Sanoturm/Guiliani ticket - who can beat them if Santorum wins PA

[Keystone Phil]

Hafer is a fairly stong opponent

You're a funny guy.

Hafer would do  better against Santorum than anyone in the GOP being thrown around to take on Rendell would do against Rendell

Hafer would be lucky to break 46%. Unless the GOP nominates Piccola or Scranton, I have a feeling we'll break 46%.

[Smash255]

Hafer is a fairly stong opponent

You're a funny guy.

Hafer would do  better against Santorum than anyone in the GOP being thrown around to take on Rendell would do against Rendell

Hafer would be lucky to break 46%. Unless the GOP nominates Piccola or Scranton, I have a feeling we'll break 46%.

Based off what??  Hafer is quite a bit stronger than someone like  Swann or Castor, please.

[Keystone Phil]

Based off what??  Hafer is quite a bit stronger than someone like  Swann or Castor, please.

Once again, you're a funny guy.

...such a hack...

[Smash255]

Based off what??  Hafer is quite a bit stronger than someone like  Swann or Castor, please.

Once again, you're a funny guy.

...such a hack...

You seem to have it a bit backwards there.  Your the hack.  Bottom line is Rendell is favored over Castor & Swann, Santorum would be favored over someone like Hafer, but Hafer while not nearly as strong of a candidate as Casey is a stronger candidate than Castor & Swann are & would do better against Santorum than Castor or Swann would do against Rendell

[Keystone Phil]

Based off what??  Hafer is quite a bit stronger than someone like  Swann or Castor, please.

Once again, you're a funny guy.

...such a hack...

You seem to have it a bit backwards there.  Your the hack.  Bottom line is Rendell is favored over Castor & Swann, Santorum would be favored over someone like Hafer, but Hafer while not nearly as strong of a candidate as Casey is a stronger candidate than Castor & Swann are & would do better against Santorum than Castor or Swann would do against Rendell

In 2002, Rendell's weak Republican opponent received 44% of the vote. Swann or Castor are seen as candidates that could actually beat Rendell. For you to say that they'd do worse than Hafer (who would receive about 46 or 47% of the vote) just furthers the belief that you're the most partisan Democratic hack on this forum.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bayh.  He'd take IA, IN, NM, and OH.

[Smash255]

Based off what??  Hafer is quite a bit stronger than someone like  Swann or Castor, please.

Once again, you're a funny guy.

...such a hack...

You seem to have it a bit backwards there.  Your the hack.  Bottom line is Rendell is favored over Castor & Swann, Santorum would be favored over someone like Hafer, but Hafer while not nearly as strong of a candidate as Casey is a stronger candidate than Castor & Swann are & would do better against Santorum than Castor or Swann would do against Rendell

In 2002, Rendell's weak Republican opponent received 44% of the vote. Swann or Castor are seen as candidates that could actually beat Rendell. For you to say that they'd do worse than Hafer (who would receive about 46 or 47% of the vote) just furthers the belief that you're the most partisan Democratic hack on this forum.

For starters you can't compare an open seat to an already established Incumbent.  Rendell won in 2002 in an OPEN race by 8 or 9.  Keep in mind AN OPEN RACE is different from Incumbency.  Yes Fisher was a weak opponent, but Fisher was actually a stronger opponent than Kilnk, who lost to the INCUMBENT Santorum by 7 in 2002.  Klink was a HORRID canidate, Hafer is a stronger candidate than Klink.  Hafer is a stronger candidate than Swann & Castor also.  Not to mention while both had races that were within 10 last election, Santorum was ALREADY an Incumbent at that time, Rendell was going for an open seat

[Keystone Phil]

  Yes Fisher was a weak opponent, but Fisher was actually a stronger opponent than Kilnk, who lost to the INCUMBENT Santorum by 7 in 2002.  Klink was a HORRID canidate, Hafer is a stronger candidate than Klink. 

First of all, Fisher was weaker than Klink! Fisher received 44%. Klink received 46%. Using your logic, Klink should have lost by more since Santorum was an incumbent. Klink was weak but so is Hafer. Hafer would bring one thing to the race: money. That's it. She'd stand no chance with conservative Democrats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha. Ok, Smash.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What the hell do you keep going on about Santorum being an incumbent for? That means Klink should have been weaker than Fisher, correct? Well he wasn't! Why are you so stupid?

[Smash255]

  Yes Fisher was a weak opponent, but Fisher was actually a stronger opponent than Kilnk, who lost to the INCUMBENT Santorum by 7 in 2002.  Klink was a HORRID canidate, Hafer is a stronger candidate than Klink.

First of all, Fisher was weaker than Klink! Fisher received 44%. Klink received 46%. Using your logic, Klink should have lost by more since Santorum was an incumbent. Klink was weak but so is Hafer. Hafer would bring one thing to the race: money. That's it. She'd stand no chance with conservative Democrats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha. Ok, Smash.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What the hell do you keep going on about Santorum being an incumbent for? That means Klink should have been weaker than Fisher, correct? Well he wasn't! Why are you so stupid?

Point I am making open seats  are generally closer than Incumbent elections.    Both Rendell & Santorum faced weak opponents, but despite Santorum being an Incumbent & Rendell not being one the results were similar.  You were making the point about the 44% a weak candidate Fisher received against Rendell in 2002, I was just pointing out than Santorum's weak opponent Klink received about the same (45%) in 2000 & he was going against an entrenched Incumbent.  They were both weak opponents, but generally its more common to see a weak open a bit closer in an open race than in a Incumbent race.  You are way overstimating Swann & Castor, despite the problems with Rendell's approval, Rendell remains comfortably ahead in all the polls which goes to show that they are fairly weak candidates.  Rendell is clearly the favorite, thats something even you can't deny & I have admitted that against Hafer Santorum would be the favoprite, I was simply stating that Hafer would have a better chance of kocking off Santorum than Swaan or Castor do at knocking off Rendell.  Both Santorum & Rendell would most likley win in either case, but Hafer would make it closer than you think.  It would be interesting to see the poll results for other candidates other than Casey & how they fare up against Rick

[TeePee4Prez]

  Yes Fisher was a weak opponent, but Fisher was actually a stronger opponent than Kilnk, who lost to the INCUMBENT Santorum by 7 in 2002.  Klink was a HORRID canidate, Hafer is a stronger candidate than Klink. 

First of all, Fisher was weaker than Klink! Fisher received 44%. Klink received 46%. Using your logic, Klink should have lost by more since Santorum was an incumbent. Klink was weak but so is Hafer. Hafer would bring one thing to the race: money. That's it. She'd stand no chance with conservative Democrats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Keystone Phil]

... BUT a very good chance with liberal Republicans in Southeastern PA.  Rememerb Phil, Hafer has a base of support in Southwest PA and would redily cut through Santorum's Southeast margin in 2000 like a knife through whipped cream after his book, Schaivo, and all the other crap he's pulled.  Oh, by the way read the NE Times this week.  Yep, the writer there said something about your boy and IIRC he has wrote some conservative op-eds in the past.

Hafer doesn't have a base here. She'd do well but she doesn't start off with a base. Her loss is every other part of the start would outweigh her strength here.

And as for any Santorum editorial from the inconsistent NE Times, I didn't read it nor do I care. That paper went from endorsing Al Taubenberger and Joe Torsella (the two most conservative candidates in their respective primaries) to endorsing Schwartz in the General. They only go with what's popular.

[Smash255]

... BUT a very good chance with liberal Republicans in Southeastern PA.  Rememerb Phil, Hafer has a base of support in Southwest PA and would redily cut through Santorum's Southeast margin in 2000 like a knife through whipped cream after his book, Schaivo, and all the other crap he's pulled.  Oh, by the way read the NE Times this week.  Yep, the writer there said something about your boy and IIRC he has wrote some conservative op-eds in the past.

Hafer doesn't have a base here. She'd do well but she doesn't start off with a base. Her loss is every other part of the start would outweigh her strength here.

And as for any Santorum editorial from the inconsistent NE Times, I didn't read it nor do I care. That paper went from endorsing Al Taubenberger and Joe Torsella (the two most conservative candidates in their respective primaries) to endorsing Schwartz in the General. They only go with what's popular.

Hafer is surley stronger han Klink.  Klink was an extrmely weak opponent, yet he stll lost by just 8 to an incumbent.  A stronger opponent such as Hafe, during a time when Santorum is less popular than he waas in 2000, during a time where SE PA has gotten more Democratic & when hafer does have some base support in SW PA (more than any other Dem other than Casey)  hafer could make things quite interesting against Santorum, and a better shot of winning than castor or Swann

[Keystone Phil]

Hafer is surley stronger han Klink.  Klink was an extrmely weak opponent, yet he stll lost by just 8 to an incumbent.

Hafer is not stronger. Her social liberalism would help in the SE but hurt everywhere else. And Klink wasn't as weak as you think.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hafer has a base in the SW? There is a time when we should joke and a time when we need to be serious, hack. This is a time to be serious.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not going to keep arguing this over and over again. Castor is strong in a more Democratic county. Swann is well known and popular in his home area. Hafer has nothing. SE helps but she has no base.

[Smash255]

Hafer is surley stronger han Klink.  Klink was an extrmely weak opponent, yet he stll lost by just 8 to an incumbent.

Hafer is not stronger. Her social liberalism would help in the SE but hurt everywhere else. And Klink wasn't as weak as you think.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hafer has a base in the SW? There is a time when we should joke and a time when we need to be serious, hack. This is a time to be serious.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not going to keep arguing this over and over again. Castor is strong in a more Democratic county. Swann is well known and popular in his home area. Hafer has nothing. SE helps but she has no base.

You seem to think Santorum is unbeatable aganst anyone other than Casey.  Thats simply not the case.  While he would clearly be favorite against Hafer, he would still face a tougher race than Rendell would against Swann or Castor.

[Keystone Phil]

You seem to think Santorum is unbeatable aganst anyone other than Casey.  Thats simply not the case.  While he would clearly be favorite against Hafer, he would still face a tougher race than Rendell would against Swann or Castor.

Unbeatable? No but pretty close. Very likely to win re-election against anyone but Casey.

And, once again I must state because of your clear lacking of knowledge about PA politics, Santorum vs. Hafer would not be closer than Rendell vs. Swann or Castor.

Castor has a base in Rendell's backyard. He also would capitalize on the strong anti-Rendell feelings of the west. Castor would not get less than 47% against Rendell.

As for Swann, since Castor is now unlikely to run for Governor and since Swann is the likely nominee, we'll have to see how things go. Come back after the '06 elections. I'm positive that Swann will receive more than 46% of the vote.

[Smash255]

You seem to think Santorum is unbeatable aganst anyone other than Casey.  Thats simply not the case.  While he would clearly be favorite against Hafer, he would still face a tougher race than Rendell would against Swann or Castor.

Unbeatable? No but pretty close. Very likely to win re-election against anyone but Casey.

And, once again I must state because of your clear lacking of knowledge about PA politics, Santorum vs. Hafer would not be closer than Rendell vs. Swann or Castor.

Castor has a base in Rendell's backyard. He also would capitalize on the strong anti-Rendell feelings of the west. Castor would not get less than 47% against Rendell.

As for Swann, since Castor is now unlikely to run for Governor and since Swann is the likely nominee, we'll have to see how things go. Come back after the '06 elections. I'm positive that Swann will receive more than 46% of the vote.

We all saw how accurate you were with PA-13....

[Keystone Phil]

We all saw how accurate you were with PA-13....

Flyers was worried about a Brown win, too, early on and actually was off when it came down to how much Schwartz would win by. You can't judge my analysis of PA as a whole by PA 13. You are just flat out clueless when it comes to this. You make things up and think it's good analysis of the state. Basically, you're a more annoying BRTD.

[Smash255]

We all saw how accurate you were with PA-13....

Flyers was worried about a Brown win, too, early on and actually was off when it came down to how much Schwartz would win by. You can't judge my analysis of PA as a whole by PA 13. You are just flat out clueless when it comes to this. You make things up and think it's good analysis of the state. Basically, you're a more annoying BRTD.

1.  I wasmainly being a smart ass with the PA 13 comment.  You tend to come across as Mr Know It All when it comes down to PA politics & if someone disagrees with you & doesn't see Santorum as all that popular that they must be really wrong.

2.  Both rendell & Santorum are going to have real strong backing as far as fundraising & $$$ poured in.  I highly doubt Sweann & Castor will be able to compete with Rendell in fundraising.  Casey may not even be able to fundrasise as well as Santorum (but how big his name is diminshed how that would hurt).  You even asdmitted Hafer will be able to fundraise well & Hafer could fundraise almost as well as Santorum would (at least be able to compete with the fundraising so Santorum doesn't have a huge advantage.  While Swann & Castor may do decently fundraising they won't be able to compete all that much with Rendell & fundraising.  Not to mention all the $$$ the Natl Dems will be throwing into the PA race as well.

3.  Issues like Social Security could really hurt Santorum, & diminish how well he could do in the West.  Santorum is strongly behind Bush's social security plan, Hafer is against it, those in western PA who may not like Hafer's social liberalism could still vote Hafer because of Social Security.  Bush's approval in PA is also slipping which could hurt Santorum (polls around Election Day had Bush's approval around 50 in the state, last polls have had his approval 5 points or so lower in PA)

Again 'm not saying Hafer would beat Santorum, Santorum is still likley to win, but you seem to be overestimating how will Castor & Swann would do & underestimating how well Hafer would do.  Fisher was a fairly weak opponent, but Swann & Castor aren't exactly strong opponents either, despite low approval polls have Rendell leading comfortably.  Also as I mentioned above Open races are generally closer than Incumbent races.  My guess Rendell would win against Castor or Swann by a slightly larger margin than he won in 02 (not that Castor & Swann are weaker candidates than Fisher, because thats not true, but because Rendell will have a huge fundraising advantage & will be running as an INCUMBENT rather than for an Open Seat  (look at Govenor's races from across the country, even when the Govenor isn't that popular as in Rendell's case they typically win their re-election by a larger margin than when they were running for their 1st term.

I think that Santorum would win against Hafer, but it would be closer than Santorum's 2000 racedue to 1.  Hafer being a stronger candidate than Klink, the fundraising differencial will be closer now than iit was in 2000 as well as certain national issues 

[Keystone Phil]

1.  I wasmainly being a smart ass with the PA 13 comment.  You tend to come across as Mr Know It All when it comes down to PA politics & if someone disagrees with you & doesn't see Santorum as all that popular that they must be really wrong.

You are wrong. You think Santorum is unpopular here. That's wrong. Sorry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Money isn't everything. You'll see that in the '06 Senate race here.

Hafer would fundraise but would be seen as one of the most out of touch candidates to run.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Issues like social security could really hurt Santorum and diminish how well he could do out west. Ok. Social Security is off the radar screen right now and might be next year, too. But if it reappears, Santorum won't be "diminished" out west. He's led the fight for reform yet remains popular.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm not. I'm tired of having this conversation. You're a partisan hack who has very, very little knowledge of how things work here.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The campaign hasn't started. If Fisher could get to 44%, Swann could get there and likely pass it and Castor could easily pass that.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe putting this in bold will help.... YOU CAN'T USE THE INCUMBENT POINT WHEN YOU'RE AN UNPOPULAR INCUMBENT.

Maybe it will work. Maybe you'll remain a clueless hack. I go with the latter.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't make sense and can guarentee that you can't give me an example of an incumbent, slipping in the polls, with terrible re-elect numbers who ended up winning.

[Smash255]

1.  I wasmainly being a smart ass with the PA 13 comment.  You tend to come across as Mr Know It All when it comes down to PA politics & if someone disagrees with you & doesn't see Santorum as all that popular that they must be really wrong.

You are wrong. You think Santorum is unpopular here. That's wrong. Sorry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Money isn't everything. You'll see that in the '06 Senate race here.

Hafer would fundraise but would be seen as one of the most out of touch candidates to run.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Issues like social security could really hurt Santorum and diminish how well he could do out west. Ok. Social Security is off the radar screen right now and might be next year, too. But if it reappears, Santorum won't be "diminished" out west. He's led the fight for reform yet remains popular.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm not. I'm tired of having this conversation. You're a partisan hack who has very, very little knowledge of how things work here.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The campaign hasn't started. If Fisher could get to 44%, Swann could get there and likely pass it and Castor could easily pass that.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe putting this in bold will help.... YOU CAN'T USE THE INCUMBENT POINT WHEN YOU'RE AN UNPOPULAR INCUMBENT.

Maybe it will work. Maybe you'll remain a clueless hack. I go with the latter.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't make sense and can guarentee that you can't give me an example of an incumbent, slipping in the polls, with terrible re-elect numbers who ended up winning.

Phil even when Incumbents approvals aren't all that high they still have a bit more of an advantage compared to when they are running for their 1st term.  Now when your approvals are in the 30's or something like that it's different, but generally incumbents even if they aren't all that popular have more of an advantage when they are running for re-election compared to ther 1st run.  Point is its easier for an opponent to get in the mid 40's when its an open seat compared to when its an Incumbent seat.

Hafer is stronger than you think period, you shouldn't understimate the impact that the fundraising differences will have.  Hafer will be able to compete with Santorum in fundraising, either Swann nor Castor would be able to compete with Rendell in fundraising.  Social Security could be a big issue for 06 & if he goes up against Hafer, the Social Security issue would really have an impact out west and because of that Santorum might not be able to do all that much better out west against hafer, than he did against Klink in 2000.  I think you can even admit that Santorum is not going to put the same #'s in the SE as he did in 2000.  He won the Philly burbs then, he won't in 06 no matter who he faces.  he could build on his base more out West, but I think the social security issue is going to be a big campaign issue in 06 & wouldlimit any growth Santorum could have had out West over his 2000 #'s even against a social liberal like Hafer, and no matter who he faces he is not putting up the #'s in the Philly burbs he did in 2000.

[Keystone Phil]

Hafer is stronger than you think period,

Fundraising might be a strength but it doesn't outweigh her other problems. You fail to realize that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you know that Castor couldn't keep up with Rendell? He's seen as the best chance to beat Rendell so I'm sure he'd have some money thrown his way. He wouldn't be neck and neck with Rendell for fundraising but you need to stop thinking that whoever runs against Rendell will be broke.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Social security was brought up in 2000. Klink used it. Klink is stronger out west than Hafer (more in line with the average western PA voter than Hafer by far). Santorum destroyed him. Can I make it easier for you?



 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You come up with the worst reasoning for everything. Take the SE away from Santorum. Fine. I know that. Everyone knows that. But your thought about Social security is getting annoying. He would not lose the west to Hafer.

[Jake]

About Hafer, the Northeast only voted for Kerry by a few percenatage points, mainly on his strength in Scranton. It is doubtful that Hafer could preform anywhere near Kerry in a the Northeast. As for the Southwest and the West as a whole, Santorum would obviously dominate save for the city of Pittsburgh. The "T" would go big for Santorum leaving the Southeast as Hafer's saving grace. Hafer would have to improve upon Kerry by a significant margin in the Southeast to come close to winning, something which is very doubtful.

Casey's strength comes from his populism and his ability to put areas like the West and Northeast back in the Democratic column. Casey has a large base of populist Democrats that would normally vote for a Republican against a Hafer-like liberal. Hafer brings only her liberal base to the table, no sway among populists in the key regions. Hafer would depend upon massive turnout in the SE and somehow swinging 5% additional voters from Kerry's column in the SE to defeat Santorum. Hafer is likely to lose a House race and would be sure to lose the Senate race.

A comment on fundraising. Hafer brings the pro-abortion lobby and the MoveOn lobby to play. That's obviously a double edged sword with the voters she needs to recruit.

[Keystone Phil]

About Hafer, the Northeast only voted for Kerry by a few percenatage points, mainly on his strength in Scranton. It is doubtful that Hafer could preform anywhere near Kerry in a the Northeast. As for the Southwest and the West as a whole, Santorum would obviously dominate save for the city of Pittsburgh. The "T" would go big for Santorum leaving the Southeast as Hafer's saving grace. Hafer would have to improve upon Kerry by a significant margin in the Southeast to come close to winning, something which is very doubtful.

Casey's strength comes from his populism and his ability to put areas like the West and Northeast back in the Democratic column. Casey has a large base of populist Democrats that would normally vote for a Republican against a Hafer-like liberal. Hafer brings only her liberal base to the table, no sway among populists in the key regions. Hafer would depend upon massive turnout in the SE and somehow swinging 5% additional voters from Kerry's column in the SE to defeat Santorum. Hafer is likely to lose a House race and would be sure to lose the Senate race.

A comment on fundraising. Hafer brings the pro-abortion lobby and the MoveOn lobby to play. That's obviously a double edged sword with the voters she needs to recruit.

Thank you but the hack will probably just repeat what he's been saying for days, refusing to realize he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I admit that I've made my mistakes but Smash is just terrible and has no knowledge of this state's politics at all.

[Keystone Phil]

You also have to remember, Smash, that Santorum might be able to save himself with a few moderate Republican voters in the SE by focusing on how Hafer is a turncoat. She might be more in line with some of their views but if he hit that hard enough (with enough backing from the local GOP leaders) he could ease the pain in the SE.

[Smash255]

Hafer is stronger than you think period,

Fundraising might be a strength but it doesn't outweigh her other problems. You fail to realize that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you know that Castor couldn't keep up with Rendell? He's seen as the best chance to beat Rendell so I'm sure he'd have some money thrown his way. He wouldn't be neck and neck with Rendell for fundraising but you need to stop thinking that whoever runs against Rendell will be broke.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Social security was brought up in 2000. Klink used it. Klink is stronger out west than Hafer (more in line with the average western PA voter than Hafer by far). Santorum destroyed him. Can I make it easier for you?



 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You come up with the worst reasoning for everything. Take the SE away from Santorum. Fine. I know that. Everyone knows that. But your thought about Social security is getting annoying. He would not lose the west to Hafer.

1.  I never said Swann, or Castor would be broke.  What I said is the fundraising gap between Rendell & Swann or Rendell & castor would be larger than the gap between Santorum & hafer.

2.  Klink was an horrible candidate, horrible speker, horrible debator.  I know Santorum is strong in these areas, but Hafer isn't exactly weak either & much stronger than Klink

3.  Social Security is a much bigger issue now than it was in 2000, Santorum's views are close to Bush's views on Social Security.  Just look at the difference between now & 2000 to the public's view of Bush on Social Security.  Its simply a bigger issue & less popular issue now than back in 2000.

4.  I never cliamed Hafer would beat Santorum out west.  What I was saying is typically Santorum would do better out west tan he did in 2000 & that would make up for his losses in the SE compared to 2000.  What I was simply saying is the Social Security issue (which is much bigger now & more people are against it now) will have an impact & Santorum won't gain out west as much as he would have if it wasn't an issue.  In other words while he may do a little better in the west ( & central for that matter) compared to 2000, it won't be enough to give him a larger margin of victory than he had in 2000, because of what he gains in other parts of the states will be less than what he loses in the SE.  It s really going to be real hard for Santorum to ease the pain in the SE even with the turncoat issue, Santorum just damaged himself too much there, has gone to the right (even if you disagree that he is more conservative now than 2000, he can be PRECEIVED to be further to the right now) in an area that continues to shift leftward. 

Anyway whole point is I think Social Security will be a big issue next year.  It will be a bigger issue than it was in 2000, and more people ae opposed to it in 2000.  Hafer being socially liberal will turn off some voters out west & other parts of the state, and Santorum will probably do a bit better there, but not to the extent he could due to the Social Security issue.  Also even if Santorum brigs up the turncoat issue, the results next year will be quite a bit different in the SE from 2000.  All in all he may gain in other parts of the state, but that gain won't be enoough to give him a bigger victory against hafer than he had against Klink because the losses in the SE will be greater than the gain.  All in all he probably would beat Hafer, but it would be a close race