PA-12: Bring on November 2010!!!!!!!

Sinatra

Senior Member
Feb 5, 2009
8,013
1,008
48
Despite the media spin, the results, though not entirely favorable, give further evidence of the signficant shift toward conservatism in America as we head toward November 2010...

___

Yet that doesn't change the bottom line, which is this. The political demographics, the effect of the Senate primary, and the anti-Obama/Pelosi tone of the Democratic candidate were all uniquely favorable to the Democrats last night. Control of the House of Representatives is going to turn on districts that are much less Democratic than PA-12, on a day when the net effect of television advertising is not so heavily tilted toward the Democratic Party, and on the fate of incumbent Democrats who cannot so easily hide from their national leaders.

And let's not forget the view from 30,000 feet. Last night we saw two Democratic incumbent senators - Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter - mired in the mid-40s in their primaries. In PA-12, we find a candidate who positioned himself as an old time Democrat winning 53% of the vote in a union district where 62% of the voters were registered Democrats. How does this "contradict" "all the evidence" of a very good Republican year?

_____

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - Is PA-12 a Bellwether?
 
Given the resources the GOP poured into the effort to capture the seat and the decisiveness of the defeat—as it turned out, it wasn’t really that close—the outcome casts serious doubt on the idea that the Democratic House majority is in jeopardy and offers comfort to a Democratic Party that is desperately in search of a glimmer of hope.

The district itself couldn’t have been more primed for a Republican victory. According to one recent poll, President Barack Obama’s approval rating in the 12th was a dismal 35 percent, compared to 55 percent who disapproved. His health care plan was equally unpopular—just 30 percent of those polled supported it, while 58 percent were in opposition.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was even more disliked in the blue-collar, western Pennsylvania-based seat: Just 23 percent viewed her favorably, compared to 63 percent who viewed her unfavorably.

Still, Democrat Mark Critz managed to pull off an eight-point victory, 53 percent to 45 percent, over Republican Tim Burns in a district that John McCain narrowly won in 2008—the only one in the nation that voted for John Kerry in 2004 and McCain four years later.

Read more: The GOP's special failure - Jonathan Martin and Charles Mahtesian - POLITICO.com
The GOP's special failure - Jonathan Martin and Charles Mahtesian - POLITICO.com
 
Despite the media spin, the results, though not entirely favorable, give further evidence of the signficant shift toward conservatism in America as we head toward November 2010...

___

Yet that doesn't change the bottom line, which is this. The political demographics, the effect of the Senate primary, and the anti-Obama/Pelosi tone of the Democratic candidate were all uniquely favorable to the Democrats last night. Control of the House of Representatives is going to turn on districts that are much less Democratic than PA-12, on a day when the net effect of television advertising is not so heavily tilted toward the Democratic Party, and on the fate of incumbent Democrats who cannot so easily hide from their national leaders.

And let's not forget the view from 30,000 feet. Last night we saw two Democratic incumbent senators - Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter - mired in the mid-40s in their primaries. In PA-12, we find a candidate who positioned himself as an old time Democrat winning 53% of the vote in a union district where 62% of the voters were registered Democrats. How does this "contradict" "all the evidence" of a very good Republican year?

_____

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - Is PA-12 a Bellwether?

They do? Please explain HOW the results do that...
 
NEXT!!!! :eusa_angel:

Martin and Mahtesian make some valid points, but they are massively overstating their case. The details of last night's special election don't support the bellwether argument as these two have constructed it.

Let's begin with the political demography of the district. In 2004, George W. Bush won 255 congressional districts. PA-12 was not one of them. From 1994 to 2006, the Republicans held the United States House of Representatives, controlling as many as 232 seats. PA-12 was never one of them. In fact, the Republican-dominated Pennsylvania legislature created a heavily Democratic 12th district in 2002 by moving conservative voters around to generate the Republican-leaning 18th district (currently held by Republican Tim Murphy).


...This is a hugely important point to bear in mind. My back-of-the-envelope calculation of the party turnout in last night's election indicates that a whopping 62% of the voters were Democratic, just 34% Republican, and a measly 4% were Independent or had a third party affiliation. If you give Republican Burns 90% of the Republican vote and 60% of the Independent vote, that means Burns won about one in five Democrats. That's a very decent haul, but it is just not enough in a district where there are so many Democrats coming out to vote.


RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - Is PA-12 a Bellwether?
 
Im sure the GOP will figure out how to screw it up.

I just hope I am wrong.


No worries - the Republican Machine is FINALLY getting it, and November 2010 is going to prove a blowout against the Dems. Last night's primary elections clearly reinforced that soon-to-be fact.
 
Im sure the GOP will figure out how to screw it up.

I just hope I am wrong.


No worries - the Republican Machine is FINALLY getting it, and November 2010 is going to prove a blowout against the Dems. Last night's primary elections clearly reinforced that soon-to-be fact.

where were you in 2006?
 
No worries - the Republican Machine is FINALLY getting it, and November 2010 is going to prove a blowout against the Dems. Last night's primary elections clearly reinforced that soon-to-be fact.

where were you in 2006?


Voting against Republicans...

In 2006 people made predictions right up until shortly before the election. Expert opinions---supposedly. Here you are making predictions very far out.

:eusa_whistle:
 
Keep whistling by the graveyard pard.

You KNOW November is looking mighty frightful for the Democrat Party. Your posts reek of that fear!!!!

_____


where were you in 2006?


Voting against Republicans...

In 2006 people made predictions right up until shortly before the election. Expert opinions---supposedly. Here you are making predictions very far out.

:eusa_whistle:
 
Keep whistling by the graveyard pard.

You KNOW November is looking mighty frightful for the Democrat Party. Your posts reek of that fear!!!!

_____


Voting against Republicans...

In 2006 people made predictions right up until shortly before the election. Expert opinions---supposedly. Here you are making predictions very far out.

:eusa_whistle:

:cuckoo:

I'm not a Democrat and I fear very little about the next few elections.
 
this is bad news, for obama.

why?

look at Reagan after his first year in office. Look at Reagan's numbers. Look at the first biography Lou Cannon wrote Lou Cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# Reagan, (1982)

# President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, (1991)

# Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio: History as Told through the Collection of the Ronald Reagan Library and Museum, (2001)

# Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power, (2003)


FEB 2010:
A year into his presidency, not quite halfway through what would prove a 17-month recession, Reagan was in worse standing with the public than President Barack Obama is today.

In the Gallup polling of 1982, his approval rating hovered in the low forties throughout the year, bottoming at the beginning of 1983 at 35 percent.

This turned out to be the lowest rating of Reagan's two-term presidency but at the time many who worked in the White House were privately betting that he wouldn't even be a candidate in 1984, let alone have a second term in the White House.

His aides' gloominess was reflected in my reporting for The Washington Post, for which I was senior White House correspondent, and also in a book that year in which I predicted that Reagan would not run.
- Stay the Course: Reagan's Example for Obama
 
Last edited:
this is bad news, for obama.

why?

look at Reagan after his first year in office. Look at Reagan's numbers. Look at the first biography Lou Cannon wrote Lou Cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# Reagan, (1982)

# President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, (1991)

# Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio: History as Told through the Collection of the Ronald Reagan Library and Museum, (2001)

# Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power, (2003)


FEB 2010:
A year into his presidency, not quite halfway through what would prove a 17-month recession, Reagan was in worse standing with the public than President Barack Obama is today.

In the Gallup polling of 1982, his approval rating hovered in the low forties throughout the year, bottoming at the beginning of 1983 at 35 percent.

This turned out to be the lowest rating of Reagan's two-term presidency but at the time many who worked in the White House were privately betting that he wouldn't even be a candidate in 1984, let alone have a second term in the White House.

His aides' gloominess was reflected in my reporting for The Washington Post, for which I was senior White House correspondent, and also in a book that year in which I predicted that Reagan would not run.
- Stay the Course: Reagan's Example for Obama

everything is bad news, for obama. if you listen to spinatra.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top