(Note: This is NOT a "Bash Bobby Casey" diary - this is a POSITIVE article that explains why Chuck should be our nominee, and why he can win)
http://www.chuck2006.com
In the last several months, there has been a great deal of discord and strife between Democratic supporters of State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. and Professor Chuck Pennacchio. The winner of the primary will face US Senator Rick Santorum, a man each sides loves to hate (and rightfully so). Even as one of Chuck's supporters, I have tried to stay away as much as possible from the intercenine battle. However, I feel that it is my responsibility as a supporter to explain WHY I support Chuck to be our nominee and our next US Senator. Simply put, CHUCK CAN AND WILL WIN - and I'll explain how and why on the flip.
Reason #1 for Chuck to Win: Geography
When we take a look at Pennsylvania, many of us remember the words of James Carville many years ago: "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between". In other words, Pennsylvania has liberal enclaves stuck in between the Northern equivalent of Jesusland. Unfortunately, Carville's assessment of Pennsylvania is not entirely true anymore. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton carried Pennsylvania by 9% each time, so the question of "how Democratic" each enclave was never came into form.
In 2000, however, the map changed. Al Gore won Pennsylvania again, but this time by 4%, 50.6-46.3. In 1996 Clinton carried nearly the entire Western and Eastern edges of the state, including the suburbs of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. In 2000, Gore lost most of the Pittsburgh suburbs, but won most of the Philadelphia ones. In 2004 John Kerry repeated this pattern to an even more narrow degree-winning just four Pittsburgh-area counties to Gore's seven and Clinton's sixteen (there are 18 around Pittsburgh).
By contrast, Philadelphia and its suburbs have stayed constant for the Democrats. Ten counties here backed Clinton in 1996, nine backed Gore and nine backed Kerry. What's the difference? Simply put, it all goes back to demographics. Philadelphia's suburbs are mostly middle-class, with an abundance of white-collar workers. As any political scientist will tell you, they tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. On the other hand, Pittsburgh and its suburbs are generally blue-collar in orientation; they're the New Deal "Reagan Democrats" that are socially conservative and economically populist. While the former has been growing in population, the latter has been rapidly shrinking.
How does this relate to Chuck? It does in two ways, and they refer to Rick Santorum. Casey's strategy, as we all know, is to win back many of the Pittsburgh counties (as well as some of the Central areas) while holding the fort down in the Philadelphia area. This could very well work; it was great for his father back in 1986, after all. And indeed, if he is the nominee it will probably work.
However, in Chuck's case the demographics work for him JUST AS WELL. His base of operations is radically different from Casey's; dominate the "Rendell sphere" of Pennsylvania and win enough votes elsewhere to make up the difference. It worked great for Rendell in 2002, as he won 53%-44% for Governor without winning half a dozen counties outside of his "sphere" (he was a popular Mayor of Philadelphia until 1999). He piled up massive margins in Philadelphia itself and rolled up the rest of the suburban counties in landslides (such as over 60% in Montgomery County, which in 1990 was the only county to vote against Casey Sr.).
Chuck is not Ed Rendell, to be certain-but he doesn't have to be, either. The very name of Rick Santorum can bring some very venemous words to the surface of a Philadelphia voter. And with Governor Rendell facing a tough reelection (he's trailing Lynn Swann 45-43 in a recent Rasumssen poll), expect him to ramp up his base to the full extent he can. By extension, Chuck benefits. Chuck himself hails from Bucks County, an important county indeed under the "Rendell strategy", and has a strong base of operations centered there. (Data here courtesy of Dave Leip's Election Atlas,
http://uselectionatlas.org/...)
So, to summarize: The Pennsylvania Democratic base has changed dramatically since 1992. Gore, Rendell and Kerry all won statewide DESPITE losing most of Western Pennsylvania. A progressive like Chuck would be equally unlikely to replicate Clinton's 1992 coalition, but would be able to build on the same coalition that the three previous Democrats have used. That in itself would be enough to produce a victory. Which leads me to my next point:
Reason #2 for Chuck to Win: Polling
A lot of typing has been done over the relative merits and demerits of the recent Zogby/Op-Ed News Poll. I would like to point out a set of numbers that didn't get as much coverage as it ought to have - namely, the numbers pitting Santorum against all three of his opponents WITHOUT the issue stances information given.
As expected, Bob Casey clobbers Santorum in this initial poll, 50-38. This is completely in line with other recent polls, such as Strategic Vision's 50-40 and Rasmussen's 53-38. This shows that Casey is a strong initial candidate, who might well be able to hold a strong lead throughout the campaign.
But the numbers for a Chuck/Santorum matchup are just as bad for the incumbent:
Santorum: 41.1%
Pennacchio-40.3%
Now, you may be asking "What is MrLiberal smoking? How is Santorum ahead by 1% better than Casey's 12% lead?" The answer is this: even with Chuck's low visibility and little funding, he STILL draws 40% of the vote and holds Santorum to 41%. Santorum is also stuck at 41% against Alan Sandals, the third Democrat in the race and who is also little-known (Sandals gets 39%). http://www.opednews.com/...
These are important numbers. If Rick Santorum can only get 41% against a guy named Chuck Pennacchio (who draws a general "who?" amongst Pennsylvanians), THEN HE IS TOAST. In the favorable climate for Democrats that 2006 seems to be producing, with a Republican incumbent who SUSA pegs at a NEGATIVE approval rating in its January poll, Santorum is by far the most vulnerable incumbent. And even the best damn campaign in the world can't overcome even half of the problems Santorum is beset with.
Remember, the set of numbers mentioned here are WITHOUT added information. That means that if Chuck were to emerge as the nominee, he would already start in a dead-heat with Santorum - and that would make this race worth fighting for every step of the way. Which brings me to my third point:
Reason #3 for Chuck To Win: The DSCC isn't stupid
Chuck Schumer recruited Bobby Casey for a reason: to beat Rick Santorum. While that reasoning may be flawed, it is part of a deliberate policy by the DSCC: TO END RICK SANTORUM'S CAREER. Santorum has made clear in the past that he wants to run for President in 2008, and while he is a fundamentalist nutjob, he is also a charismatic one. If the GOP continues to fight amongst itself for restricting immigration and promoting their own religious values on everyone else, then Santorum could very well emerge as the Republican nominee. Now, isn't that a scary thought?
"I, Richard J. Santorum do solemnly swear..."
A pox on that! Now, imagine for a second that Chuck Pennacchio pulls off the upset of the decade and beats Casey in the primary. What is the DSCC going to do? Pack up its bags and go home, possibly allowing Rick Santorum to win reelection thanks to their inactivity? Give the NRSC a field day by abandoning their #1 target for 2006? Of course not - the DSCC isn't stupid. They know as much as we do the threat that Rick Santorum provides to this nation and to Pennsylvania, and they, too want to be rid of him for good.
I'll tell you what would happen if Chuck won the primary. The DSCC would be silent for a few days, as the NRSC gloated about the results. Then, the DSCC would make an appointment with their new US Senate nominee and give him the support he needs. While Santorum gets beat up by DSCC ads, Chuck raises his positive ratings through his own ads (helped by new, national contributors eager to beat Santorum) and takes a clear lead to victory.
Chuck Schumer will play ball in Pennsylvania in 2006, no matter what. The question is what bat we're going to give him to swing with against pitcher Santorum; do we give him a wooden or an aluminum bat? Obviously, you want to give him the aluminum one, and so you'll give him the "Chuck Pennacchio Bat". The pitch (a curveball to the right) is thrown, and Schumer hits a home run. That's the plan, and that's how Chuck Pennacchio gets his funding.
It should also be mentioned that the media attention Pennacchio would get from beating Casey would be enormous. After all, here's this little-known college professor that just beat the State Treasurer, who's also the son of a beloved late Governor! How did it happen, CNN will exclaim, and the press will run wild with Penna-mania. As it was with Paul Hackett in the special election, nearly all the coverage will be positive, and the name of "Pennacchio" will become far more known than before. Much like Gary Hart in 1984 became a political celebrity overnight against Walter Mondale, so too would Pennacchio jump into the spotlight because of his primary upset.
Summary: The DSCC will support any nominee against Rick Santorum, in order to prevent his presidential hopes for 2008. And being catapulted into the national spotlight is often just as good a campaign strategy as being well-known when you start out.
My closing argument (if you'd call it that) is this: Pennsylvanians have a golden opportunity in 2006 - to oust an extremist US Senator and replace him with a progressive Democrat. Chuck Pennacchio can beat Rick Santorum, just as Bobby Casey can, and represents a real change for the better at the same time. The Keystone State need not settle for "the lesser of two evils" in 2006, but can support a strong and able candidate who will bring integrity and passion to Washington on their behalf. If Pennsylvania Democrats (and national Democrats with their dollars and feet) are willing to take the chance on Pennacchio, they will truly be winners in November.
Remember also that there's nothing to lose by backing Chuck. If he wins the primary, he win will the general election; if not, there is no shame in a Democratic process taking place. We as Americans deserve strong leaders and capable progressives; Chuck represents both of those. And so, as Jimmy Carter said in 1976, "Why not the best?" Why not back Chuck Pennacchio in 2006, and make history this year in America!
http://www.chuck2006.com