Skip to main content

View Diary: PA-Sen: Two Very Contrasting Polls In One Day (15 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Joe Sestak barely lost in a GOP wave year (0+ / 0-)

    Bob Casey is struggling against an awful challenger in a neutral year. It's pretty clear his precious "conservadems" have abandoned him and he'll have to be dragged over the finish line by Obama voters who don't like his flirtations with the asshole caucus of Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman but will hold their nose and vote for him anyway.

    Not to mention he has even less excuse to be a conservadem than Mary Landrieu, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, etc. They're from red states where teabaggers are the majority, so I can understand it from them. But PA hasn't voted Republican since 1988, yet Casey is still looking over his shoulder and kissing teabagger ass as if he has something to be afraid of. PA deserves better.

    •  Wow, you really didn't read my post and you sound (0+ / 0-)

      a little too radical here.  And I'm someone who backed Sestak over Specter early on in the 2010 primary.  Plus what evidence do you have that conservaDems are fleeing Casey?  Plus 11 points is hardly struggling.  You want a better Democrat in the Senate?  Ok, how about instead of praying for Casey to lose you spend your time persuading moderate voters in PA who are both pro-choice and pro-organized labor to shift to the left?  Again, Casey backed the public option, Landrieu didn't.  Casey voted for the DREAM Act, Ben Nelson didn't.  Yeah, Sestak barely lost but he also had a very tough struggle after the primary and it took the late Arlen Specter's endorsement and inviting Sestak to lunch to meet with other Senate Democrats to help get people behind him.  But Sestak failed to get the Philly suburbs which have been trending more Democrat.  He only won his district.  

      •  Depends on the poll you look at (0+ / 0-)

        In half the polls he's underperforming Obama, in half he's outperforming him. Either way, it's clear the kisses he's blown to the teabaggers aren't helping him very much if he's on par with Obama who they despise, give or take a point or two.

        If conservatives aren't fleeing Casey, he should be winning by 15-20 points. He very clearly is not. They've gone to their true home, teabaggin' Tom Smith, and his kisses fell on deaf ears.

        Sestak proved a real Democrat can win in PA, simply because of the fact that he fell just short in a GOP wave year. Logically, that would mean he almost certainly would have won in a neutral or Dem wave year.

        And yeah, I can make comparisons too. Even Kay Hagan from North Carolina (a state that gave a landslide for Bush twice) is pro-choice. Bob Casey, from a state that went Clinton-Clinton-Gore-Kerry-Obama, is anti-choice and voted for the disgusting anti-woman Blunt Amendment, along with two Democrats from the crimson red states of Nebraska and West Virginia. Even Landrieu, Pryor, Johnson, Begich, Baucus, and Conrad had the courage to vote against that abomination!

        •  Dude, seriously, it's different scenarios for (0+ / 0-)

          different folks.  First off, in polls, even ones conducted by PA GOP groups shows Casey doing well with conservatives in Central PA and his biggest lead is with moderates.  Also I know guys like you are like, "Well why isn't he winning by as big of a margin as he did in 2006?"  That's because a lot of PA Republicans stayed home in 2006 or voted for Casey just that once to send a message to the state GOP after how much of an embarrassment Santorum was.  Also Hagan's only become more pro-choice now than she was when she was elected.  She campaigned in 2008 on being personally pro-life.  Harris Wofford, Joe Clark and Joe Duffey already proved Democrats can win but the more progressive ones have a tougher time.  Joseph Clark was defeated in 1968 by liberal Republican Richard Schweiker because he became more pro-gun control.  Plus Smith is painting Casey as Senator Zero and tying him too much to Obama.  Casey's proven to have a good working record.  You sir are demonizing him too much and you aren't understanding the different electorate between now and 2006.  Bush's unpopularity dragged a lot of Republicans down but races in Montana and Missouri and Virginia were very close.  Sherrod Brown is a progressive who I love but if DeWine hadn't been busted with a scandal and made pathetic last minute jump on the Gang of 14 and paint himself as a moderate, Brown would've had a tougher time.  I know this because I remember talking to a Republican political analyst and I was bragging at the time how Jack Abramhoff is hurting guys like DeWine.  he actually showed me evidence that DeWine wasn't losing because of Abramhoff it's because right wingers in Ohio felt like DeWine had flicked them the bird so they stayed home.    Casey himself said early on he didn't believe he would win re-election with the same margin he did in 2006 and he was for a long time the GOP's top target in 2012 because they lucked out big in 2010.  Also you have to remember that Casey, unlike all the other PA Democrats like Rendell and Sestak, endorsed Obama over Hilary in the 2008 primary.  Plus last year, polls in PA looked really bad for Obama.  Plus the Morning Call poll showed a large percentage of PA voters still undecided.  At this point, that number should be a lot smaller hence why I agree more with PPP's polling than Morning Call.  Plus, Philly Inquirer showed him ahead by 10 points recently.  Look, I know why Dems aren't as excited but dedicated to voting for Casey and it's not entirely because of his pro-life stance.  PA Democrats from Philly really wanted Joe Hoffel to try again but Rendell talked him out of it.  I know because I worked a DNC fundraiser in Philly where Howard Dean was speaking to a group of Dems who complained to Dean about how Rendell was trying to take away their primary.  But aside from Hoffell, our bench was really small.  I even attended Chuck Pennachio events but all he did was constantly attack Casey and I jumped ships because if you're familiar with the old saying about primaries, "Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love."  Luckily Dean talked greatly about Casey.  They're not pleased with Casey because they are still bitter about feeling they had no other choice but to vote for him.  But Rendell was right about Casey and we won that race and now a bad man like Santorum is no longer our Senator.  Plus voters have shitty memories and with the economy that way it is, they'll be angry at anyone who is in charge even if they had nothing to do with the mess.  Hence why Casey's lead isn't as big as it was in 2006.  The PA GOP wanted someone who had Santorum's charisma but didn't expose how bat shit crazy they were and I think they see that with Smith.  Plus just because a state goes blue in the Presidential election doesn't mean they're on board with the candidates' platform 100%.  See I really don't have a problem with people on this site complaining about Casey but it's your comments though that aren't a hundred percent accurate and those type of comments can hurt the good guys.  You want to forever hold a grudge against Casey for the Blunt Amendment, fine.  But don't go making comments like these without looking a little closer at some facts and figures.  

      •  Oh, and just for the record (0+ / 0-)

        You don't have to worry about me "praying for Casey to lose". I, like many others, will be voting for him while holding my nose despite the fact that he poked us in the eye multiple times, the very people who will be putting him over the top, solely because the alternative is so much worse. If he doesn't shape up though, he may end up going the way of Jason Altmire or Tim Holden.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site