• Gore took TN for granted, Santorum is more popular than you'd expect, and pro-choicers didn't finance a pro-life Democrat in the general election.

    The conservatives will come around and support Santorum.  They even came back to Specter, with less than 4% going to Clymer in the general.

  • also, Rendell has no interest in being one of 100 legislators.  He's an executive type.  (So, too, we thought, was Casey.)  

    Ron Klink, the pro-life Dem nominee in 2000, couldn't fundraise a dime in SE PA.

  • Pat Casey ran for Congress, not Bob.  Bob won two auditor general races, lost a gubernatorial primary to Rendell, then won his treasurer's race this year.
  • um, 2000?  More PA'ns voted for Rick Santorum than Al Gore.
  • "Gov. Rendell, how do you expect Bob Casey to win over pro-choice voters in the general election if he can't persuade them that he's worthy of their support in a contested primary?"

    "Sen. Reid, has Bob Casey expressed to you his opinion on how he'll evaluate judicial nominees like Leon Holmes?"

  • on a comment on Unintended Consequences over 9 years ago
    Yes, there would be problems, because a corporate-sponsored "weblog" could barrel through and destroy all sorts of CFR regulation.

    The alternative?  Treat websites and posts promoting candidates as being "independent expenditures" on behalf of campaigns, and figure out a way to value them.  Only expenditures aggregating over $250 in value have to be reported under current law so, presumably, only websites reaching huge numbers of people will be contributing sufficient value to have to report their activities.

  • on a comment on Unintended Consequences over 9 years ago
    All they need to do is declare that bloggers and websites are a form of media granted the same exemption from CFR as newspapers and tv stations.

    The alternative is possible, but a mess.

  • Well, if you make a post that advocates the election of a candidate, and it's seen by 100,000 people a day, it's something of value.  Either (a) you're a member of the media, and are exempt from FEC law, or (b) it's an independent expenditure, and must be reported if it's valued at over $250.
  • Well, Rendell will be raising money for Rendell in 2006, and labor gave Casey massive support in 2002, but it wasn't close to what he needed to beat Ed.  

    I agree that Casey presents a tough target for Santorum.  He'll have to focus on the advantages of incumbency, being in the majority and pork.

    I saw recently that Joe has joined a Philadelphia law firm.  To me, that suggest he's running in 2006.

    finally: Lois Murphy, Connie Williams.

  • Oh, sure -- I take as valid current polls which show Casey to be the most electable of the major candidates as of right now, and I believe those who say that Casey's not being encouraged because he's pro-life but because he's popular.

    I would rather support Hoeffel or Murphy or Hafer or Williams, and I believe they could defeat Santorum as well.  I also have severe concerns over Casey's ability to fundraise in SE PA, that he'll have the same cash issues that Ron Klink did in 2000, no matter what the DSCC is promising him now.

  • Well, hold on: Rendell did win the 5-county Philadelphia area, but I wouldn't call Berks, Northampton, Lehigh or especially Lancaster counties to be Philadelphia-area.  

    decent analysis here: "Even if Philadelphia is left out of the equation, Rendell still received almost 50% of the vote statewide and while his strongest support was close to home, he had friends in many places.

    "In the four suburban counties closest to Philadelphia, Rendell had even wider margins of victory than in the city itself, securing 81.7% of the vote in Bucks; 82.6% in Chester; 86.1% in Delaware; and 88.4% in Montgomery. Collectively, Rendell won the five-county Philadelphia area by more than 293,000 votes.

    "The total Democratic statewide turnout was 32.5%, for a total of 1,221,006 voters, but the geographic distribution of the votes was unlike any election in a generation.

    "In contrast to the unusually strong turnout (36.4%) in Southeastern Pennsylvania, voters in the rest of the state were surprisingly apathetic about this election. In Northeastern Pennsylvania, near Casey's hometown of Scranton, turnout was consistent with the state average of 32.5%, but much lower than would have been expected based on his candidacy for governor. In the Lehigh Valley, midway between the candidates' home counties, the turnout was approximately 30%.  In Southwestern Pennsylvania, the turnout was unusually low at 32.2%. In the rest of the state, turnout averaged approximately 27%."

  • Chuck's not my choice.

    Quick and dirty totals from this link:

    PA Votes Cast --
    Pres: 5,765,764   
    Senate: 5,558,525   
    PA AtG: 5,413,269
    PA AudG: 5,352,918   
    PA Treasurer: 5,473,824   

    Barely a significant difference.

  • My understanding is that he now supports gay adoption rights which he had previously opposed, but I'm not sure if he's in favor of legalising same-sex civil unions.

    He's very good on economic and labor issues; it's this pesky "fundamental equality" stuff he can't handle.

  • He was out-campaigned, out-manuevered on tactics and out-fundraised.

    He barely had an opponent in 2004; don't read too much into those numbers.  

    However: Santorum had more votes than Gore in 2000.

  • In his ideal world, no exception for rape/incest/life of mother even, but he'd be willing to sign into law a bill which contained such exceptions.


Advertise Blogads