That the only reason Santorum would have a chance at winning is if liberal voters like the Booman Tribune author fail to turn out. In other words, its not the PA Dems fault if Santorum gets another 6 years, it's YOUR fault.

And anyone who thinks Casey would not be an improvement over Santorum clearly hasn't read Rick's book. And frankly, I think it's a sign of placing far too much emphesis on social issues instead of the issues of economic justice (minimun wage, unions) that made the Democratic Party great.

Casey  is a good man, from a great Democratic family.  It's sad to see Democrats objecting to electing a Roman Catholic unless he dumps his faith.  Santorum is a fascist.  Pennsylvania progressives should study the history of the Weimar Republic and remember how Hitler slipped into power.

Good luck to Bob Casey, Jr.  Us Pennsylvania ex-pats are sending money home to help the only man with a chance of beating Rooster Ricky.

As I was running to school, late, I had a post in my mind that was, in a much less poetic way, exactly what you just said.  

And, I would add the fact Joe Hoeffel, a real progressive, is running for Lt. Governor.  Along with some good people running for local offices, the election that so many progressives are fearing, could turn into one that actually benefits us all longterm.

Spoke to my right wing Aunt in central PA (unfortunately most of us liberals in the family have moved to other blue states) who wanted to point out she doesn't always vote Republican and mentioned Santorum as someone she wouldn't vote for again. Of course, there's still time for them to scare her into it.

Any thoughts on the Lt. Gov primary?  That seems like another potential party-elite and grassroots split.

The McDonald-Roberts campaign says they killed at the Delaware County endorsement meeting, but I haven't been hearing much on the race.

Joe would be great too, but has he made an official announcement yet?

Chris, I think I'm developing a crush (no, not in that way. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but...). Just wanted to put that out there. ;-)

Seriously though, your work lately has been exceptional, even by the lofty standards you've set for yourself.

I do have one problem with what you have written here, and it's prob. my only consistent problem with your political analysis- you put way too much faith in polls. I personally don't give a rats ass what polls say about Casey vs. Santorum, if the election was held today, I would guess that we would lose. No poll is going to convince me that the PA Dem Party isn't rotten enough to the core to lose a "gimme" election like this.

I really hope that I'm wrong, but I don't see shit happening on the ground to prepare the way for whomever the Dem candidate is, and that spells trouble to me. There's a reason that the Repugs have consistently won state-wide elections in PA over the past 70 years (give or take)- they run a well oiled machine, and our machine (if you can even call it one) can barely putter along. Therein lies a big mistake (IMO) of all political forecasters- the over emphasis on the person in relation to the political mechanisms.

And thank you for calling out all of the so-called activists who'd rather take their ball and go home than fight it out in the trenches. I like the suggestion that you and robannik make- if you don't see something worth fighting for in the Gov race, then find an election you feel comfortable with and work to get that person elected.

I couldn't stand Kerry in '04, and yet I spent every waking hour trying to convince young people that no matter who the candidate was that year, that we had to participate. This is about the long haul, and even if you don't like whose running you have to raise your voice. How else can we ever start to change things? Kicking our party's candidate is not going to help us in any way, though it might make some enemies out of your friends.

I would never criticize anyone who decided to vote for Casey for whatever reason they chose to do so.  By the same token you ought to respect the decision of those of us who choose not to.  It would be difficult enough for me to vote for someone who holds the positions Casey does.  What I find truly deploreable is the fact that he would deny us an open primary.  Isn't this supposed to be a democracy where the voters have a say in who their candidates will be?

The reason I do not believe Casey can win is that the majority of progressives I know (and I know a lot of them) know a lot more about Casey than the electorate at-large currently does, and I know more progressives who say they will not vote for Casey than say they will.  I think it is inevitable that Casey's support will erode as the voters become more knowledgeable as to where he stands on the issues (and we are not only speaking of choice here, though that is certainly a major issue).  Sure Casey holds a big lead, but that is because people are disgusted with Santorum, not because they are enamored with Casey.  

I will not oppose a Casey candidacy, but neither will I support it, and neither will I vote for the man.  By all means vote for him if you are so inclined, but be aware that there are a lot of like-minded progressive Democrats who are going to sit this one out if the choice is between Santorum and Casey.  You ought to respect that choice, and you ought to worry about it as well.  At the very least you should urge Casey to reach out to people like me.  So far he has made zero effort to do that.

Is that reality based? I cannot even imagine trying to persuade a pro-choice, anti-war Democrat or Independent to vote for Casey. Is that a reality based assumption? Is it reality based not to expect an apathetic base if Casey wins?

How much do you want to bet that this election is going to be a squeaker, because Casey is such a poor campaigner, and the netroots are going to be turned into an ATM machine again?

After all the bitching about being an ATM machine after the '04 election, the netroots are going to dump major contributions into supporting a horrible candidate at the expense of genuine progressives.

That's what I call a win/win for the DSCC. They couldn't have planned it any better.

I can understand why the writer on Booman would feel it appropriate to sit out an election between Santorum and Casey.

If you were a woman who supports Choice, would you intentionally vote for someone who could vote away your rights?  Isn't that the criticism many Democrats had of Spector -- someone who supposedly is pro-Choice, yet led efforts to get Alito on the bench?

As a progressive, I will support any progressive candidate regardless of party (not that there are currently progressive Republicans).  I will also support Democrats who I consider moderate or liberal over conservative Republicans, even if I have to hold my nose while doing it.  But I will not support candidates who want to take away my rights just because they have a (D) next to their name.  Certain Democrats, like Cuellar or Bean, for instance, are not supportable in any circumstance that I can imagine.

This mid-term election is strategically critical.  It is crucial that the Democrats become a majority party in at least one of the houses of Congress.  A long shot, perhaps, but crucial nevertheless.

The majority controls the committees and has subpoena power.  The ability to investigate Bush and the other Republicans for two years before the next Presidential election will give the Democrats a huge advantage.  A Democrat majority in at least one house of Congress is an express ticket to a Democratic Executive in 2008.

The primaries are the elections to duke it out internally, but whichever Democrat wins, that's the one to vote for in November.  I'd rather the Democrats in control of the Senate in 2006 and the White House in 2008 than stand on principles.  Not so much "reality-based" as pragmatic.

a strategy I would have thought that no Dem would ever use again after 2004, I'll take a shot.

Here are the nuts and bolts of how Casey loses: He loses the base and GOP pro-choicers to apathy (his best hope) and anger.  Who's left? The anti-choice Republicans rightly reason that they are Republicans for a reason and why would they vote for a cheap imitation of Santorum when they've got a very powerful Senator, who has delivered for the state, sitting at the right hand of the president?  Republicans for whom choice doesn't matter, don't vote Dem because we're all commies.  As for the mushy middle the National Dems so pathetically and ineptly covet: Casey's defining characteristic is that he lacks conviction. It will be a stone grove for Santorum to position him as a Bad Catholic and and/or a Bad Democrat. He won't break a sweat.  If the last five years have taught us nothing else, they've taught us that voters hate nothing as much as they hate a lack of conviction.  Welcome to six more years of Man-on-Dog, powerful, lunatic and a man of conviction.

As for the money - I'm always confused about that reference to the $3.5M.  What happens when Casey loses the primary?  Does that money disappear?  Are you saying that Casey supporters and the national party won't support Pennacchio because he's pro-choice, anti-war, pro-union and pro-Constitution?  Would they still say he can't win?   What does that say about the Democratic Party?  Either they're Republicans or cowards - or both.

I have no advice to offer one-issue voters, because I don't understand them, except to suggest that if they find that nationally speaking, most office-holders who agree with them belong to the Democratic Party, that might have implications for which party to support in the voting booth, other things being equal.  

What I want to tackle is an assertion, seen here and elsewhere in the blogosphere, that accepting pragmatic choices means putting entrenched Democrat leaders who are too conservative in power, and that that gets us nowhere.

If the Democrats take over one of the two houses of Congress, yes, some Democrat incumbents who are not liberals gain more power. But that isn't the whole picture.

Louise Slaughter would chair the House Rules Committee if the balance tipped. Ted Kennedy might chair Judiciary, in the Senate, instead of a Republican. Nancy Pelosi would be Speaker. Marcy Kaptur is ranking Minority Member on an important House committee.  Taking control of one of the Houses benefits more than the conservative wing of the party, it benefits the whole range including liberal Members if they have some seniority.

When you go into the voting booth, consult your own values and do what seems best to you. But don't undercut the liberal Democrats who have managed to get elected, just because in a specific race on the ballot in front of you today, there isn't a liberal to choose. If the Party wins a majority in either house, the right-wing ice begins to melt. Liberal legislation will no longer  get locked up in every committee because liberals will chair at least some of them.

I'm hungry. I'm getting pretty sick of people who sneer at half a loaf.

First off, of all the places where we should actually trust Dems to GOTV, it should be the biggest swing state that we actually won in 2004. If this were Florida or Ohio, one might more reasonably doubt polls. But Casey has shown a consistent lead on Santorum of double-digits, and even all the efforts of Republicans in Pennsylvania have not budged him one inch.

Second, Casey also may not seem like he does not have much loyalty to Democrats because his family hasn't exactly shown recieved much love fro Democrats. Remember, it was his father who (rightly or wrongly is a matter of debate here) was prevented from speaking at the 1992 Democratic Convention. The fact that he's still willing to run shows his commitment to helping the party that has so often shunted him aside simply because he happens to be more conservative on certain issues.

Finally, as some others have mentioned, a Democrat is a Democrat, and having one more closer to a majority is what's important right now. Let's get back to a majrity, then we can talk about more conservative Democrats, and other much less pressing issues.

Ironically, I had also considered running for an office in Ward 27 (in district 21, however), although I decided against it in the end due to time issues. However, I would be very excited to see Mr. Bowers representing my ward, albeit not my division.

I understand some of the polling data you cite, but I'm still uncertain about the Conventional Wisdom -- which your post repeats despite your support for Pennachio -- that Casey has the best chance against Santorum, and that Pennachio cannot win the primary. What about the Zogby poll that suggests Santorum would win against Casey, and that when voters learn the candidates' positions, they like Pennachio better?

I'm really asking. If Pennachio's the better guy, I'd like not only to support him, but also to help reverse the defeatist CW, lest it prove a self-fulfilling prophecy that sinks us in November.

My bona fides: VichyDems.

"I will not vote for Bob Casey Jr. this fall if he is the Democratic nominee, and if the progressive circles I travel in are any indication, there are a lot of Pennsylvanians who, while wanting desparately to send Rick Santorum packing, aren't desparate enough to vote for a candidate like Casey, who many of us consider to be Santorum's Democratic counter-part. How ironic if it ends up that head-in-the-sand Democrats end up re-electing an unpopular Rick Santorum to the United States Senate."

snip

" I will actively campaign for a write in vote for anyone else.

I'm also part of the reality based community, but my reality is long-term:  I'm willing to accept 6 more years of Santorum if I know that in the next election, particularly if Casey is defeated, that we'll get a real Democratic candidate"

snip

" will not oppose a Casey candidacy, but neither will I support it, and neither will I vote for the man.  By all means vote for him if you are so inclined, but be aware that there are a lot of like-minded progressive Democrats who are going to sit this one out if the choice is between Santorum and Casey.  You ought to respect that choice, and you ought to worry about it as well.  At the very least you should urge Casey to reach out to people like me.  So far he has made zero effort to do that. "

snip

"Re: It should be added... (none / 0)

Santorum is good for the Democrats because he is so nuts"
---------------------------------------- ---------

It's because of people like this that progressives and liberals will always be a minority in this country. I have said it on Kos and other blogs. People like these folks are the reasons why the left will NEVER have the power that the right has today.

The reason I say this is obvious. These people have 50 million reasons as to why they won't vote for Casey in the general election. But if this were just about Casey and Santorum that would be one thing. The issue runs deeper than that.

These folks just have a reason every two years as to why they can't support Democrats as the polls. Substitute Casey with another Democrat in another state who isn't running on a fringe left, out-of-the-mainstream, Cynthia McKinney, Michael Moore, or Dennis Kuchinich platform; and you will get the same old "I won't vote" or "I have to vote my concsicence crap". No Democrat is ever perfect for them.

This group of "progressives" are "regressives". They have impossible litmus tests, can't be satisfied with anyone unless the candidate is running a platform that will only succeed in the dark blue precincts of the Upper East Side of Manhattan, Bevery Hills, Berkeley, or San Francisco. They will only support a candidate who is running on a platform that is viable only in districts that are 60-75% Democratic. Even if the person is running in a moderate blue, light blue, neutral, light dred, moderately red, or dark red state, they will have their "reasons" as to why they can't support the Democratic nominee.

As I have said on Kos numerous times this group of "regressives"--they aren't "progressive", since the word has progress in its root, and these people are not for progress--would rather lose than win. For some sick reason they prefer political marginalization. They take some perverse pride in it. This group of reggressives only believes in engaging in symbolic "protests" that no one hears, cares, or listens to. They would rather lose than win. They have some perverse "martyrdom complex". Actually getting into office and accomplishing something isn't important to them.

I've come to this conclusion after debating with those regressives here, at DKos, and at DU. They don't want to change. And it is unfortunate, but sometimes I think the system already has priced them in. They are that 5% on both sides that is never happy with any of the major party candidates. And frankly I think it would be dumb if Casey and other Democrats rushed after this 5% if meant alienating themselves from the other 95% of the elctorate. I say this out of frustration because nothing seems to satisfy these people beyond the unrealistic.

Frankly, over and over again, it is the same old tired arguments. I "can't vote for this Democrat" because of his vote on this or that "issue". They want to have a reason to cause a Democrat to lose. For if a Democrat actually won these folks could not self-righteous and arrogantly come to boards like this one and say that "we sent a message". What would these people do if a Democrat ACTUALLY won an election?

It boggles the mind. These folks are like small children. They would rather have someone in this seat who supports their issues 0-20% of the time (Santorum) because they can't get someone in there who supports their issues 90-100% (Pennachio). Thus they would rather punish the candidate who supports their issues 60-80% of the time (Casey) because they can't get their way. This is really stupid and illogical. I guess that they would rather regress even further because the perfect is beyond reach.

I sincerely hope--and I say this out of frustration more than anything else--that Casey wins without the support of the people I higlighted above. The same goes for other less-than-perfect Democrats running in light blue to dark red states, especially Melissa Bean. For frankly, if Casey and Bean win without them, then perhaps this group of regressives will realize that they are a fringe minority and that they are deluded about their importance. Then maybe Democrats won't be afraid of them either and no one on boards like this one will care when they whine and moan about any and all Democratic candidates who aren't Cynthia McKinney.

While I disagree, Chris, with your vote for Chuck, I at least appreciate the fact that you are supporting and will volunteer for Casey in the general election. I appreciate that you at least understand what is at stake here.

But I really have to ask you and the others this one point. Why did Chuck run for the US Senate when he HAS NEVER HELD ANY LOCAL OFFICE IN PA? Why didn't Chuck first run for something local and build up a credible record so that when the next vacancy opens up--probably in 2010 should Arlen Specter retire--he could be competetive and perhaps get support from the much-maligned "establishment" here?

Chuck is from Bucks County, correct? The county's local officeholders are all Republicans, right? Why didn't Chuck run for State Rep, State Senate, or even against Mike Fitzpatrick in PA-8? Perhaps then he could have gotten more "establishment" support and even won. Then he could have had a network of volunteers, support in the Philadelphia suburbs, and credibility. Maybe then he could have run for the US Senate.

Chuck is a joke of a candidate. He is polling in the single digits. Someone said that a few central committees were "supportive of Chuck". Maybe that is true, but keep in mind that Mike Miles won the CO Party Convention. He still lost the primary badly to Salazar two years ago. If PA really wanted Chuck he would be faring better. If most non-far-left, Centre City, normal, Philadelphia Democrats in PA were unhappy with Casey, Chuck and Sandals would be faring better. They would get more support than simply a few posters on boards like this. The truth is, when I think about it, the discontent for Casey is not as high as some of the fringe leftists here would like it to be.

I sympathize with some of Chuck's issues. I don't agree with all of Casey's views, but I would rather have him than Santorum in office. I'm not stupid and self-righteous like many of the regressives here. And having Santorum in that position for six years would cause more damage. I disagree with the poster who stated that "Santorum is good for Democrats becuase he is nuts". He is bad and will hurt many of the causes that the regressives hold so dear.

For the truth is that, six years ago, the Naderites claimed that having Bush would lead to massive "awakening of the unwashed massses." They predicted that because "things had to get worse before they get better", there would be a massive awakening among the ordinary people that would lead to a large "mea culpa", sending everyone running back to Nader and the Greens for repetence. Reality check: it's 2006 and the Greens are lucky to elect anyone beyond city council. So that argument is crap. There is never going to be this massive "proletarian" backlash that these people expect.

The far right tolerates Republicans in blue states like Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, and Ed Simmons even though they are pro-choice. With the exception of the Club for Growth the conservative right knows that a Tom DeLay-style conservative could not win in blue states. Unlike the regressives they actually want to win.

But honestly your post is good, Chris. It's unforuntate, though, that the message will be lost on the regressives who post here. They want to find a way to cause a Democrat to lose or they would not have their mission in life.