The Progressive Movement and The Looming Pennsylvania Landslides

For a challenger, Casey's lead was actually already quite large, but this is ridiculous:
Santorum now trails Democratic challenger Bob Casey 56% to 33% (see crosstabs). Our latest survey of the governor's race also brings good news for the Democrat in that contest.

Last month, Santorum trailed by thirteen percentage points. The incumbent began 2006 down by 20 points and closed to within single digits by March. That was before the Primary Election solidified Casey's position as the Democratic nominee.

Santorum continues to flounder with his base, attracting support from only 67% of GOP voters. Casey now attracts 87% of Democrats, a ten-point gain since our April 20 poll.
My repeated assertions that Santorum had basically no chance in this race have resulted in criticisms, both public and private, from a wide variety of Pennsylvania Democrats. Some warn of overconfidence, some warn that progressives will stay home, some warn that Santorum has loads of money, some warn that the Pennsylvania Republican base remains strong, and on and on and on. However, all of those warning and tortured attempts to try and make this race look competitive aside, I think it is time for everyone who is watching this race to look at the numbers and appreciate what is actually happening here. We now have a Republican polling firm showing the race at 56-33in favor of Casey. If an incumbent was leading any campaign 56-33, s/he would be considered safe by every election analyst in the nation. However, that isn't even how bad things are for Santorum. For a challenger to be leading 56-33 is unprecedented. Remember that undecideds tend to break overwhelmingly for the challenger. I have never seen anything like this. Not only is this the best poll for a challenger I have ever seen, nothing else I have ever seen is even remotely close to this. Santorum has a 90% name ID statewide, and only 33% of the state wants to vote for him.

The situation for Pennsylvania Republicans is rapidly collapsing statewide. The residency issue has clearly become a major problem for Santorum. Two weeks ago, in a major conservative stronghold, Democrats won a special election for the Pennsylvania state Senate by 13%. Also on the May 16th primary, Democratic turnout was over 30% higher than Republican turnout.. Rendell has moved form being the primary Republican target among Governors in 2006 to becoming a pretty safe incumbent. Lois Murphy in PA-06, Joe Sestak in PA-07, and Patrick Murphy in PA-08 have all become serious challengers to Republican held congressional seats in districts that Kerry won in 2004. Bush's approval rating in Pennsylvania has sunk to an astounding 28-70.

Pennsylvania is considered a "blue state" in popular electoral parlance, but in truth it has been red for some time. Republicans control both branches of the state legislature, have a 12-7 edge in congressional seats, and have won every full-term US Senate election since 1964. These advantages in ostensibly "blue" Pennsylvania have been absolutely crucial to Republicans maintaining their national governing coalition. However, even as a Republican activist purchases our local papers in Philadelphia, Republican dominance of Pennsylvania politics, fueled in part by longstanding Pennsylvania Democratic incompetence, seems poised to end. If the NRCC has been forced to spend nearly $4M to defend the CA-50, what can they possibly muster to the face of the coming Pennsylvania onslaught?

At the center of the transformation of Pennsylvania politics has been an extremely vibrant, emerging progressive movement statewide. For those of you who still believe that fighting internal Democratic battles is somehow a waste of progressive resources, you need to look no further than to Pennsylvania for counter-evidence. While the newly revitalized progressive movement in Pennsylvania has locked horns with the party establishment, the result has not been drained resources and two separate, warring factions. Instead, the result has been a tremendous upswing in pro-Democratic Party activity in Pennsylvania that has benefited both the new progressive movement and the party establishment. Our new progressive movement is working--the old ways of either simply falling in line behind the party leaders or bolting the party / sitting on your hands were not working. The progressive, internal reform movement has identified hundreds of new activists, resulted in a tremendous fundraising upswing, created new progressive media outlets, started new grassroots organizations, and forged new progressive social networking spaces. This is how you do it. This is how a progressive movement can win back Pennsylvania, and indeed the entire nation.



Display:


Great Pittsburgh Postgazette editorial on Santorum (none / 0)

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/06146/6932 91-192.stm

Hilarious ediorial making the same point over and over:
"That is all you need to know about the nasty dispute between the Republican Sen. Santorum and his Democratic opponent, Bob Casey Jr., in the November election. The whole thing is rooted in one inconvenient fact for Sen. Santorum: He doesn't live here anymore."


by Pravin on Wed May 31, 2006 at 03:08:42 PM EST

Re: Great Pittsburgh Postgazette editorial on Sant (none / 0)

The funniest thing was that the P-G editorial board
sent a questionnaire to the Stevens Lane house, which Santorum gave them as his address, and it came back from the USPS marked "undeliverable, cannot forward".
by phillydem on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PA (none / 0)

While traveling with my family through central PA on Monday and flipping through the radio we heard a conservative and Christian commentator saying something like:

"Everybody makes mistakes and "joe blow" and I have made a mistake and beg your forgiveness.  We are now in complete agreement on the following.  This Administration and congress is completely corupt and beholden to special interests.  We are recommending to all of our loyal listeners that they vote against all of the incumbents.  Maybe if we throw them all out we will have a chance to start again.  Now "joe blow" and I know that we will pay a huge personal price for this, but in God's name we are willing to make this stand.  Thank you and pray for us."


by NCJim on Wed May 31, 2006 at 03:13:19 PM EST

Don't Forget Chris Carney! (3.00 / 1)

PA-10!

vs. Don "the mistress choker" Sherwood, who almost lost the pirmary to a no-name who spent next to nothing.


by dantheman on Wed May 31, 2006 at 03:22:40 PM EST

How does control of the state legislature (none / 0)

Look?  Will the Democrats be able to win one house?


by Drew on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:06:36 PM EST

Re: How does control of the state legislature (none / 0)

Right now the GOP has a 102-94 advantage, I believe.
Both Terry Madonna and Mike Young, longtime pollsters and analysts of state politics, think the Dems can perhaps get up to 98 seats, which would leave them 4 seats short, not incl the Speaker who generally does not vote unless absolutely required. The 203 house districts are drawn after each census by a bi-partisan committee, meaning incumbent protection is the rule, so there are few competitive seats.

The large number of retirements owing to the pay raise fiasco along with the primary losses of some
GOP imcumbents give the Dems a little more of an edge, but the districts are drawn to be either "R" or "D", it's unlikely many would change party hands. The best chance for Dems to pick up seats is east of Harrisburg.

The state senate is 29-21 R, so it's very unlikely
that would change hands.

IMO, it would be a stunning achievement were Dems to take control of the state house. It would be a miracle for Dems to take back both the house and the senate.


by phillydem on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How does control of the state legislature (none / 0)

Back in 1994 I didn't have the internet, so I got all my political news from the MSM and TV pundits. I remember well that NOT ONE pundit or pollster predicted that the GOP would take over the House or Senate -- much less by sweeping margins.

For pollsters and pundits the safest bet is always on the party in power. That's why they're best ignored unless you need something to watch or read while your eating or on the john.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:44:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How does control of the state legislature (none / 0)

You're referring to Congress in 1994, not the PA state legislature.

The fact is, unless there are very, very unusual circumstances, a Democrat is not going to win Chip Brightbill's, Bob Jubelier's or John Perzel's seat either. That's just the way the bi-partisan redistricting has been done - there are Democratic districts and Republican districts, but very few competitive ones.

Madonna and Young are astute observers of state politics. I was amazed both actually give Dems a chance to win the state house.


by phillydem on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:14:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How does control of the state legislature (none / 0)

fyi - R/D/I registration in Perzel's district is right around 50.5/48.5/1 so it's not a ridiculous imbalance.


--
Albert Yee
Philadelphia, PA
http://dragonballyee.com/blog
by Albert on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:59:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How does control of the state legislature (none / 0)

Actually -- many many Republicans have turned their backs on the local state representatives and senators in conservative Northwestern PA.  Teresa Forcier, a six-term Republican incumbent, was recently defeated in a PRIMARY election due to the pay raise fiasco.  State Senator Bob Robbins lucked out and was unopposed in the Primary.  Many Republicans are declaring their opposition to him, giving their support to a moderate Democrat in that district, Art Allen.

Maybe state Dems have the best chance to pick up seats in the east, but keep an eye on Western PA -- things are looking unbelievably good for us even here.


by bergerc84 on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NW PA isn't that conservative (none / 0)

It's been my experience that the really batshit crazy conservative counties are from Altoona east until the Philly burbs and from the Maryland line up to State College.

The wooly north, for the most part, will listen to a Democrat before voting against him.

The southern central part of the state is just plane crazy for the GOP, true KoolAid drinkers.


by jcjcjc on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NW PA isn't that conservative (none / 0)

Minus Erie and Meadville -- which are the lone liberal hotspots (even Meadville is questionable) -- NW PA is pretty darn hostile to Democrats, to the point where the Dems couldn't even field a congressional candidate opposing Phil English in 2002.

I will concede, though, that many people in this area are tiring of Republican governance.  Steve Porter ran what could be classified as an inept campaign against English, and he still managed to gather 40% against a strong incumbent.


by bergerc84 on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:54:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Check the maps (none / 0)

NW PA has been trending purple for years and is starting to trend out to blue.

These things take time, but having lived in around various parts of the western and central part of the state, NW PA is not the most frightening place I've seen in the state.

I mean, it's not Philadelphia, but it isn't a Republican wasteland either.


by jcjcjc on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How does control of the state legislature (none / 0)

If you go by the voter registration numbers, the NW around Erie, should be more friendly to Dems than it has voted in the past. I hope your assessment is right.


by phillydem on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 05:42:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Two problems in NW PA (none / 0)

Guns and taxes.

A lot of independents and conservatives will vote for a Democrat if he supports the Second Amendment and if he works on tax reform.

This is why I love to watch Ed Rendell operate.  Rendell is an old guy from the Democratic machine; he has worked from the city to the national level in the machine.  But, at the end of the day, Rendell has brains enough to see a good issue.

The property tax reform initiative -- particularly as the GOP takes the blame for inaction, and amid the pay raise controversy to boot --is a winner.

I know many certified rednecks who could give a shit less for McJesus, Inc. brand of the GOP, and who do support the minimum wage and Social Security.  But, they see the Dems as the party of relentless taxation.

Cut property taxes, let them keep their guns and see what you get in return.

There is a constituency of the center-right in PA that is very winnable for the Dems.  And Rendell knows how to win them.


by jcjcjc on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Progressives will stay home? (none / 0)

What progressive would stay home on THIS one. Get real! Even if Casey were polling at 96 to 4 the progressives would come out in force to drive a stake through Santorum's heart.

Bye Bye Ricky!


by srsjones on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:11:39 PM EST

Re: Progressives will stay home? (none / 0)

Casey will drive down progressives, but not too much because they will come out for Rendell. But the polls show that Casey is so far ahead he doesn't need turnout of the base to win. Unless Santorum can close the gap substantially, progressive depression will not hurt him.
Booman Tribune.
by BooMan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:11:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Progressives will stay home? (none / 0)

BooMan--exactly what are you basing your claim that "Casey will drive down progressives" on?  Any polling to that effect?

I worked in PA in '04, and I can tell you that the hatred among the progressives in PA for Santorum is far more motivating than any dislike for Casey's positions on abortion and guns is a deterrent.  Remember, this campaign in PA is a referendum on Santorum (and vicariously, Bush).

If progressives sit this one out just because Casey's a social conservative (despite his support for strongly progressive fiscal policy and his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq), then they don't deserve to bitch about the current state of affairs in Washington.


by docciavelli on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Progressives will stay home? (none / 0)

I wish it weren't true, but to some degree it is. There's been some very vocal folks who've drawn a line in the sand for themselves over this. I'm not saying it will be huge numbers, but there are definitely people who will not vote for Casey - despite my extensive posts on a state-wide DFA list arguing why the defeat of Santorum trumps legitimate concerns/disagreements with Casey.

There will also be some number of pro-choice Republicans (so-called Rendell-Republicans) who have crossed Party lines in the past but will not do so for an anti-choice Democrat.


by Joe in Wynnewood PA on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hate it when (none / 0)

people would rather maintain their moral purity than make a comprimise to advance the cause.  Casey may stink on certain issues, but he's a D and he will support a D majority leader.  That makes him leagues better than Santorum before he even casts one vote.


by Tom DC in VA on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:09:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree don't forget PA-10. (none / 0)

Sherwood is in big trouble.


Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.
by Liberal on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:41:17 PM EST

kind of makes that whole (none / 0)

"only casey can beat santorum," "PA is such a swing state that pro-choicers need to hold their tongues" line of argument look pretty weak, though, dunnit?


by wu ming on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:42:18 PM EST

Re: kind of makes that whole (none / 0)

well casey is killing santorum, but polls versus pennachio and sandals had them both at 24 % i believe.


by yomoma2424 on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of makes that whole (none / 0)

You really think the two dudes who couldn't get 20% of the vote between them would be leading Santorum? Or the guy who lost by over ten points to Arlen Specter? Or the woman who lost 2-to-1 to Casey's father?

Casey has a 59-28 approval rating. Is there anyone else in Pennsylvania who can boast a 30-pt net positive?


by PantherDem on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:49:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of makes that whole (none / 0)

the race was over before it began. my point was that the reason for pre-primary "unity" that was given by all the party insiders was that PA was such a reddish state, and that only casey would be able to defeat the strong candidate of santorum, so we had to form ranks and sacrifice a contested primary for the good of the party.

it was, as pointed out at the time, a canard. satorum wasn't strong, but schumer's pick now has greased skids into the senate, and DFL is happy.


by wu ming on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:22:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of makes that whole (none / 0)

I've been waiting for this kind of anti-Casey comment for awhile.  If Casey wins big, then the anti-Casey folks scream that anyone - including someone more liberal - would have won.  If Casey loses, then the cry is that "see, we told you Casey wasn't a good candidate."  Jeez folks, can't we just be happy that Santorum is likely going home?  


by HSTruman on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:30:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of makes that whole (none / 0)

amen to that


by yomoma2424 on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ricky going "home" (none / 0)

Where exactly is his home again? I'm guessing he'll stay in Virginia, within easy SUV commuting distance of K Street.


by freedc on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:53:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of makes that whole (none / 0)

yes. we can be happy about that. and little else.
Booman Tribune.
by BooMan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of makes that whole (none / 0)

I thought Casey was Rendell's pick, not Schumer's.


by Mimikatz on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of makes that whole (none / 0)

He was - you're right.  But a lot of folks hate Casey and Schumer so it's convenient to lump them in together.


by HSTruman on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of makes that whole (none / 0)

Rendell, Reid, Schumer and big money man Buttonweiser made the decision from what I'm told.

I think it had a lot to do with Rendell clearing the field for himself for the Gubernatorial race.  I don't think Casey will stay the whole term if he wins.  He's always had his eyes set on the Gov. mansion, not national politics.


--
Albert Yee
Philadelphia, PA
http://dragonballyee.com/blog
by Albert on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:54:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of makes that whole (none / 0)

As mentioned above, the other two guys in the primary were losing to Santorum by double-digits at the same time that Casey was leading him by double-digits. There wasn't a whole lot of support for "generic Democrat" against Santorum. We needed a strong candidate, and we got one. again, 59-28. You think that his popularity has nothing to do with how badly Santorum is floundering?


by PantherDem on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The establishment had a liberal (3.00 / 1)

Barbara Hafer.  In early 2005, Rendell was trying to recruit Hafer specifically because he didn;t want Casey.

No one supported Rendell or Hafer at the time, so the higher-ups in the machine got their way.

Rendell quietly told Hafer the machine didn't want a messy primary.  Hafer did the right thing, politically, and deferred to the better judgment of a former DNC Chair.

The tradeoff, is that Hafer is the first horse out of the gate in 2010 for either Rendell or Specter's job.

On some level it would be nice to see a Rockefeller Republican (Specter) replaced by a former Rockefeller Republican (Hafer).

If nothing else, it will be the final obituary for the center-left GOP.  It will be the day that everyone knows the realignment is complete.  

The Norquist Republicans' revolution will be declared a Pyrrhic victory.

My advice, Casey haters, is start some Netroots love immediately -- right now -- for Barbara Hafer.


by jcjcjc on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:06:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hafer's done (none / 0)

IMO, Hafer has burned a few too many bridges now. Yes, it's true that Rendell recruited her to the party with the implicit understanding he'd back her against Santorum, but after that didn't work out, she has pretty much taken her hat out of the ring for other elective offices.

I believe Rendell did string Hafer along, but she's also rebuffed several chances to run for Congress, esp against Tim Murphy in the 18th. My sense is
Hafer's run her course as a politician in the state.
She seems happily settled in Indiana, PA now.


by phillydem on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 05:53:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The establishment had a liberal (none / 0)

Not to quibble, but Rendell was actively involved in recruiting Casey once Casey let on he might consider running.  Also, Hafer is hardly a liberal either.  Other than choice, I would be very interested to here how she (as a formal lifelong republican) is more liberal than Casey.  Personally, I am quite happy that Bob Casey will be the next Senator from PA rather than Hafer - although I would have loved it if she'd ran against and beat Murphy.  That's my old district.


by HSTruman on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:42:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The bastion of liberalism (none / 0)

More liberal: Hafer supports abortion; Casey opposes it.

I think I typified Hafer as a Rockefeller Republican.  Certainly, the party was happy to see her disappear.  In fact, that's one of my points about Hafer: we need to adopt the Rockefeller Republicans before they coalesce into a third party movement.  Look at the movement that's pushing for Bloomberg.  

If the Dems did more to adopt the Rockefeller Republicans, it would accelerate the downward spiral of the GOP into a regional, reactionary conservative party much the same way that the GOP's adoption of Yellow Dog Dems in the 80s and 90s helped put the donkey in the gutter.

I'm not distraught over Casey.  I don't even consider his voicing of support for Alito an issue, because so far the Roberts Court appears to be a little closer to center than the Rehnquist Court (that could be subject to change, of course).

I do wish Casey were a little more sincere, as his father was, but that's a tall order in truth.

Casey, Sr. was about as good of a human being as you will ever see in politics.


by jcjcjc on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:05:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The bastion of liberalism (none / 0)

Yeah, we don't really disagree here.  I don't have anything against Hafer and whole heartedly endorse the idea of bringing the old "liberal Repubs" into the party.  I just actually do affirmatively like Casey more than Hafer and wish abortion wasn't the primary issue through which some folks define liberal and conservative today.  

FYI, I always liked Casey Sr. as well.  He couldn't have been more wrong about choice, but he was an honorable man and one hell of good friend for labor.  


by HSTruman on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The bastion of liberalism (none / 0)

First off, I'm on Casey, Sr side of things a lot of the time.  I do oppose abortion.

Say what you will on abortion: Casey, Sr was the rare pro-lifer who wasn't full of shit.

His stance against the death penalty draws the right contrast against the horrendous lying most pro-lifers do.

Given his support of social programs, too, no one can ever say Casey, Sr didn't want the best.

That's where I wish Jr were closer to dad.  Because there is a great point to be made against the GOP pro-lifers who, per the best rant ever from George Carlin, care about kids only until they're born.

If Jr were closer to his father's position, we could have been rewarded with one of the great discussions in American political history.

Drawing a distinction between Casey Sr and Rick Santorum would illustrate, for all time, why the Republicans are wrong and the Democrats are right.

Drawing that distinction between Casey Jr and Santorum just takes some of the luster off an argument that needs to be made vocally and nationally.


by jcjcjc on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 11:55:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The bastion of liberalism (none / 0)

I take your point, although I'll admit that as a pro-choicer I'm glad that Casey Jr. is not as vocal about his pro-life position as his dad was.  For me, the real contrast between Casey Jr. and Santorum that is important to me is how they approach family planning issues more generally.  I don't agree with Casey on abortion, but I'm comforted by his strong support for contraceptives and sex education.  I think just about EVERYONE is "against abortion" and that the real debate is about what role government should play in those types of discussions.  I can respect someone's view that abortion should be illegal more easily when that stance is paired with support for any/all means of PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

At any rate, I'll be happy to see Casey Jr. sworn in as the first full term Democratic Senator from PA since the '60's.  


by HSTruman on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:42:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Amen (none / 0)

Enough of the GOP, especially the genuinely crazy ones like Santorum.


by jcjcjc on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 11:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Looming Pennsylvania Landslides (3.00 / 3)

Campaign ad: Three photographs.

THIS is the planet Neptune.

THIS is Rick Santorum's house.

THIS is an employed steelworker.

What do they have in common?

None of them are in Pennsylvania.


by admiralnaismith on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:57:23 PM EST

Re: The Progressive Movement and The Looming Penns (3.00 / 1)

Wow. Bracing stuff there, Chris.

Turn PA truly blue, color OH at least bluish-purple, continue working on CO, MT, move AZ a little closer to blue with the collapse of GOP support among Latinos ... I see a majority map forming.


by BriVT on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:57:44 PM EST

Re: The Progressive Movement and The Looming Penns (none / 0)

I'd want to know what people are voting on in PA. this fall. If it's new Diebold et al. machines I'd want to make damn sure some kind of paper trail is built in to these devices and that Diebold isn't allowed to access these devices once the election is underway or afterwards to "repair them." I would also make sure these devices are not networked or accessible by someone on any kind of network. It's been proven time and time again these last 2 yrs. that these devices are insecure at the least. Personally, I believe the so called HAVA act is a dagger in the heart of American democracy and that computers need to be removed entirely from the voting process and replaced with PAPER BALLOTS. It's not so easy to steal entire elections using paper it's a breeze doing it with digital devices.


by Blutodog on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:59:58 PM EST

Re: The Progressive Movement and The Looming Penns (none / 0)

In Allegheny county (read the city of Pittsburgh and surrounding area) we'll be voting on Ivotronic touch screen machines. There's no paper trail to speak of. There's movements to change this, but it's highly unlikely that'll happen before November.

This is worrying for us here as we're the other very strongly Democratic voting enclave in PA - though we're signifigantly smaller in number compared to Philly. That said I believe Philly is using similar machines itself.

I personally think the most senseable system would be a machine that fills out your ballot for you, prints it, you verify or change it and then put it in a ballot box and then ballots are counted via an OCR system. If there's a need for a recount it can still be conducted by hand.

I don't trust votes just being stored in a machine - it could tell you've voted a stright Democratic ticket and really record your votes as straight Republican. Even if it printed out something behind a transparent window that you could verify that doesn't stop the machine from recording it differently inside the black box.


by Quinton on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Progressive Movement and The Looming Penns (none / 0)

These machines are all built for fraud. We should all be demanding PAPER ballots. All any of us need is a Pencil and a Paper ballot to mark. It worked just fine for 200 yrs. Speed isn't important but the ability to verify is essential. Technology is being used to steal our elections and ironically being promoted as a "fix" for other bad technology. The only technology we need is paper and pencils it's lo tech. and paper makes it extremely hard to de-fraud elections on a massive scale without an open conspiracy and outright fraud. The computers are just making it easy for the rethugs or whomever is behind this whole scheme to destroy democracy. The bottom line is the Rethugs have shown they will steal, kill, defame, lie in short do whatever it takes to hold onto power. Plus, they are so cocky about it now, having gotten away with it over and over recently that they don't seem to care that we know.


by Blutodog on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Progressive Movement and The Looming Penns (none / 0)

I personally think the most senseable system would be a machine that fills out your ballot for you, prints it, you verify or change it and then put it in a ballot box and then ballots are counted via an OCR system. If there's a need for a recount it can still be conducted by hand.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's thought of this.  I've been pushing this idea since late November 2000, because it marries the strengths of both systems - the ease of touch-screen with the verifiability of paper.


by RT on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Progressive Movement (3.00 / 1)

For those of you who still believe that fighting internal Democratic battles is somehow a waste of progressive resources, you need to look no further than to Pennsylvania for counter-evidence.

For some time I've been in the camp that believes contested primaries and vigorous debate and criticism (right up to election day if necessary) make candidates and the party stronger.

I wasn't always. But watching Democrats sell out and get their nominations unopposed -- and the subsequent defeats and betrayels -- made me realize that politics is like boxing in that sparring is a requisite to getting into shape for the real bout. It's also necessary in order to put into office public officials who will represent the people rather than moneyed interests.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:34:28 PM EST

Republican turnout in primary (none / 0)

It is noteworthy I think that the primary turnout this year for Weldon (PA-07) and Gerlach (PA-06) was about half that of 2004.  The turnout for Sestak (PA-07) and Murphy plus Liebowitz (PA-06) was about the same, if not a bit more, as that for the Dems in 2004.  This has to speak for the lack of enthusiasm on the part of Republicans.

Dinniman's substantial win for State Senate in the special election also bodes well for Lois Murphy as that was done mostly in Chester County, Gerlach's stronghold. Turnout for Gerlach in Chester County was lots more than that for Murphy plus Liebowitz, but cutting into that with Dinniman's help would be devastating.


by accumbens on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:52:33 PM EST

Re: Republican turnout in primary (none / 0)

Yep. ChesCo is what beat Lois Murphy last time out.
If she can cut into Gerlach's support there, she'll
win.
by phillydem on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:16:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ChesCo is what beat Lois Murphy last time out. (none / 0)

While it's true that Gerlach's edge in ChesCo was larger than the lead Lois built in MontCo and Berks (and funny how the most Republican precincts in ChesCo didn't report in until more than 2 hours after all the other votes were reported), the campaign is focused on the almost 10k votes left on the table in MontCo in '04. Lois got that many less votes than Kerry did in MontCo. The campaign felt that they could have done more to nail down every vote in Lois's home base and plan to do so this time around.


by Joe in Wynnewood PA on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ChesCo is what beat Lois Murphy last time out. (none / 0)

That's good to hear, but I'm sure she'll take any extra votes from ChesCo, too.


by phillydem on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 05:54:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Progressiveg Pennsylvania Landslides (none / 0)

It's a interesting time here in PA.  Strong candidates are rising to the top, sometimes too many for one seat.

Max Cleland just visited the area in support of a candidate for State house:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_05_28_at rios_archive.html#114902343198576115

Another fighting Dem, running in an area where it previously would be considered futile.

-contest every seat-


by lutton on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:02:18 PM EST

Re: The Progressive Movement and The Looming Penns (2.00 / 1)

Bob Casey can win and almost certainly will. But so could have an actual progressive, given Santorum's weakness.  Throwing institutional strength behind Casey means we'll have another unreliable vote in Congress and in 6 or 12 years we'll have to get rid of him like we're trying to get rid of Lieberman.


by Ian Welsh on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:10:58 PM EST

People could've backed Hafer (none / 0)

How long ago were we having this discussion on MyDD?  About a year ago?

Rendell wanted Hafer, but backed off after the machine leaned on him.

You can't blame him.  At the time Casey-Santorum looked like The War for 2006, and no one wanted Hafer's views on abortion to come to the front of the debate.

Well, gang?  All the Chuck P partisans and all the gooniebirds who decried Hafer as a turncoat Republican ... where are you all now?

Hafer got ran out of the GOP because the Norquist Republicans demand that the Rockefeller Republicans beat it.

Hafer and Rendell have a rapport, and could have been a great top of the ticket.  Instead, we have Casey and Rendell in separate orbits.  It's a waste of potential synergy between the two races.

But, there's a lesson here: you take the best horse who can win with your ideals.

No one wanted to back Hafer, and instead started casting about the for the next Paul Wellstone.

We could have had a Rockefeller Republican woman, supporting liberal causes.

This is not to say Casey will be a disaster.  I disagree on that altogether.

While Casey is a social conservative, he isn't going to be abolishing Social Security anytime soon.

I do wish he were closer to Rendell's platform, but Casey was a choice made before the current situation materialized.

And Hafer can't be boo-hooing -- she's going to get her pick of a Senate seat or the governor's mansion in 2010.

That is the upside to Casey: it leaves some depth on the bench if we win big in 2006.


by jcjcjc on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Looming PA Landslides (none / 0)

Chris, I totally agree with you about impending congressional victories for Sestak, and the 2 Murphys in the Philly suburbs. However there are a couple of other races around the state-- more under the radar-- which look a lot more winnable after the reality check of the Pennsylvania primary a couple weeks ago. The big story, aside from the defeat of the Republicans' two top legislative leaders, Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer and Senate Majority Leader Chip Brightbill, was the near-defeat of right-wing congressloon Don Sherwood (PA-10) by an unknown, unfinanced school guidance counselor. He'll face a much tougher fight against Fighting Dem Chris Carney. The other race with a new dynamic is up in Erie (PA-03). No one thought GOP rubber-stamper Phil English would be vulnerable-- except a progressive Democrat named Steven Porter. On primary night neither Portner nor English had any opposition. English drew 30,042 votes and Porter drew 30,612 votes. I'd say we have a contest in the third. And anyone who is interested in helping out financially will find Lois Murphy, Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak and Steven Porter all up on the DWT ACT BLUE Page.


by DownWithTyranny on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:27:42 PM EST

If you're in PA... (none / 0)

...and you're willing to help out (i.e. organize neighborhood walks, etc.), call up the State Party HQ in Harrisburg and talk to Bailey Childers. Bailey (check out her blog here) is a DNC field organizer who worked with me for Kerry in '04 in Central PA, and could really use some motivated Dems who could organize some neighborhood door-knocks.

If we want to make the figures we're seeing here a reality, it takes hard work.  Believe me, the Republicans are doing it.

Just tell her that the guy who used to sleep in her office sent you. =]


by docciavelli on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:30:18 PM EST

How vulnerable is PA-03? (none / 0)

I know English was reelected with 60% last time around that is why I'm no so confident and it was agenst the same guy.


Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.
by Liberal on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:03:52 AM EST

Re: How vulnerable is PA-03? (none / 0)

Voter registration in that district is pretty evenly split so it should, by rights, be at least a competitive seat. The NW isn't really wingnut territory and it could be English has become too conservative for that district, but we'll see.


by phillydem on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 05:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Progressive Movement and The Looming Penns (none / 0)

The PA house can be taken back for Democrats. The way to win is going to be for everyone to support local candidates campaigns and to close ranks and unite for a big Democratic victory in November. To that end, let me reccomend Bryan Lentz, a veteran of Bosnia and Iraq, for state rep inside Joe Sestak's district (PA-7). Max Cleland has come out to campaign for Bryan Lentz, and Bryan needs your support too


-Daniel
by dleigh on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:26:47 PM EST


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.