisher, 2002 G**

**Lost to someone who had not pased the "statewide test," in that election.

Now the statewide test does test several things, statewide campaign organization (a weak relationship), fund raising ability, and name recognition.

Look at 1976, for example.  Robert E. Casey, no relation to then Auditor General Robert P. Casey, Sr. the future governor, was elected, though his sole qualification was his name.  These state races build name recognition and are good for fund raising, but they are not a good "test."


Edit:  I thought Flaherty ran in 1976; he ran in 1974.  Sorry.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I don't think that many people really believe Casey should have won in 2002.   My guess is that most insiders expected the race to turn out as it did...that Casey would have a big lead in name recognition at the start of the race, but that ultimately his comparative inexperience would doom him once Rendell became known outside of Philly.  Rendell was not polling well at this point four years ago, but he was a sleeping giant...he pulled into the lead for good as soon as his ads started running. 

But people though that the race would give Casey good experience for a future run....for Senate, for instance.   I don't know if he's improved over four years, but it's silly to say that he blew his only shot in 2002.

And anyone giving NixonNow credibility on anything is not helping his reputation on this board.

Casey, Jr.'s "ultimate inexperience" in 2002 was the had won two statewide elections where Rendell had lost one state wide primary 1986.  Rendell had experience in running a large city that was in no way represent of the state.

Let's look at some of the people who never took the "statewide test."

Hienz, 1976 *
Thornburg, 1978
Wofford, 1990*
Ridge, 1994*
Santorum, 1994*

*These ran against someone that passed the "statewide test."

Let's look at some of the people that passed the statewide test, only to lose the governorship or a senate race:

Casey, Sr., 1978 G **
Bailey, 1986 S **
Scranton, III, 1986 G **
Hafer, 1990 G
Singel, 1992 S **
Wofford, 1994 S  **
Singel, 1994 G  **
Casey, Jr. 2002 G **
Fisher, 2002 G**

**Lost to someone who had not past the "statewide test," in that election.

Now the statewide test does test several things, statewide campaign organization (a weak relationship), fund raising ability, and name recognition.

Look at 1976, for example.  Robert E. Casey, no relation to then Auditor General Robert P. Casey, Sr. the future governor, was elected, though his sole qualification was his name.  These state races build name recognition and are good for fund raising, but they are not a good "test."

You put "ultimate experience" and "statewide test" in quotes as though you are quoting me...but I never mentioned those phrases.   This whole "statewide test" thing is something you invented to make your argument look good.   Actually, I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove.

All I'm saying is that Rendell was always the favorite to win the Governorship in 2002.  Are you really claiming that Casey had more experience than Rendell in 2002?  Even if he did, Rendell was obviously the more charismatic candidate, he raised and spent more money, and he had views on social issues that were much more in line with the electorate of a Democratic primary.   

And in any case, if Casey had won in the primary, he would have won in the general to.  This time around, he won't have the same sort problem in the primary.  So to suggest that Casey's loss to Rendell was his only shot at higher office is silly.  At least give him a chance to run among a general election electorate.

[J. J.]

You put "ultimate experience" and "statewide test" in quotes as though you are quoting me...but I never mentioned those phrases.   This whole "statewide test" thing is something you invented to make your argument look good.   Actually, I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove.

All I'm saying is that Rendell was always the favorite to win the Governorship in 2002.  Are you really claiming that Casey had more experience than Rendell in 2002?  Even if he did, Rendell was obviously the more charismatic candidate, he raised and spent more money, and he had views on social issues that were much more in line with the electorate of a Democratic primary.   

And in any case, if Casey had won in the primary, he would have won in the general to.  This time around, he won't have the same sort problem in the primary.  So to suggest that Casey's loss to Rendell was his only shot at higher office is silly.  At least give him a chance to run among a general election electorate.

First, in terms of successfully running a statewide race, Casey, Jr. was more experienced than Rendel in 2002, 2 successful  verses one unsuccessful, respectively.  In terms of experience in state government, Casey, Jr. had six years (including some dealing with the legislature); Rendell had zero, though he did lobby for the city.

I'm using "statewide test" as a summary of your argument.  Running for an office that is elected on a statewide basis, which is what Casey can claim.  You actually did use "statewide 'test.'"

I have not suggested that the only shot that Casey ever had for higher office was 2002.  As Phil has pointed out, you don't understand.

I suggest that running, even successfully, a statewide campaign is a poor indication as to if the person will be elected governor or senator in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

Outside of the Phila papers, Casey was expected to win; pundits expected a second "Guru Ad," which didn't happened.

Now, let's look at the successful candidates that have experrience in running statewide prior to becoming governor or senator for the first time.

Shapp, 1970 G
Spector, 1980 S
Casey, Sr. 1986 G
Rendell, 2002 G

If we go back 35 years, we don't a particulay long list.

Now this in no way says that Casey, Jr, will loose in 2006, but it does question the importance of having won previous statewide races (which both candidates have done).

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think you are confusing me with the other Nick.  I never used the phrase "statewide test".  Please quote my message where I did if you think I'm wrong.  And I never said that running statewide before was a good indicator of whether Casey would get elected.  My only point was that Casey could not have been expected to win in 2002 given his opposition, and to dismiss his general election campaign now because he lost a Democratic primary four years ago would be a mistake.

[WMS]

NM:  Lean-Dem

I think NM is a lot stronger than Lean Dem at this point.

Bingaman's going to win, sure enough. He's further left than the state as a whole, but: 1. NM loves its incumbents and 2. The NM Reps don't have a giant-killer, due in part to their decade-long fratricidal civil war. Foley will be entertaining to watch, but he ain't gonna win. 55 to 60 percent of the vote, Bingaman victory.

Everybody in NM is waiting for someone to retire...

[Moooooo]

Bingaman's going to win, sure enough. He's further left than the state as a whole, but: 1. NM loves its incumbents and 2. The NM Reps don't have a giant-killer, due in part to their decade-long fratricidal civil war. Foley will be entertaining to watch, but he ain't gonna win. 55 to 60 percent of the vote, Bingaman victory.

Everybody in NM is waiting for someone to retire...

I was'nt sure if the GOP had a strong candidate in the background waiting to pounce.

[WMS]

I think NM is a lot stronger than Lean Dem at this point.

Bingaman's going to win, sure enough. He's further left than the state as a whole, but: 1. NM loves its incumbents and 2. The NM Reps don't have a giant-killer, due in part to their decade-long fratricidal civil war. Foley will be entertaining to watch, but he ain't gonna win. 55 to 60 percent of the vote, Bingaman victory.

Everybody in NM is waiting for someone to retire...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was'nt sure if the GOP had a strong candidate in the background waiting to pounce.

That would require the NM GOP to actually compete in elections once in a while. They don't even try half the time, because they're too busy imposing ideological (conservative) purity internally. Usually when they win, they get a boost from NM Dem divisions or atrocious Dem candidates. See the 2002 Commissioner of Public Lands race - Art Trujillo?! WTF were the Dems (who voted for him in the primary) thinking?! A better known case: 1997 Special Congressional Election, District 3. The Dems picked the sleazeball Eric Serna, which inspired the Greens to pick Carol Miller, and all that enabled Republican Bill Redmond to win the seat w/43% to about, err, 39% (the Green got around 17% IIRC). Of course the Dems took it back in 1998 w/Tom Udall.

In any event, Dan Foley is a staunch conservative from Roswell and he's a little colorful at times, so while he won't win, the press releases should be interesting.

[Keystone Phil]

And NixonNow totally deserves credibility. I don't care how much you dislike him. He knows what's he's talking about when it comes to NJ politics.

Stalin knew what he was talking about when it came to Soviet politics.  That doesn't mean you should compliment him for it.

NixonNow is a nasty, bigoted troll who routinely launches unprovoked personal attacks on members of this forum.  I hope that people are not too clouded by partisanship to see this. 

I don't care if he occasionally tries to contribute something substantive...the less we encourage of him on this board the better.

If someone has a knowledge of something, they deserve credit for having that knowledge. You can't deny when someone knows what they're talking about. I'm not complimenting him on some of the other things he has done. Nice job trying to make it into that.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No he wasn't. Some polls showed Casey up about 15 points.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No he wasn't. Some polls showed Casey up about 15 points.

Just because someone is up in the polls at some point doesn't make them to favorite to win. 

Casey was leading the polls by double digits before Rendell started his ad campaign, but this was completely based on name recognition.  Everyone working on that race knew his support was extremely shallow.   Rendell had the charisma, the experience, the agenda, and the money to win that race.  The only thing he didn't have was name recognition.

Polls a year before that election don't show any of that...they only show name recognition.  As soon as Rendell started running his ads, he went up by 10 points and never looked back.  And this was exactly what everyone in the campaign knew would happen.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No he wasn't. Some polls showed Casey up about 15 points.

Just because someone is up in the polls at some point doesn't make them to favorite to win. 

Casey was leading the polls by double digits before Rendell started his ad campaign, but this was completely based on name recognition.  Everyone working on that race knew his support was extremely shallow.   Rendell had the charisma, the experience, the agenda, and the money to win that race.  The only thing he didn't have was name recognition.

Polls a year before that election don't show any of that...they only show name recognition.  As soon as Rendell started running his ads, he went up by 10 points and never looked back.  And this was exactly what everyone in the campaign knew would happen.

He was up most of the time. Casey had everything except the personality. That race was Casey's. Rendell was certainly not the favorite throughout the campaign.

[J. J.]

I think you are confusing me with the other Nick.  I never used the phrase "statewide test".  Please quote my message where I did if you think I'm wrong.  And I never said that running statewide before was a good indicator of whether Casey would get elected.  My only point was that Casey could not have been expected to win in 2002 given his opposition, and to dismiss his general election campaign now because he lost a Democratic primary four years ago would be a mistake.

I do note that you do not use the term, "statewide test," however, you did say this:

   My guess is that most insiders expected the race to turn out as it did...that Casey would have a big lead in name recognition at the start of the race, but that ultimately his comparative inexperience would doom him once Rendell became known outside of Philly. 

Now, what makes Rendell more experienced, comparatively, in 2002?

Rendell ran a large city and chaired the DNC; Casey served as the auditor general, effectively putting (as AG have) the opposition's case against the current (GOP) administration.  In that capacity, he dealt with legislature on statewide issues; Rendell never did.  Casey ran in and won two statewide primaries and two general elections; Rendell ran in and lost one statewide primary.

Now we have two myths.  One, running statewide really isn't a good test for future elections.  Two, Bob Casey, Jr., despite having an edge in experience, did not defeat Rendell, the lesser candidate in terms of experience.