Bob Casey

[TeePee4Prez]

I think Pennsylvania Democrats and liberal Independents and Republicans sacrificed an awful lot of their views out of fear by electing Bob Casey.  In order to win, I hate to admit we played right into the Religious Right's hands.  Anyone in PA who is pro-choice, pro-stem cell, and anti-Iraq War just got shafted this election.  Bob Casey was the better choice to Rick Santorum by far, but we could have nominated Joe Hoeffel and still won by 8-10 points.  I would be very willing to sacrifice Dauphin and Westmoreland counties to see Joe Hoeffel in the Senate right now.  I mean if Missouri can elect Claire McCaskill and Ohio elected the very liberal Sherrod Brown, surely Pennsylvania would have elected Joe Hoeffel.  There was nothing special about Rick Santorum compared to Jim Talent and Mike DeWine, who by the way are much more moderate Senators than Rick Santorum in more conservative states than Pennsylvania. 

I know people like Frodo and Al are having orgasms over Bob Casey getting elected by saying "See... See. you needed Casey to win this seat", but I truly feel we didn't and we will pay the price for this.  Not only on Bob Casey's social views, but quite honestly we elected a dud with a namesake.  How sad!

[Keystone Phil]

No, you did need Casey. He basically wrapped this up for you. Listen, we're going to have our disagreement on this one but hear me out.

You talk about there being nothing special about Santorum. However, Santorum had a very distinguished record whereas the man you love was rightfully exposed in his 2004 race as being a do-nothing. A post office for Borski...and that was it for Hoeffel. The man is still a mystery to this state whereas people like McCaskill and Brown were well known. Both of those candidates were also helped out by things like very unpopular GOP leaders in their respective states. Now Hoeffel would have had the national trend with him but Santorum could really tear into him. You couldn't really do that effectively with the "lovable" Casey.

Hoeffel by eight to ten is a joke. I'm not totally ruling out a win by the Dems here but your Casey eighteen point victory was enough of a fluke and it was with a likable, well known guy. Hoeffel is much weaker. Rendell and his own liberal views help boost his numbers a bit in the SE but do you really think you'd do well in the T and out west like you did with Casey? This isn't just about Dauphin and Westmoreland, Flyers. Take a look at that map. Hoeffel wouldn't be able to match that.

Also remember that Hoeffel and Rendell, two SE PA candidates, would hurt Hoeffel big time.

Don't jump on Casey yet though. He could end up screwing you guys (which I'd love but I'd still dislike him a lot) but he could also end up being your puppet.

[Alcon]

Hindsight is 20/20.

The Democrats played it safe.  I genuinely think that was the right thing to do at the time.  Even if a more liberal candidate could have won in the end, the Democrats didn't know that when Casey was nominated.  It may have been the right decision, but it would have been a foolish one to make.

[Jake]

In addition to that Phil, could Hoeffel run up the 60-70% Casey won in Lackwanna and Luzerne Counties? Absolutely not.

[DownWithTheLeft]

but quite honestly we elected a dud with a namesake.  How sad!

NJ almost did that

[TeePee4Prez]

In addition to that Phil, could Hoeffel run up the 60-70% Casey won in Lackwanna and Luzerne Counties? Absolutely not.

Hoeffel would have won Lackawanna with 60% and probably got in the mid 50s in Luzerne.  A sacrifice I would be more than willing to make and Hoeffel would have still won.  Hoeffel would have likely even bettered Casey's margins in the counties around Philadelphia.  Look, the Southeast would have been probably the same lock for Hoeffel even moreso than Casey.  The GOP would have NEVER overcome the Southeast especially when Santorum is unpopular in his home area after Cybergate.  Hoeffel would have won 8-10 and I stand by that.

Try running that fool against Allyson Schwartz in 2010.  I dare you!  

[Alcon]

In addition to that Phil, could Hoeffel run up the 60-70% Casey won in Lackwanna and Luzerne Counties? Absolutely not.

Hoeffel would have won Lackawanna with 60% and probably got in the mid 50s in Luzerne.  A sacrifice I would be more than willing to make and Hoeffel would have still won.  Hoeffel would have likely even bettered Casey's margins in the counties around Philadelphia.  Look, the Southeast would have been probably the same lock for Hoeffel even moreso than Casey.  The GOP would have NEVER overcome the Southeast especially when Santorum is unpopular in his home area after Cybergate.  Hoeffel would have won 8-10 and I stand by that.

Try running that fool against Allyson Schwartz in 2010.  I dare you! 

What do you base this on?

[Keystone Phil]

In addition to that Phil, could Hoeffel run up the 60-70% Casey won in Lackwanna and Luzerne Counties? Absolutely not.

Hoeffel would have won Lackawanna with 60% and probably got in the mid 50s in Luzerne.  A sacrifice I would be more than willing to make and Hoeffel would have still won.  Hoeffel would have likely even bettered Casey's margins in the counties around Philadelphia.  Look, the Southeast would have been probably the same lock for Hoeffel even moreso than Casey.  The GOP would have NEVER overcome the Southeast especially when Santorum is unpopular in his home area after Cybergate.  Hoeffel would have won 8-10 and I stand by that.

Try running that fool against Allyson Schwartz in 2010.  I dare you!  

What else did you want in these counties, Flyers? 62% in Montco wasn't good enough? So you get 65% and then you lose a county or two out west. That hurts.

I don't think it is wise to get that cocky four years before the election. Santorum vs. Schwartz would certainly not be an easy win for the Dems.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I know people like Frodo and Al are having orgasms over Bob Casey getting elected

I don't remember that happening. But if I do remember it at some point, you'll be the first to know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about "see... see... you needed Casey to utterly humiliate Santorum"?

[TeePee4Prez]

In addition to that Phil, could Hoeffel run up the 60-70% Casey won in Lackwanna and Luzerne Counties? Absolutely not.

Hoeffel would have won Lackawanna with 60% and probably got in the mid 50s in Luzerne.  A sacrifice I would be more than willing to make and Hoeffel would have still won.  Hoeffel would have likely even bettered Casey's margins in the counties around Philadelphia.  Look, the Southeast would have been probably the same lock for Hoeffel even moreso than Casey.  The GOP would have NEVER overcome the Southeast especially when Santorum is unpopular in his home area after Cybergate.  Hoeffel would have won 8-10 and I stand by that.

Try running that fool against Allyson Schwartz in 2010.  I dare you! 

What do you base this on?

With a national tide like this, the Dem counties outside the Southeast would probably not vote anymore Republican then they did in prior years.  In Southeastern PA however, you have a socially liberal electorate throughly disgusted with Rick Santorum who would likely vote for Joe Hoeffel with the same or better margins than what Bob Casey got largely because Hoeffel's views are more in line with this area.  That said, I know we could have run Joe Hoeffel and won handily.  Was Bob Casey the "safe bet"?  Sure he was.  I know McCaskill and Brown were more well known statewide in their respective states, but their social views are more to the left of their states than Joe Hoeffel's in PA.  That would have made up for his popularity.  Look, I know it's hindsight, but in that regard I think we sacrificed more than we had to.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hoeffel would have won Lackawanna with 60% and probably got in the mid 50s in Luzerne.

The same Hoeffel that managed to lose Lackawanna by 13pts (quite an achievement for someone with a D next to their name) and who barely broke 40% in Luzerne just two years earlier?

[TeePee4Prez]

Hoeffel would have won Lackawanna with 60% and probably got in the mid 50s in Luzerne.

The same Hoeffel that managed to lose Lackawanna by 13pts (quite an achievement for someone with a D next to their name) and who barely broke 40% in Luzerne just two years earlier?

Yes, and the difference was a much more liberal and senior Arlen Specter running on the ticket in a Republican favored year.  Thanks for playing!

[Jake]

Flyers, what you're essentially saying is that are large number of Southeast social liberals saw Santorum vs. Casey on the ballot, and voted Santorum because Casey was too moderate. Somehow, that doesn't compute.

Here are the raw vote totals for the four main suburban counties. Casey/Rendell and Santorum/Swann.

Montco
178,000/208,000
110,000/82,000

288,000/290,000

Bucks
136,000/164,000
96,000/70,000

232,000/234,000

Chesco
94,000/111,000
77,000/59,000

171,000/170,000

Delco
129,000/155,000
80,000/55,000

209,000/210,000

You'll notice a fairly large number of people voting for both Rendell and Santorum. Somehow, I doubt they suddenly switch to Hoeffel.

[TeePee4Prez]

In addition to that Phil, could Hoeffel run up the 60-70% Casey won in Lackwanna and Luzerne Counties? Absolutely not.

Hoeffel would have won Lackawanna with 60% and probably got in the mid 50s in Luzerne.  A sacrifice I would be more than willing to make and Hoeffel would have still won.  Hoeffel would have likely even bettered Casey's margins in the counties around Philadelphia.  Look, the Southeast would have been probably the same lock for Hoeffel even moreso than Casey.  The GOP would have NEVER overcome the Southeast especially when Santorum is unpopular in his home area after Cybergate.  Hoeffel would have won 8-10 and I stand by that.

Try running that fool against Allyson Schwartz in 2010.  I dare you!  

What else did you want in these counties, Flyers? 62% in Montco wasn't good enough? So you get 65% and then you lose a county or two out west. That hurts.

I don't think it is wise to get that cocky four years before the election. Santorum vs. Schwartz would certainly not be an easy win for the Dems.

You guys are notorious for underestimating her.  Even I did.  Look, from what I hear she can fundraise and knows what she's doing.  I think she scares the crap out of Rick Santorum, et al.  If you think the Democrats have to always run conservative hypenated Catholics statewide, you are sadly mistaken. 

[TeePee4Prez]

Flyers, what you're essentially saying is that are large number of Southeast social liberals saw Santorum vs. Casey on the ballot, and voted Santorum because Casey was too moderate. Somehow, that doesn't compute.

Here are the raw vote totals for the four main suburban counties. Casey/Rendell and Santorum/Swann.

Montco
178,000/208,000
110,000/82,000

288,000/290,000

Bucks
136,000/164,000
96,000/70,000

232,000/234,000

Chesco
94,000/111,000
77,000/59,000

171,000/170,000

Delco
129,000/155,000
80,000/55,000

209,000/210,000

You'll notice a fairly large number of people voting for both Rendell and Santorum. Somehow, I doubt they suddenly switch to Hoeffel.

Actually, you helped my argument here- RENDELL IS PRO-CHOICE, CASEY IS NOT!  I know there had to be some fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters in those areas who voted for Rendell/Santorum.  Makes sense right?  I think a fair number of those voters would have went for Hoeffel instead of Santorum.

[© tweed]

Um, no pro-choice voter would have voted for Santorum over Casey.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not really because while Hoeffel would've won, he wouldn't have racked up the landslide and the coattails that took out Hart and Fitzpatrick.

[TeePee4Prez]

Um, no pro-choice voter would have voted for Santorum over Casey.

I think there were a few Tweed.  It wasn't just choice- Casey was no different than Santorum on a host of issues.

[TeePee4Prez]

Not really because while Hoeffel would've won, he wouldn't have racked up the landslide and the coattails that took out Hart and Fitzpatrick.

I never looked at it that way.  I think Fitz would have been gone without Casey's help, but I'm not so sure about Hart.  Both are Santorum clones.  Looking at 2010, it would be a good thing for liberal Dems because Allyson Schwartz will be in a strong position and the statewide GOP bench just took an ass raping with Hart and Fitzpatrick gone.   

[Keystone Phil]

You guys are notorious for underestimating her.  Even I did.  Look, from what I hear she can fundraise and knows what she's doing.  I think she scares the crap out of Rick Santorum, et al.  If you think the Democrats have to always run conservative hypenated Catholics statewide, you are sadly mistaken. 

We did but that is the 13th. Statewide is a tougher game to play in. Don't go nuts when I say this because I am not arguing this as a reason as to why she shouldn't win but the fact of the matter is that she is a liberal Jewish woman from Philadelphia who ran an abortion clinic. That won't go over well. That won't be ignored by the statewide GOP. Raj tried it but the way it was done turned off a lot of people. The PA GOP would do it a lot better and make it into a big issue. People in the SE might not care but leave this area and you got yourself a problem if you are backing Schwartz.

I will give her credit since she is a good fundraiser. She can get a more moderate message out there with that money but I don't think it would be enough to overcome her image.

Hoeffel would have won Lackawanna with 60% and probably got in the mid 50s in Luzerne.

The same Hoeffel that managed to lose Lackawanna by 13pts (quite an achievement for someone with a D next to their name) and who barely broke 40% in Luzerne just two years earlier?

Yes, and the difference was a much more liberal and senior Arlen Specter running on the ticket in a Republican favored year.  Thanks for playing!

Yes but he was helped by stronger turnout with Kerry at the top and using Bush and Specter as a team. He should have at least made it a lot closer.

 In Southeastern PA however, you have a socially liberal electorate throughly disgusted with Rick Santorum who would likely vote for Joe Hoeffel with the same or better margins than what Bob Casey got largely because Hoeffel's views are more in line with this area.

And what would that have done? A few more points in Montco is worth alienating counties that you won with Casey out west?

And you don't know that you would have won handily with Hoeffel. He is a much easier target. Attacking a popular Casey and having it make a difference is very hard. Attacking some unknown that people would be less receptive to is much easier and effective. Specter did that perfectly with Hoeffel with one ad.  

[© tweed]

Um, no pro-choice voter would have voted for Santorum over Casey.

I think there were a few Tweed.  It wasn't just choice- Casey was no different than Santorum on a host of issues.

Maybe there were a few dozen but it's entirely insignifcant as tens of thousands of Casey voters would have flipped to Santorum had a Philadelphia liberal been running.  Casey was a perfect candidate.

[Keystone Phil]

Not really because while Hoeffel would've won, he wouldn't have racked up the landslide and the coattails that took out Hart and Fitzpatrick.

I never looked at it that way.  I think Fitz would have been gone without Casey's help, but I'm not so sure about Hart.  Both are Santorum clones.  Looking at 2010, it would be a good thing for liberal Dems because Allyson Schwartz will be in a strong position and the statewide GOP bench just took an ass raping with Hart and Fitzpatrick gone.   

Again, don't be so sure of your chances, Flyers. Hart and Fitz are far from finished and we have more people than just those two.

Also, if we get McCain at the top in 2008, the GOP might be able to keep Schwartz under 60%. Give us McCain and a competent Congressional nominee and Schwartz will have to work this time.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, and the difference was a much more liberal and senior Arlen Specter running on the ticket in a Republican favored year.

Part of the difference, yes. But not the whole of it; a Democrat that does so badly in that area, is not going to be rolling up huge numbers there, even against damaged goods like Santorum this year.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

What a deplorable thread.  What an awful statement about the state of politics in our country.

You are upset that you had a candidate that got 60% of the vote, a broad consensus of the voters of Pennsylvania because you could have had a more extreme candidate receive support from fewer voters but still get more votes than the other guy.

[Jake]

Actually, you helped my argument here- RENDELL IS PRO-CHOICE, CASEY IS NOT!  I know there had to be some fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters in those areas who voted for Rendell/Santorum.  Makes sense right?  I think a fair number of those voters would have went for Hoeffel instead of Santorum.

That makes no sense. A social liberal who voted for Rendell and Santorum would not just magically jump to Hoeffel because Hoeffel backs abortion rights and supports stem cell research. Ignoring that most Rendell/Santorum voters probably weren't that socially liberal to begin.

In the four suburban counties, Rendell took 70% of the vote. Casey took 60%. Meaning 10% of the electorate were Rendell/Santorum voters (at the very least, some could've gone Swann/Casey). If you're expecting those 10% to suddenly decide to vote for Hoeffel, just because he's further left on a few issues, it just doesn't make sense. You're basically saying the thought process of those voters was "Casey is pro-life, so I'll vote for Santorum, even though he's more pro-life". Doesn't make sense Flyers.

I'll be happy to do a bigger comparison of Rendell and Casey statewide. Rendell even ran far ahead of Casey in the Northeast, God knows Hoeffel wouldn't have been able to match Casey there.