Winning in Pennsylvania

This sort of post would definately be illegal under proposed campaign finance law changes--Chris

Thank you for your support this weekend after the Associated Press and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party misled readers across the country into thinking this was an uncontested primary.

I wanted to let you know that I spoke with the reporter's editor, and they got the message.  They are very aware of our campaign's grassroots appeal and importance of an open and democratic primary.

I am often asked whether or not a progressive campaign can succeed here in PA. Not only do I believe a progressive campaign and candidate can succeed against Rick Santorum, a progressive message is the only effective means to victory.

A History

Out of the past 14 full-term U.S. Senate elections in Pennsylvania, the Democrats have won exactly zero. The last Democrat elected to represent the blue state of Pennsylvania in the Senate was Joseph Clark, who left office after being defeated in the 1968 elections. In the interim, Republicans Hugh Scott, Richard Schweiker, John Heinz, Arlen Specter, and Rick Santorum have had nearly uninterrupted control of the two Senate seats (progressive Democrat Harris Wofford was appointed after the death of John Heinz, won a 1991 special election shortly thereafter, and was defeated for re-election by Santorum).

To put this in perspective, only one other state has a longer run of uninterrupted GOP U.S. Senate electoral success, and that's Kansas. Utah, Idaho, Alaska, and forty-five other states have elected Democrats to a full Senate term since the last time a Pennsylvania Democrat won a full term in the Senate. In the past four Presidential elections, Pennsylvania has voted Democrat; three of those times, a Republican has won election for the Senate seat.

There are a number of reasons for this GOP domination. Heinz was universally and remarkably popular, as well as a very moderate Senator. Specter, while lacking Heinz's popularity, tows a similarly moderate line, as well as strength in the Philadelphia area. Specter also won a couple of elections by razor-thin margins. Rick Santorum has been the beneficiary of good fortune and bad candidate selection.

When Santorum beat Wofford in 1994, he successfully made Wofford into a one-issue candidate. He tied Wofford to the Clinton Health Care proposals, which had been demonized by the right-wing. As well, he benefitted greatly from the pro-GOP sentiment in 1994, the year of the "Republican Revolution."

In 2000, the Democrats settled on moderate, anti-choice Ron Klink as their candidate to take on Santorum. This aligned very well with the (still-prevailing) conventional wisdom that the Democrats had to move to the center to win a statewide race in Pennsylvania. Ron Klink had slight success at gaining moderate voters in Central PA; however, this was more than offset by the large number of pro-choice voters who did not cast a vote (over half a million more votes were cast in the presidential election than in the Senatorial election), and just as importantly, did not involve themselves in the Klink campaign. Pro-choice women, a major organizational and financial cog of the Democratic party, sat out the race, and the Democrats allowed a radical right-winger to represent them in Washington.

In 2000, a progressive, populist, pro-choice campaign would likely have defeated Rick Santorum. In 2006, it is the only option to defeat Rick Santorum. Unlike 2000, when the presidential election brought voters to the polls (and some pro-choice Democratic voters "held their noses" and voted for Klink), the 2006 Senate race will be the center of attention. Governor Rendell appears ready to coast to victory, and a sizable bloc of Rendell's support comes from pro-choice Republicans. These are voters who, if given a pro-choice option, would vote against Rick Santorum. They will not jump party lines to support an anti-choice Democrat.

Making History

My candidacy provides the strongest progressive option in 2006. But more important

than my stands and views on any given issue is what my campaign represents. Pennacchio for Pennsylvania is committed to becoming a true grassroots movement of people from all over Pennsylvania and the United States. We want to take the principles and ideas of democracy and bring them back into politics. Politics, and this Senate race, shouldn't be about a few "party leaders" in Harrisburg or Washington deciding what is best for the Democratic party or the state; politics should be about all of us, working together to strengthen and build the party, and that is a primary goal of our campaign.

The idea that word comes down from "on high," anointing an establishment candidate as the "Chosen One" is highly un-democratic and insulting to the voters. The party is saying that you lack the ability to decide for yourself who is the best candidate for office. We will not be deterred by the same "conventional wisdom" that has left Democrats in Pennsylvania winless in full-term Senate elections for longer than Democrats in Utah. We will all win when we unite behind a progressive, grassroots campaign.

We have seen what happens when the Democratic party goes to battle against Rick Santorum without the support of progressives. That is the past. Join us, so that all of us, together, can make history in the 2006 Senate campaign.

Best,

Chuck Pennacchio
http://www.chuck2006.com


Display:


Organizational Meeting (3.00 / 2)

I also wanted to take a moment to let everyone know that we are having our first Philadelphia organizational meeting this Saturday.

For more information, please check our website

Best,

Chuck

by Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:04:07 PM EST

Re: Organizational Meeting (none / 0)

Chuck,

If Specter decides he has to retire due medical reasons (per some of the rumors that have been floating around), would you continue with the Santorum seat or would you look at shifting to Specter so we could have the chance of a Dem sweep?

Good luck with your campaign.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:28:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Go Chuck (3.00 / 1)

I went to college in PA and used to live there.  If still there, I'd not only vote for you but would volunteer.

With that out of the way, let's look at Pennsylvania's political past.  The last two Democrats elected to the Senate were Harris Wofford and Joe Clark.  Each was elected as a straight out liberal.  Both Wofford and Clark were demonized by Republicans after being elected and were essentially beaten by special interests.  With Wofford it was the big pharma-insurance company health care lobby.  With Clark it was the National Rifle Association.  And maybe the only place with more hunters than PA (now) is Texas.  In 68 maybe PA was bigger hunting territory than Texas.

The whole left-right run to the center thing sounds good but it's crap.  Ronald reagan was a huge electoral success and ran hard right.  Gerald Ford lost for election and he ran hard, and I mean hard, center.  If the center mattered, Reagan and W would not have made it and Ford would have been a star (yes, I know about the Nioxon pardon but the wingers had scandals of their own).  In fact, the post-election polls from 2004 basically indicated that there was no center and that strong conviction, even when clearly wrong, was the biggest political asset possible.

So why Bob Casey.  I'm sick and tired of the Casey kids and their incessant whining and victimization.  Running against Ed Rendell, lest we forget, invincible Bob turned a 15 point primary lead into a 15 point primary loss.  The guy is not only valium on campaign but wring headed whiny valium to boot.

Winners of a contested primary are seen as strong individuals and, well, winners.  The long string of Senate losers carefully selected to placate the boonies and/or western PA have lost.  If a Democrat is going to win this one he or she needs a strong turnout in Philly and appeal in the Philly suburbs.  

Grooming a candidate to appeal to the wastelands is garbage.  Hey why not just select Mr. Hershey Park or find the Lancaster County strongman (last one, James Buchanan and that turned out kinda bad).  In fact, no matter where Casey stands on abortion he can't out-abortion Rick Santorum.  More Republican lite (one could argue this might have worked against Specter, biy I think these votes have been bought and sold since Roe v. Wade went down and we'll never get them (so why try).

Well, thanks for listening.

by David Kowalski on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:01:13 PM EST

Re: Go Chuck (none / 0)

Here's the thing, though: Ed's on the ballot, so turnout in SE PA (a) is guaranteed and (b) need not be financed via federal funds.  

I don't know that Schwartz or Foley would have won in 2000; all I know is that Klink couldn't fundraise worth doo-doo in SE PA, and that worries me about Casey.

by Adam B on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Go Chuck (none / 0)

Wofford also lost in an off year election when I recall Dem voter turnout to be low, such a shame.
by jdavidson on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Go Chuck (none / 0)

To Chuck I say "Good luck and Godspeed".

I do hope however that dems can refrain from tearing each other down.  I suppose a bit of name calling on internet blogs is not much of a big deal but to the extent it is part of the campaign (from either side) I do not see how that advances the real goal of unseating Santorum.  

Finally, while I agree with Chuck's assessment that many pro-choice dem voters sat out the Klink vs. Santorum race, I can't imagine they will sit this out if it is Casey vs. Santorum.  

by comotion on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Go Chuck (none / 0)

Klink had no name ID in eastern PA and didn't have any money to advertise heavily in the area.  That is the reason he did so bad in the Philly suburbs.  

Look how Casey did in 04 in the Philly suburbs.  He won lots of them and did well everywhere in PA.  He outperformed Kerry in every county but 2.  That says something.  

by PaGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Go Chuck (none / 0)

Except that the reason Klink had no money is the same reason that Casey might have problems -- SE PA and pro-choicers, who have all the money in this state -- may not want to give it to him.

Casey faced minimal opposition in 2004.  Look at the 2002 results v. Ed to see how people in this region think about him.

by Adam B on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Go Chuck (none / 0)

2006 isn't 2000 though and while Casey may have similar problems in SE PA raising cash national antipathy to Santorum should give him quite a large financial boost over Klink in 2000. Money isn't something I think we need to be worried about in PA '06
by Bothwell on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:06:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoever gets the nod (none / 0)

Is going to have enough money to build a ladder to he moon.  Because everyone is going to be hellbent to beat Casey.

With Hafer out, I'm more receptive to Chuck P.  Not on any issue, but on the belief that no one has an unmitigated right to an uncontested primary.

by jcjcjc on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If the Penna Dems Leadership (none / 0)

commits to an open fair primary rather than trying to muscle through a backroom smoke-infested coronation I promise not to call them names.

Names like "Tammany Hall Hacks" and "Corrupt Bastards".  That sort of thing.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.
by boadicea on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Go Chuck (none / 0)

Name calling will help. I'm not kidding! The Pennacchio campaign should go after Casey, labeling him too conservative for PA. They should do that for 3 reasons:
1.) Its true! Hafer originally entered the election citing polls that displayed support for the pro-choice movement in PA.
2.) We stand a better chance nominating a liberal candidate (as was so elequently put by Dr. Pennacchio himself above).
3.) If Castey still wins the primary, he will have the moderate appeal he covets better than he would without the name-calling. I posted this elsewhere, but its relavent so here goes. Picture two objects sitting on a table... now try to figure out which one is in the middle. Its impossible! By running Pennacchio hard at Casey from the left, it will display Casey's "moderate-ness" to the state. The main reason given for supporting Casey is that he's a "moderate in a moderate state," and name-calling from the far left will only amplify this.

Its kinda strange, but branding Casey too conservative is win-win for the PA dems.

by shawndgoldman on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:36:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Specter did the exact same thing (none / 0)

He ran on the "Toomey calls me a commie, but Hoeffel says I'm Bush's lap dog!" platform.

It's kind of an interesting study in how flawed logic can be effecive rheoric.

by jcjcjc on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Specter did the exact same thing (none / 0)

My friends and I always used to call it the "Goldilocks" defense -- this one says I'm too far to the left, the other guy says I'm too far to the right, so I must be doing something right.

The problem comes if liberal PA'ns are so convinced that Casey's too far to the right that they don't support him ($ or votes) in the general.  But Specter only lost 4-5% of the general election vote to the right-fringe candidates, so we'll see.

by Adam B on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 09:36:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

imo (none / 0)

The chances of this candidacy winning in PA are very slim, and the current method of campaigning is not very useful. I think you 'might' win a poll here on mydd, but your arguement against a "Chosen One" from "on high" just is not going to win much of the state's votes, imo.

This campaign would best work as a movement about changing the Democratic institution in PA; not against Casey but against Santorum.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:52:09 PM EST

Re: imo.. I agree , start running against Santorum (none / 0)

It is not necessary to continue to harp on the corrupt party leader angle.  Rendell won against Casey and he never once played the victim.

That said, if you would like to know what a grassroots leader, feminist and avowed pro-choice voter thinks of your website and video statements send me an e-mail.

Teese02a@yahoo.com

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: imo.. I agree , start running against Santorum (none / 0)

Email on the way...

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:10:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: imo (none / 0)

Howard Dean's chances were about this slim this far out in 2003. He nonetheless nearly won it all - and, in any event, had a profound impact on the race. I just can't go with any fourteen-months-in-advance predictions - especially when most of us (myself included) have done a bad job with one month (and one day) in advance predictions.
by DavidNYC on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:04:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wrong wrong wrong (none / 0)

At this point in the 2004 cycle, Dean was at 64% name recognition in New Hampshire, and 15% of NH'ers would vote for him.

Don't give me the national numbers on Dean in early 2003; they're irrelevant, because he wasn't campaigning nationally yet.  No one was.

by Adam B on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: wrong wrong wrong (none / 0)

Sorry, but my analogy wasn't meant to be exact, perfect, one-for-one, everything aligning identically.

My point was a lot simpler: When it's a year before a primary, it can be very hard to accurately predict what's going to happen.

And in fact, at this stage of the campaign in 2002/3, few people (outside of the netroots, which weren't even called the netroots then) thought Dean was going to make a serious splash. And indeed, at this time in 2002/3 (which your ARG poll page doesn't show), Dean was never higher than third in any NH poll. Heck, Chuck Pennacchio is in second place now. :)

Furthermore, I wasn't talking about Pennacchio's ability to win, but rather, his ability to have an impact on the race. Dean lost, of course, but there's no question he had an enormous impact on the race.

by DavidNYC on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 03:22:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

next they will be regulating (3.00 / 1)

lawn signs, if you are a Dem and you live near a major traffic thruway watchout!
by jdavidson on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:52:22 PM EST

Re: next they will be regulating (none / 0)

Lawn signs are regulated.  When a campaign or PAC pays for them, the disclaimer is on the sign.  It's an expenditure that must be disclosed.
by Adam B on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: next they will be regulating (none / 0)

ok, what I meant was that if I voluntarily put a sign on my yard the FEC could say that I have a valuable piece of property and therefore I've made the equivalent of a monetary contribution to the campaign.
by jdavidson on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:57:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: next they will be regulating (none / 0)

No, you've put up a sign, which someone else paid to print, which was disclosed.  De minimis.
by Adam B on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:45:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: next they will be regulating (none / 0)

I'm making a joke about how far the absurdities of the FEC could go.
by jdavidson on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hi, Dr. Pennacchio. (none / 0)

I've been following your campaign since just before you started buying blogads, and I really like where yor coming from. As a matter of fact, you can read my endorsement of you here.
by craverguy on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:40:40 PM EST

Charlie Crystle Part II (none / 0)

A progressive internet savy candidate with no elected political experience running for Senate in Pennsylvania?  That was tried, and failed miserably last time.  Charlie Crystle couldn't make a dent against Congressman Joe Hoeffel.  So how does Chuck Pennacchio get any traction against Bob Casey, the person who got more votes than anyone in the history of the state of Pennsylvania last time?

by FloridaD on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:17:11 PM EST

Re: Charlie Crystle Part II (none / 0)

Or how about Granny D up in NH? Wasn't there great expectations of a massive netroots operation and money to make her a viable candidate against Judd Gregg in 2004?
by Blue State Boy on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 04:39:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't think of an Elephant (3.00 / 1)

If you haven't read this book, you should. This campaign can be successful if we reframe the debate. We need to own the language of morals.

Is this budget deficit moral?

Are cuts to early childhood education, headstart, insurance, health care moral?

Is the way we treat soldiers and veterans who risk their lives moral?

Are the huge contracts to Halliburton for the Iraq war moral? Is this war moral?

Most importantly, is it moral and democratic for the "party of the people" to dictate who will run against Santorum?

NO! Let's be the moral majority! Let's be the democrats worthy to be called such.

by Proud Liberal on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:24:46 PM EST

Pennichino = Nobody with NO experience! (2.00 / 0)

Pennichino would lose to Santorum by 20-25%.  He won't raise any money, doesn't have any name id, and is too liberal to win in PA.  Hoeffel was an ok canidate and could only manage 42%.  Pennichino would be lucky to get 35%.

Casey on the other hand is far from Republican light.  He is a true moderate.  He has tons of experience and name ID.  He is popular and will be able to compete against Santorum finacially.  Santorum will have a hard time finding anything to attack Casey with.  Casey may be prolife but he is liberal in other areas.  

I am a partisain Democrat and more liberal than Casey.  Id rather have a moderate Democrat in the Senate than Santorum.  

Lets face it Pennichino doesn't have a chance, just like Miles in CO or any of the other nobodys running in 2004 did.  Its sad that there are some who will convice themselves that a certain liberal canidate with no name id, no experience, and no money would be able to beat a ranking republican incumbent in a conservative democrat state like PA.

by PaGuy on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:40:21 PM EST

Re: Pennichino = Nobody with NO experience! (3.00 / 0)

Run a solid primary, and let's find out.

It will shake out the bugs in Casey's candidacy, if nothing else.

And is your misspelling the candidates name on the same page it's clearly printed on laziness, stupidity, or hackery?

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.
by boadicea on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennichino = Nobody with NO experience! (none / 0)

Wow. So many problems with this post. Basically, i feel like you're a pot calling the fire hydrant "blach." Lets start with...

1.) If you're going to criticize a candidate who has the guts and foresight to post on a blog, please show enough respect to get their name right... If not that, at least come close!

2.) You're wrong. Dr. Pennacchio has plenty of experience in running successful campaigns, in the crucial subject area of foreign policy, and in the agricultural industry so important to PA's economy. He was the Deputy Campaign Manager for Tim Wirth's successful 1986 Senate bid against a conservative opponent, and he also ran Paul Simon's Iowa field operation during the 1988 caucuses. Oh, and he has his Ph.D. in diplomatic history, AND he's a member of the Plumsteadville Grange. I could go on, but instead i'll just tell everyone how they can do something PaGuy didn't have the courtesy to do - learn more about Chuck Pennacchio.

3.) I'm not usually one to go around and criticize people for not having posted much around these parts (esp. since i'm a new-comer myself). However, i think its quite ironic that someone who has never posted on this site before comes out with the "you're a nobody with no experience," line.

So that's about it, you inaccurately criticized someone whose name you misspelled for something you are at least as open to critique on. Now that's what i call the pot calling the fire hydrant "blach."

by shawndgoldman on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Carrot Top could raise money in 2006 (none / 0)

Because it doesn't matter who runs.  Santorum will have a bullseye so large it can be viewed from space.  

And, supposing, just supposing, Chuck P beats Santorum, the media would latch on to the notion of him beating back the conservative move in he Democratic Party.

He'd be all over the place, and get a tone of free advertising, as pundits tried to frame what Casey's loss meant.

In reality, Chuck P is likely just a sparring partner.

by jcjcjc on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:35:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Casey V Santorum (none / 0)

Since when does being pro-life disqualify you from being a liberal. Casey is progressive on everything else, except that one issue.  In 2004 he won the most votes of any candidate in Pennsylvania History.  This man deserves to represent the Democratic Party against Rick Santorum.
by NJDEM1 on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:26:44 AM EST

See what I mean, Jerome? (none / 0)


by Tim Tagaris on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:37:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casey V Santorum (none / 0)

Then he can use a contested primary to make sure his campaign is honed to deliver the message.
Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.
by boadicea on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:07:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Amazing... (none / 0)

It amazes me that the pro-choice supporters wouldn't vote for an pro-life candidate in 2000 for the pro-choice party.  While morally I applaud this, it is so strategically stupid.  The party has a pro-choice platform.  Even if your guy is pro-life, the party in charge sets the agenda.  If a nasty abortion bill had a chance in passing, it would be killed by the party in charge in committee.  Even if you didn't like his stance, they still should have voted on a partisan basis, if only for the strategy involved to control the committees.  Had less people done this, we would have controlled the senate in 2000 and possible beyond.  
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:35:18 AM EST

Re: Amazing... (3.00 / 0)

I don't believe many are saying they wouldn't support Casey in a general election.  Only that we'd rather the nominee be someone else.
by Adam B on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:36:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.