Schumer Hearts Santorum

From Rasmussen: (via political wire):

When pollsters informed voters that the National Organization for Women "is concerned about Casey on the abortion issue" 24% of Casey's initial voters "changed their mind upon hearing this news" and half actually switched to Santorum. "The change was dramatic enough that, having heard the new information, voters favored Santorum by a five-point margin (46% to 41%)."

Glad to see we're protecting those marginals.

UPDATE: Whoa, there's quite a backlash in the comments. Here's what I understand about PA politics. There are a bunch of moderate Republican single issue voters in the Philly suburbs. These are women who want low taxes and are pro-choice. They will vote for the pro-choice candidate, as they did for Specter and Kerry in 2004. When candidates are equal on the choice issue, they will vote for the Republican.

UPDATE AGAIN: A Quinnipiac poll also came out which shows Casey with the worst head-to-head results in a year. On the abortion question, this poll doesn't have conclusive results. While it asks whether Democrats would switch votes in the primary to other relatively unserious candidates based on this single issue, it doesn't ask Republican pro-choicers about the general, and those are the single issue voters that I'm talking about.

Tags: Bob Casey, Chuck Schumer, NOW, Rick Santorum (all tags)

Comments

116 Comments

Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

of course, this is completely contradicted by Quinnipiac's latest poll.

by johnny longtorso 2006-04-06 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

ah, you beat me to it.

by DanielUA 2006-04-06 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Only, it's not.

by Matt Stoller 2006-04-06 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Matt-

Give it up.  What you know about PA Politics, while interesting, is not based on anything that seems particularly substantial.

What about the Casey Democrat, a fairly widely used term in PA, that refers to socially conservative, economically liberal voters?

And, I like this framing:

A Quinnipiac poll also came out which shows Casey with the worst head-to-head results in a year.

You are bizarrely taking a poll that shows Santorum still down by double digits, and giving us a Fox News like "Bush's approval rating spikes!" (to something like 40 percent, from its current 36)

by DanielUA 2006-04-06 10:39AM | 0 recs
Dismissive

Matt is dismissive of this voting bloc. He's not alone in that. And it's worked out great for the Democratic party, hasn't it?

by LiberalFromPA 2006-04-06 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

And besides, wasn't it Rendell who recommended Casey to Schumer, based in part on this bloc, not Schumer who foisted Casey on PA?

by Mimikatz 2006-04-06 12:26PM | 0 recs
Quinnipiac Poll Shows Casey Loses Support on Abort
To the contrary, the December and April Quiniipiac polls CONFIRM the results of this poll -- notwithstanding the petulant twisitng by Quinnipiac of their own poll results to "get back" at the other candidates who trashed their methodology a few weeks ago. The December poll http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11379.xml?Rel easeID=858 showed that Casey loses 27% of his support head to head vs Santorum when voters are informed that Casey is also anti-abortion. (Most respondents indicating that they will vote third party or note vote; but Santorum actually picks up a few points from conservative pro-choice voters). This put Casey in a statistical dead heat with Santorum. In the latest Q poll http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?Rel easeID=900 28% said they were somewhat or very likely NOT to vote for Casey because of his anti-abortion stance. Amazingly 77% did not know where Casey stood on abortion. (Kudos to the so-called leftist media for so well informing their readers.) In this latest poll, Q chose not to ask the abortion question in the head to head match-up of Casey v Santorum, as they did in December. Nevertheless, the polls are remarkably consistent in the percentage of support that Casey loses because he wants to overturn Roe and ban nearly all abortions.
by Tom Ford 2006-04-08 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

In the annals of a poll not passing the smell-test, this answer is #1.  You are telling me that 12 percent of voters, for whom choice is so important, would switch to Santorum?

I dont think so.

And, for your poll that says it is so, I have a Q poll released today that says the opposite:

Only 23 percent of Pennsylvania voters know that Casey is pro-life, while 8 percent think he is pro-choice and 69 percent don't know Casey's position on abortion.

And only 15 percent of voters say they would vote against a candidate based only on his position on abortion.   Of that group, two-thirds are staunchly anti-abortion, while one third, or 5 percent of the total electorate, say they are staunchly pro-choice.

Among Democrats who identify as pro-choice and who initially expressed support for Casey, only 9 percent say they are "very likely" to shift their support to a pro-choice Democrat in a primary.

"The most surprising thing about this poll is that two-thirds of the voters say they don't know how Bob Casey Jr. stands on the issue of abortion.  But given that, only five percent of the voters say they would definitely vote against a candidate just because he opposed abortion," Richards said.

"With Casey holding double digit leads, this is an indication that his stand against abortion is not having a major impact in either the Democratic primary or the general election."

by DanielUA 2006-04-06 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

You think wrong, probably because the people who will vote for Santorum because of Casey will not admit that they will (or that they did) becaue of the holy hell that gets unleashed upon them when they are honest.

by eRobin 2006-04-06 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

What exactly is this based on?  

by DanielUA 2006-04-06 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Forgive me, but is Rasmussen going to release the names of every single person who responded, and their answers?

by PantherDem 2006-04-06 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

It's a freakin' Rasmussen poll. No serious election watcher takes them seriously. Indeed, I regret reporting their polls in the past, and don't plan on doing so in the future barring a major change on their part.

Just last week Chuck Todd took them to task and said that the Hotline does not rely on their numbers. Ask yourself how often a guy like Chuck Todd, or Charlie Cook, etc. takes the time to single out particular survey outfits for special scrutiny. It's incredibly rare, which should say something about the fact that Todd chose to go after Rasmussen. It must be pretty serious.

by DavidNYC 2006-04-06 09:26AM | 0 recs
Automated callers

Seriously who listens to robo-calls?  85 year old shut ins and 12 year olds I suspect.   I didn't know that Rasmussen used automated callers.    Thanks for the link.

by dpANDREWS 2006-04-06 09:33AM | 0 recs
Survey USA uses robocalls too

In any case, my take of Rasmussen is that he is the mirror of Zogby: An "independent" pollster with obvious partisan leanings and results to match (Zogby leans Dem; Rasmussen leans Rep).  This doesn't mean he sucks, it just means you should just give the Dem a few extra points to his numbers.  A pollster with consistant bias is not a problem.  A pollster with INCONSISTANT bias is a problem.

by Geotpf 2006-04-06 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

David,

That's not my reading of Todd's post.

by Matt Stoller 2006-04-06 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Matt-

We know you hate Schumer.  But, on its face, again, does this answer make sense to you?  

Don't you worry that it is directly contradicted by a poll that comes out 2 days later?

by DanielUA 2006-04-06 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

This is what Todd said:

BTW, we have the same policy on Rasmussen (who uses automated callers) as well as his numbers sometimes show movement where none should have occurred. Until the track records of these surveys are proven over a long period of time, we'll continue to ignore these poll results when conducting our own analysis.

There's only one way to read that: Chuck Todd and the Hotline will "continue to ignore" Rasmussen's poll results. Not sure what other meaning might have been gleaned from that comment.

by DavidNYC 2006-04-06 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

The other meaning is that Rasmussen's results are 'unproven'.  They are trying new technology.  Had Todd documented a longstanding series of errors in Rasmussen polling data, that would be different.  He just said this is new methodology, and top pollsters don't use it yet.  So he won't.  That is not the same as what you wrote.

by Matt Stoller 2006-04-06 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

How is that different from what I wrote? If anything, "not taking them seriously" (which is what I wrote) is a more charitable view than "ignoring" them, which is what Todd wrote.

I really don't see what kind of distinction you're trying to draw. Todd says he doesn't use Rasmussen's numbers when doing analysis. It's that simple.

by DavidNYC 2006-04-06 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

We're splitting hairs here.  I'm not sold on the Rasmussen polling as some infallible arbiter.  Still, that Chuck Todd doesn't use it doesn't mean it's worthless as you say in your first comment.  What is very clear though is that a double digit lead when no one knows who the candidates are is quite unstable when the state is pro-choice and both candidates are pro-life.

by Matt Stoller 2006-04-06 10:46AM | 0 recs
What it does mean

Is that it is irresponsible to make posts about someone you have never liked because of polling data. I don't know how often statisticians and social scientists have to scream about the immense ability to make seemingly minor mistakes that actually grossly distort polling results before people stop obsessing about polls. We have no idea, with this new technology, whether it can accurately take into account geographic and demographic factors that would actually allow generalization to the larger population.

by PHDinNYC4Kerry 2006-04-06 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: What it does mean

Is that it is irresponsible to make posts about someone you have never liked because of polling data.

Only if you misuse the data.  I stand by my post.  Casey is not a strong candidate and wasn't chosen by the voters.  He may win, but he will be a terrible Senator who will throw our values out of the train.  I lay this decision at the feet of Rendell and Schumer, who cleared the primary field for him.

by Matt Stoller 2006-04-06 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: What it does mean

Aren't there two other Democrats in the race?

by PantherDem 2006-04-06 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: What it does mean

No one credible is in the race other than Casey.

by Matt Stoller 2006-04-06 12:58PM | 0 recs
Exactly

So what's the point in tearing Casey down?

by LiberalFromPA 2006-04-06 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

So it doesn't happen again. And I don't want to lose to Santorum but that is a possibility with Casey. ABS and his name won't beat Santorum.

by Erik 2006-04-06 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

Casey has a far better chance to beat Santorum than Sandals. So I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "it". Do you mean running a credible candidate against one of the worst Republicans in the Senate?

by LiberalFromPA 2006-04-06 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

It means letting the establishment choose the candidate as opposed to the voters. Especially in a blue state like PA.

by Erik 2006-04-06 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

The primary is May 16, again.

by PantherDem 2006-04-07 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

As for your understanding of PA:

1) Again, the Q poll directly contradicts you.

2) Couldn't you just as easily say that there are social conservatives in much of PA (say, Scranton, etc, etc) who would vote for a Democrat, except for they don't want to vote for a pro-choice candidate?  You know, the people who the Casey family is widly popular with?

by DanielUA 2006-04-06 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

The logic of a poll responder finding out Casey is anti-choice and then switching his/her preference to Santorum... is bizarre to me.

Do some people not like Santorum primarily because of the choice issue, and when they learn Casey might not be any better in that regard, they just figure they'll stick with what they have?  Is that what's happening here?

In any case, what disturbing news.  It's not like voters aren't going to learn that he has a questionable record on choice.  It'll get hammered home in the primary.

by arenwin 2006-04-06 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Agree.  This is more Matt bashing Schumer.  Matt, I suggest you take a colkd shower and get your eye on the prize.  This kind of childish little boy stuff really doesn't help.  You can do a lot better.

by Mimikatz 2006-04-06 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Yeah, while I didn't address that, the pot shot at Schumer is over the top, regardless of whether the poll results are valid.  Schumer is not Joementum; we might like to find one or two national democrats we can treat with at least a little bit of respect.  Especially one who has unexpectedly put enough seats in play and brought in enough cash that we have a shot at the Senate in a year where that should be impossible.

by arenwin 2006-04-06 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I can understand at least some of it. The stereotypical "moderate" Bucks County voter (pro-choice, anti-tax, etc.) might find Bob Casey as unattractive as Rick Santorum. Some might choose Santorum.

I'm a partisan Democrat, but it's tough for me to get behind Casey. I'll do it because we need to get rid of Santoruma and we need a Senate majority, but I won't like it. Pennsylvania will vote for a pro-choice Democrat (e.g. Rendell). For the many of us who feel quite strongly about abortion, it's too bad we don't have one of those in this race.

by TomGilpin 2006-04-06 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

There are actually two pro-choice Democrats in the race.

by digamma 2006-04-06 11:16AM | 0 recs
Yep

The Casey/Santorum thing reminds me of a "discussion" I had with a former Southern Dem Congressman. He was bloviating all over that we needed the south, and that the only way to get the south was to "compromise". His definition being to let go of the cultural issues (i.e. gays, abortion, church/state) and that way we would get in and be able to help the downtrodden southerners of his former constituency.

To which I said..."Let me get this straight. Your former constituents are willing to 'compromise' by telling me I can raise my taxes on myself to give to them, if only I kicked all of the issues I care about to the curb. Some compromise. Last time someone hit me up for money, they didn't tell me they would only agree to the gift if I dropped my friends."

Same here. Why should suburban types trade Senatorial seniority and give up the tax cut to elect someone about the same on social issues? Yes, it changes the Speaker, etc... but these things are decided locally by most folks, not on national impact.

by ElitistJohn 2006-04-06 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I don't understand why upon hearing that NOW is concerned about Casey's anti-choice position on abortion, somebody would react by deciding to switch their support to Santorum???  

by dal27 2006-04-06 08:53AM | 0 recs
So NOW ISN'T concerned about Santorum's

position on abortion? Seems to me the way the question was asked may have implied this to the respondents.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-04-06 09:01AM | 0 recs
Matt again bashes Schumer

Matt, you're really getting old. Typical of you to lay every blame on Schumer. There are many polls out there with different takes, but tell me if you wouldn't rather have a Democrat leading Santorum at this stage in the race. Almost unheard of for a senate challenger this year. Like it or not, Casey is our best shot. I guess you would rather have a rightwing hack like Santorum back in the senate, right?

So yeah, keep on doing what you do best. Whine.

by sircharles 2006-04-06 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

1. Contradicted by Q-poll, which is more reliable.

2. It's a "what-if" question, which are less reliable than direct questions.

3. It's a badly-worded what-if, because it does not mention that Santorum is pro-life as well.

4. It does not give other information on Casey and Santorum, but assumes that abortion is the only issue.

5. The debate over Casey's views is likely to die down after the primary, when it becomes clear that the choice is Casey v. Santorum.

by PantherDem 2006-04-06 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Well put. To which I would add that, as a robo-call poll, Rasmussen produces more outlier results than traditional outfits. Which is fine, because they also poll a lot more frequently than most since robo-polls are so much cheaper. They also do a lot of unsponsored polls (as this one appears to be). Unsponsored polls (Zogby also does a lot) have the unfortunately tendency to like odd or news-making results, for obvious reasons. A traditional pollster would have looked at this result and said hmm, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, let's try again. If the second try gave the same results, THEN they'd go with it.

And what the HELL does Chuck Schmer have to do with the price of beef in China? Can everyone just get over this "fight the Man" adolescent obession with everyone perceived as "establishment"? He's OUR Man, of course. And if you think that Howard Dean or Russ Feingold or anyone other potential DSCC chairman would do anything other than support Bob Casey, you're more childish than I thought. Grow up.

by ColoDem 2006-04-06 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

HERE HERE!

clap clap clap

Dems are not all perfect, and for the republicans, they are not all perfect too.

We cna not all vote in block, and sometimes it is good to have dissent in the party.  Politics is not all running forward at full speed sceaming bloody murder, tactics is needed and sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and plot things carefully.  Schumer and Reid have been excellent in this form of game and in my book are a-okay.  Remember they represent the people who voted for them, not the entire democratic party

by Trowaman 2006-04-06 10:16AM | 0 recs
Makes NO sense

So when voters hear that Casey is pro-life, they change their vote to Santorum who is 100% whacko on the issue?   Yeah, that makes a ton of sense .... NOT.

Rasmussen screwed the pooch on this one.

by dpANDREWS 2006-04-06 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

PA is a swing state that is 58% pro-choice. The reason some voters switch to Santorum when they find out Casey's stance is because they are pro-choice Republicans who figure they might as well vote for the Republican if there's no difference on the choice issue.

by digby 2006-04-06 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I have never met a single pro-choice Republican who voted for a pro-choice Democrat over a tax cutting Republican because of the abortion issue.

Republicans want tax cuts. Everything else is just smoke screens.

(And btw - the Schumer bashing is becoming really tired. Move on and attack the enemy instead)

by Populism2008 2006-04-06 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I disagree. I am a pro-choice Democrat who would strongly consider voting for a LEGITIMATELY pro-choice Repub over a pro-life Dem.  

by TomGilpin 2006-04-06 09:46AM | 0 recs
The question being

Is Casey actively pro-life? Would he vote with republicans on the issue or would he just not advocate for abortion. Would he be a leader of the new charge for stopping unwanted pregnancies...something I'm sure crazy Rick can't support because of the whole birth control thing.

As it was reported, the poll question itself seems like a strong intervening variable.

by PHDinNYC4Kerry 2006-04-06 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I've never seen that 58% figure before for PA.  But even assuming that upwards of 50% of Pennsylvanians do consider themselves pro-choice, there are still two important questions:

1.  What does each respondent think "Pro-Choice" means (FYI, you would be surprised at just how many people identify as pro-choice who support damn near any restriction short of completely criminalizing abortion); and

2.  How important is the issue to them.  As the other poll referenced notes, most single-issue abortion voters are in the antichoice camp.  That's true in nearly every state.

I'm definitely a little biased, as I actually affirmatively like Casey despite his stance on choice (rather than just hating Santorum).  That being said, it's silly to pretend that a Democrat can't win in Pa b/c they're anti-choice.  At worst, his stance on abortion is a neutral issue.  

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Better models than the binary pro-choice/pro-life model and "Should abortion be legal in all/some/no cases" and "Suuport/oppose abortion in all/some cases."

by PantherDem 2006-04-06 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Yeah, I think the commenters have this right. Haven' you guys been skewering rassmussen polling questions for having a pretty reliable Republican stance?

Also, wasn't one of the main selling points of Ginny Schrader's campaign the fact that her district voted for Schrader in the trial election once they learned how anti-choice her opponent was? It's amazing how that worked out.

by niq 2006-04-06 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Perhaps we should wait until the primary until polls measuring the popularity of Casey's stance on abortion are considered.  This will most likely manifest itself during the primary.  And I desire to know exactly how the question is phrased.

by illinois062006 2006-04-06 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

This is actually a very good and subtle point here. Based on past experience, I would say a lot of those who might SAY they'll switch to Santorum over the choice issue are liberals who prefer one of the other fringe Dems and are (therefore) mad at Casey right now. The chances of them ACTUALLY pulling the Santorum lever are slim to none.

As we've found repeatedly, trial polls done before a primary where only one party has multiple candidates are extremely dicey.

by ColoDem 2006-04-06 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I realize this poll was about choice.  But Casey doesn't pass the smell test on MANY other issues.  Sometimes I think this emphasizing of progressive Dems' displeasure with Casey's anti-choice position is a straw-man setup by the appeaser wing of Dems to try to further their narrative that progressives are 'unreasonable' people. ("Why, it's just one issue!") And it's so frequently invoked with reference to how 'unreasonable' the libs also were to Bobby's dad, you know, not even letting him speak at the convention because of his anti-choice beliefs.  (Of course, he didn't support Clinton-Gore, but what the hey, the 'picking on me 'cause I'm "pro-life" makes a better narrative for the DINO's.)

Here's Casey being questionable on quite a few other issues: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/ 4/2/183220/7179

DEBATE'S ON TV Saturday: http://www.pcntv.com/4_05_06.htm

I hope somebody asks Casey about Harry Reid's Prevention First Act.

by seaweasel 2006-04-06 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Is your link to this site supposed to actually provide proof for your criticisms?  Wow, someone pulled up random, undated quotes that are purportedly from Casey and show how they're not consistent!  Wow, who would have though you could find inconsistent statements, over time, from a public figure!

Yes, he's anti-choice.  Yes, he's in favor of gun rights (which DEFINITELY helps a politician in Pa, if you know the state at all).  Yes, he's against Gay Marriage - just like almost EVERY OTHER prominent Dem.  

He's also hugely pro-labor and progressive on economic issues.  On Health Care, I've seen him discuss the issue before on TV so the site is wrong that he doesn't have a position.  And on Iraq he seems to have the exact same position as the Democratic party right now -- that we were mislead, going in was a mistake, and that we should get out as soon as it won't completely destabilize the country.  I understand if you disagree with that view, but it's hardly outside the mainstream of the Party.    

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Ah yes, pro-labor.  Which is why he came out strongly and pointlessly in favor of a justice who will be handing down harsh anti-labor decisions for 40 years.

by Matt Stoller 2006-04-06 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Pointless? Are you paying attention at all?

Casey's opinion on the issue was Santorum's main line of attack for two weeks. Every poll showed that Pennsylvanians favored Alito, and most showed that a majority favored him. They also showed that the endorsement made people more likely to vote for him.

by PantherDem 2006-04-06 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Great point.  While people focus on abortion, the SCOTUS will be busy making the workers in this country basically slaves.

by jgarcia 2006-04-06 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

The answer to bad Supreme Court Justices is electing a better President.  Seriously, if saying a candidate like Casey is anti-labor b/c of his view on NOMINATIONS is the best that you can do that's pretty sad.  

I'm as unabashedly pro-labor as they come, and I would have voted to confirm Alito for the SAME REASON Russ Feingold used to support almost any competent nominee before he started running for President -- b/c elections have consequences and I want the next Brennan or Marshall to have a chance to get confirmed when a Dem is doing the appointing.  

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

elections have consequences and I want the next Brennan or Marshall to have a chance to get confirmed when a Dem is doing the appointing.

I'm laughing so hard that tears are coming out of my eyes.  No, wait.  I'm crying at the naivete.

Let's be really clear.  The Republican Party does not play by those rules.  Any argument of the form "be fair to Republicans so they'll be fair later" is assuming facts contrary to every piece of evidence we have.  They stepped on as many Clinton judicial appointments as they could -- mostly bottling them up in committee and blue-slipping them.  Then, when Bush was elected, they changed the rules on blue-slipping so the Dems couldn't block their nominees.

Don't think for one damn minute that giving Alito the benefit of the doubt was seen as anything other than weakness by the Republicans, nor that the Republicans won't do everything they can to shut down a Democratic President's nominee, including a filibuster.

by jsw 2006-04-06 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I don't actually have any illusions regarding what Republicans will or won't do - but thanks for the comment.  My point was actually that giving a President significant latitude to fill nominations is, first and foremost, the RIGHT THING TO DO.

And again, Feingold used to feel the same way.  So if I'm such an idiot, I guess he is (or atleast was) too.    

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

You don't know anything about PA politics.  There are a number of democrats in the state who are pro-life because there are a large number of traditional Catholic voters in the state.  Not only that, but there are a number of voters in the state who if not happy with santorum will vote for Casey because he is pro-life or will be more comfortable with him.  Casey has consistently won statewide office in PA and considering that he still have a double digit lead in almost every poll against an incumbent whose political skill is at most overrated he is in great shape.  Besides the fact that the analysis is often lacking on this site I really wish this site would spend more time going after Republicans.  

Considering that the Democrats are shut out of the current government and control none of its branches it is time to circle wagons a bit.  I know, I know it is all the Dems leaders fault, you no what don't we also put some blame on the people who actually vote instead of chopping down are own.  It would be bad to infuse Reagan's 11th Commandment a little bit on this side of the aisle.  Not a proper or popular sentiment on the wild west of the netroots, but probably not a bad idea either.  

by hedoniccalculus 2006-04-06 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Casey has consistently won statewide office in PA

Except when he lost to Rendell in a primary after blowing a double digit lead.  You know, except that.

by Matt Stoller 2006-04-06 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

why exactly is it such a surprise that the Philadelphia machine boss won the primary? that's kind of the Democratic base of Pennsylvania.

by johnny longtorso 2006-04-06 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

It's not a surprise.  I'm just pointing out that the commenter doesn't know what he's talking about.

by Matt Stoller 2006-04-06 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

please look up the term consistently, since at least the early 90s and you point out one exception that was in a primary.  Again you really should read up more on PA politics, its demographics before you make claims.  And if you cannot accept honest criticism you should quit blogging now.

by hedoniccalculus 2006-04-06 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

And if you see the apple to oranges comparison that you are making as important than you truly should stop commenting on this race.

by hedoniccalculus 2006-04-06 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Yes, he lost against a very popular rendell in the dem primary, but remind me again is the election in November a dem primary or a general election against santorum.

by hedoniccalculus 2006-04-06 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Rendell also raised 40 Million dollars and is a fantastic politician in his own right - even if not a fantastic Governor.

Seriously, why does everyone hate Casey so much?  You'd think from this site that any practicing Catholic should be expelled from the Party immediately...

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

No one metioned anything about praticing Catholics. The majority of American Catholics are for abortion.

by Erik 2006-04-06 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

They are for CHOICE.  There is no lobby FOR abortion.

by jsw 2006-04-06 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

For choice. Bad choice of words. I stand corrected.

by Erik 2006-04-06 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I don't need convincing - I'm proudly pro-choice.  However, there are LOTS of practicing catholics (in Pa and across the country) who honestly believe their church is right about the abortion issue.  

For what it's worth, a lot of them are also committed to the church's generally positive views about social justice, economic equality, etc.  It just strikes me that there ought to be a place in the Democratic party for folks like that.    

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

There a place in the party for folks like that but we need to define ourselves and stop sending mixed messages. This is how the repubs have framed us. PA is blue state we are the majority but the establishment is throwing us bad candidates as if PA was missisippi. We don't need to cater to these voters. If we stand for something regardless if people disagree they will respect the dems as not being wishy washy. Give PA dems a choice. I will not support Casey. In the primary Pennacchio gets my vote. In the general it wil be Casey but simply put others will not vote for him. He's blowing this thing big time. I hope I don't have to say I told you so come November. ABS and the Casey name is not a winning campaign strategy. This is why he doesn't open his mouth. Because the more he does the less PA likes him. Being elected statewide as auditor general and state treasurer don't mean shit compared to running for the senate. His one in the spotlight he failed miserably. Rendell even said the Casey sucks at campaigning. He was right.

by Erik 2006-04-06 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I respect your view regarding choice and am not - for a second - proposing an abandonment of the Dem platform on that issue.  What I am proposing is that a differing view on choice does not make:  1. individual voters bad people who we shouldn't try to reach out to; or 2. any candidate who is anti-choice a bad candidate.

I gather from your post that you have additional reasons for disliking Casey.  Fair enough - I respect that.  I just think referring to the guy as a DINO and generally trashing him for what I do think are genuinely held religious beliefs is a tad harsh.  Disagree with him by all means, but being anti-choice shouldn't automatically disqualify anyone from being a part of the Democratic party.  That's all I'm saying.

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Casey is a DINO. I could care less about choice or life. I'm pro choice. But others do care about this in PA. What Matt says about PA voters in the philly burbs is true. Look at the Specter getting reelected and Santorum winning against Klink. Any candidate who claims that he is a populist but says that he would support Alito who will most defintely vote in favor of corporate interests over people is an idiot. Casey wants to put his pro-life view above others issues even if it means selling out the working class man that he claims to be for.

by Erik 2006-04-06 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Reagans 11th commandment was for Reagan's gain and the repubs and conservatives were in power by then. When movemnt conservatives were out of power they gladly attakced moderate or rockafeller repubs. Schumer and Casey both need to be vilified. Schumer for deciding that Casey would be his candidate. And Casey for not campaigning. If you think that Casey is such a great candidate then why are you so bothered that some think he is not. Why defend him if PA think he so great. He'll surely win then? Perhaps you are having second thoughts?

by Erik 2006-04-06 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

They are hyper defensive because they have lost their moral bearings and can hold onto nothing but hatred.

by Matt Stoller 2006-04-06 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

That was WAAAAY too harsh man.  There is ZERO reason to insult anyone just b/c they disagree with you about Casey's candidacy.  When you start labeling anyone who disagrees with you as a traitor to the cause without "moral bearings," you sound more like a Republican than anyone.

FYI, I'm a Casey supporter b/c I like the guy and think he'd make a good Senator.  I've posted here b/c I thought having a discussion with people who disagree with that assessment would be both interesting and worthwhile.  Given reactions like yours, I may have to reconsider that position.  

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

That wasn't harsh at all. Grow some thicker skin. If you are such a big fan of Casey did you vote for him against Rendell? Or were you one of the many who switched their choice when that 11 point percentage became a huge loss for Casey?

by Erik 2006-04-06 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Well, I didn't cry or anything but thanks for the suggestion of getting thicker skin.  If you really think it's appropriate for Matt to essentially say that anyone who disagrees with his post has lost their moral bearings, then that's great.  

Personally, I would prefer to have a civil and respectful discussion even where I disagree with someone.  Especially when everyone who is on the damn site is supposed to be on the same side.  

Oh, and as to your question about Casey vs. Rendell, I've ALWAYS liked Rendell more than Casey.  As strange as this may sound to you, however, that doesn't mean I can't like them both.

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

You can't like them both if they are running againsty each other.

What do you like about Casey? His social conservatism? His great campaigning? His rapturous speaking style? His support of Alito?

by Erik 2006-04-06 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Are you referring to all the commenters who simply think you are wrong?  You seem to be getting more childish by the response.  

I mean this:

They are hyper defensive because they have lost their moral bearings and can hold onto nothing but hatred.

Really?  Could you clarify that for us?

by DanielUA 2006-04-06 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I can expalin. Look at your moniker. Progressive politics? How progressive is Casey? I'd say that you've lost your moral bearings if you vote for him in the primary.

by Erik 2006-04-06 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

B/c being "progressive" means being pro-choice?  That's ridiculous.  

Two of my heroes (both classic New Dealers) - Bill Proxmire and Tip O'neil - were both anti-choice.  Does that mean we should have defeated them in primary challenges b/c they were DINOS?  

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Being progressvie emans being in favor of choice and stem-cell research and science and the right to die and not being in favor of far right wing conservative like Alito, ashould I go on? It's funny that I say progressive and your first thought is that Casey is anti-choice? I wonder if that's the first thought of PA voters about Casey too? I have a feeling that you are not alone in that thinking. I can't wait to see how Casey bumbles that against Santorum. I hope I don't have to say I told you so come november.

by Erik 2006-04-06 02:55PM | 0 recs
Easy

Moral Bearings = Pro-choice

No Moral Bearings = Pro-life

Matt wants go for socially liberal Republican women who vote for tax cuts because according to him, socially conservative working class men and women have no moral bearings.

And he has the gaul to call Schumer a Reagan Democrat?

The ironies never end.

by LiberalFromPA 2006-04-06 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Easy
  1.  It's gall, not gaul.
  2.  Is Matt's name suddenly Erik?
  3.  That's a profound misrepresentation of what Erik wrote, and you must know it.  Erik said that Casey is not a progressive, so someone who believes themselves to  a progressive has lost their moral bearings if they're for Casey.  Your simplistic smear is just offensive and reeks of Republican "latte-sipping liberal elitist" rhetoric.
by jsw 2006-04-06 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Easy

Your arguing like a child. It has nothing to do with being pro-choice or pro-life equaling moral bearing or not. But it is revealing that your first thought about Casey is anti-choice. I'm sure that Santorum won't push this issue to the forefront. I don't think you are alone in that thinking.

by Erik 2006-04-06 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Easy

Erik:

If being pro-life means you generally will support pro-life judges (makes sense)--- and if supporting pro-life judges like Alito means that you aren't a progressive (see your post to me) -- then I think you essentially are saying that it's not possible to be progressive if you're pro-life.  

If that's your view, and I honestly hope it's not, then you've just drastically shrunk the tent of the Democratic party.  

Also, you said above that Casey is a DINO and then cited a bunch of social issues related to abortion (in that stem cells, right to die, etc. all involve life issues)along with his support of Alito as support.  If someone is a DINO just based off of those issues, does that make Chafe a Democrat (despite his support for Bush's economic agenda?)  Or Collins?  How about Specter?

Whatever, I should just stop.  This is clearly pointless.  

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Easy

Do I have to repeat myself or do you just cherry pick to make yourself seem that you are winning this argument. Casey can't claim to be pro-labor if he is voting for a juctice that will hand down decisions that benfit big business and his working class heroes. He puts his pro-life(at odds with his party) stance ahead of economic and labor issues. This makes him a DINO. That's the definition of social issues. I asked if you weanted me to go on. Casey then puts that one issue being pro-life over his demcoratic stances. Chafee, Snowe, Specter and Collins do the opoosite. They put they're republican  traits over their pro-choice stance that are at odds with their party. What else do you want me to explain to you.

by Erik 2006-04-06 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Easy

By your logic, a politician's views on judicial nominations would seem to trump their views on any individual issue the Court could theoretically consider.  I'm a lawyer and I certainly agree that the Supreme Court is important.  But it doesn't ultimately control the vast majority of labor and economic related issues.      

When Casey votes to raise the minimum wage, the Court will not be able to strike it down.  When Casey supports a more progressive tax regime, the Court will have nothing to say.  When Casey supports a budget that isn't ridiculously tilted in favor of the wealthy, the Court won't be able to intervene.  

Finally, ANY Bush II nominee was going to be bad on economic issues.  Even the so called "moderate" jurists that might have been considered (in the mold of O'Connor) are all horrible on economic issues and would have voted the same way as Alito.  Does that mean that unless a Democratic Senator committed to filibustering ANY Bush II nominee, they are a DINO?  We obviously don't see eye to eye, but I hope you can respond in a civil manner.  Despite your insults, I am interested in what you have to say.  

by HSTruman 2006-04-07 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

"There are a bunch of moderate Republican single issue voters in the Philly suburbs. These are women who want low taxes and are pro-choice."

How'd this work out for Ginny Schrader?

by niq 2006-04-06 10:47AM | 0 recs
Flip Side

You mention pro-choice women in the Philly burbs, but you fail to mention the flip side of that coin -- socially conservative working-class men & women.

That's who Casey's going for. The old Democratic base.

by LiberalFromPA 2006-04-06 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Flip Side

Right.  The Chris Matthews vote.  We'll see how it turns out.

by Matt Stoller 2006-04-06 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Fip Side

So you're going after the Rudy Guilani vote instead? Please.

by LiberalFromPA 2006-04-06 11:10AM | 0 recs
by PantherDem 2006-04-06 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Flip Side

You're giving Casey way too much credit. Socially conservative men/women are a minority in PA. That's a good strategy.

by Erik 2006-04-06 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Flip Side

So you're telling me that socially liberal Republican women outnumber social conservatives in Pennsyl-fuckin-vania?

I guess you've never been outside of Montgomery County?

by LiberalFromPA 2006-04-06 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Flip Side

No I'm saying that we are the majority, being socially liberal and Democrat. PA is a blue state. If your relying on the Republican vote for Casey to win that's a piss poor strategy.

by Erik 2006-04-06 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Flip Side

Do you even have a point?

I said that Matt was wrong to go after pro-choice Republican women.

You disagreed.

Now you're saying don't go after Republicans?

Huh?

READ Matt's post. He's saying we should go after pro-choice Republicans women. I'm disagree with that, and you're disagreeing with me -- which means you are supporting Matt's point.

by LiberalFromPA 2006-04-06 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Flip Side

Prochoice republcians women aren't going to vote for Casey nor will socially conservative republicans. My  point is that we are stuck with a bad establishment picked candidate. We need this type of candidate in blue state PA. I can understand running soemone like that in medieval Alabama but not PA.

by Erik 2006-04-06 03:27PM | 0 recs
I agree

...that we're stuck with a bad choice. It's just a matter of picking the lesser of two evils, which is never fun.

But significant parts of PA are medieval Alabama (remember Carville's famous quote: "Pennsylvania is Philadelphia on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in the middle."). That's partly why we have these two bad choices.

by LiberalFromPA 2006-04-06 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

We don't need to have these bad choices. PA is blue. We outnumber Alabama. Fuck them redneck hicks. Kerry won, Rendell won, Specter won in the primary and the general. Casey is going to have to campaign because ABS and his name won't win it for him.

by Erik 2006-04-06 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

btw, what does "ABS" stand for?  TIA.

by jgarcia 2006-04-06 07:51PM | 0 recs
Troll Rating - Nice

So you're one of those people that hands out troll ratings if they don't agree with a post rather than responding to anything in the post.  That's good to know.  

That practice really encourages discussion, by the way.  

by HSTruman 2006-04-07 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I think that people are also missing the point of the 12% of initial voters who aren't voting for Santorum, but won't vote Casey either.

And like eRobin said above, many of us won't even tell you, as you just beat the hell out of us with it (see what happened to me at Kos on the subject last night.)

Asking me to vote for Casey is like asking me to vote for Custer (Custer I understand was pretty good on most issues not related to Indians.)

by MBW 2006-04-06 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

"I stand by my post.  Casey is not a strong candidate and wasn't chosen by the voters.  He may win, but he will be a terrible Senator who will throw our values out of the train.  I lay this decision at the feet of Rendell and Schumer, who cleared the primary field for him."

In other words, Casey and Schumer are terrible, horrible no good, very bad men. And Joementum, & Tom Carper....and Barack Obama.

Careful Matt, even with your juvenile, one dimensional posting style, even you won't be able to properly skewer your foes if your enemies list keeps growing at the rate it is.

"And what the HELL does Chuck Schmer have to do with the price of beef in China? Can everyone just get over this "fight the Man" adolescent obession with everyone perceived as "establishment"? He's OUR Man, of course. And if you think that Howard Dean or Russ Feingold or anyone other potential DSCC chairman would do anything other than support Bob Casey, you're more childish than I thought. Grow up."

CLAP CLAP CLAP! Bravo, I concur 100%. That's not to tar the good side of the netroots which is seeking out converts, but we can't ignore clowns like Matt ever searching for new Heretics.

Rather than Schumer, it appears Matt is the most likely here to start a "Democrats for Santorum" PAC, that is if he hasn't already started it.

by Epitome22 2006-04-06 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I didn't write they are terrible men.  It does strike me as odd that you don't really care about choice, and seek to brand me as someone with an enemies list.  I don't have such a list.  I do believe in politics though.

by Matt Stoller 2006-04-06 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

The thing is, Casey doesn't need to attract registered republicans.  His draw is in getting socially conservative Democrats - and there are a ton of them in SW Pa - to actually vote for a Democrat again.  As someone who is from the state and has worked on local campaigns in the SW, I think there are more than enough of those folks to make up for the one issue pro-choicers who will sit the election out.

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

The rpoblem is they aren't socially conservative dems anymore. They are socially conservative repubs.  If you think in this political atmosphrere they are coming back to the party why shoot for the dixicrats coming back to the party too.

by Erik 2006-04-06 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Because there is a difference between a dixicrat and a socially conservative but economically liberal Democrat.  Drive around Pittsburgh sometime and I think you'll see what that difference is.  

The people I'm talking about are extremely pro-labor, hard working, blue collar families who generally buy into the Democratic agenda.  That's why Dems always WIN in issue polling.  However, a lot of these folks are socially conservative and have ended up voting Republican b/c of it.  That doesn't have to be the case going forward.

FYI - another demographic group that is socially conservative yet part of the Democratic base is the black community.  Would you like to write them off too?  Or perhaps we should just continue to ignore their social views and let Republicans slowly start to pick them off using wedge issues...

by HSTruman 2006-04-06 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Drive around philly. Those socially conservative folk that are hard working pro labor never vote repub. If they vote for these issues over their pockets they aren't going to vote for Casey. These aren't like single issue philly burb voters. You're still talking about a minority of voters. The majority are socially liberal in blue state PA.

by Erik 2006-04-06 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

Black voters are the smartest voter. They put economic self interest ahead of social issues. They also aren't going to vote for republicans that cater to racists.

by Erik 2006-04-06 03:47PM | 0 recs
I'll be really pissed off if...

...the NOW manages to get Santorum re-elected.  I mean, do they really think Santorum is better than Casey?  Unless they think that, they should shut the hell up.

by Geotpf 2006-04-06 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I'll be really pissed off if...

Yeah, they should just shut up while the Dem leadership sells out the people they're charged with protecting.  

Shut up, women!

Oh, and Shut Up, gay people!

And Shut Up, everyone who disagrees with the "triangulation strategy"!  Just Shut Up!

by jsw 2006-04-06 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer Hearts Santorum

I believe in politics too, but not politics for the sake of politics.

As for choice, I care about choice too, I also care about winning. I'd rather Casey be pro-choice, and if this Rasmussen data turns out to be true & his anti-choice views become detrimental to his candidacy I'll drop him like a good habit. but if the only way to knock off Santorum is to beat him with a popular candidate who happens to be pro-life, I'll accept that.

by Epitome22 2006-04-06 03:37PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads