Pat Toomey, are you completely delusional?

[Captain Carrot]

Reagan carried this state twice. I don't think this state has changed. (http://washingtonindependent.com/41765/in-1984-who-could-ask-for-more) You don't think Pennsylvania has changed in the past 24 years? 26, since you'll be running next year? Seriously? Hell, is there any area of the country that hasn't changed since 1984?

Pennsylvanians, please don't nominate him. Have someone somewhat sensible, like Ridge. Then again, Ridge and Specter are fairly similar, so perhaps that won't happen.

[Argent Towers]

The only solution is to wrap up a toaster inside a sheet, grab the sheet by the four corners, and then use it as a flail to smash his head in.

[Frostillicus]

I believe Lincoln carried Pennsylvania twice as well, so Toomey might be on to something here.

[appleciders]

You ain't Reagan, Pat.

[Guinastasia]

I wonder if Toomey forgotten that Pennsylvania hasn't been carried by a Republican since 1988. Clinton held PA twice, and then Gore, Kerry and Obama all gained Pennsylvania.

Stick that up your ass, Toomey.

[AdmiralCrunch]

This wouldn't be so funny if Toomey and company didn't sprint far to the right of Reagan Republicans years ago. Spector could carry the state as a Republican, but a stark-raving lunatic who thinks America didn't like Bush because he was too liberal will fail miserably. But keep it up Republicans, you'll have the most ideologically pure 15 Senators ever.

[Boyo Jim]

You know, I keep waiting for these guys to wake up and smell the pragmatic. But they don't -- they appear to actually believe they lost because John McCain moved too far to the left and dragged the party down with him.

[Captain Amazing]

One of the good things about your opponents being delusional means that it's more likely they'll lose. So you should pray that the Republicans nominate him.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Some of us tried praying that a right-wing nutjob like Reagan would get the Pubbie nom in the 1970s and 1980s, 'cuz he'd get beaten like a gong.

Put us off prayer forever, I tell ya.

[Jonathan Chance]

Well, what the hell do you expect Toomey to say? The guys got one chance at a Senatorial run and 2010 is that chance. He's got to play on the field before him and that means trying to assert that his chances are excellent for reasons X, Y, and Z even if those reasons appear delusional to outsiders. He MUST get his voters out there and that means trying to build an aura of victory.

[Siege]

But what he's overlooking is that Santorum got trounced a few years ago, and it wasn't because he wasn't conservative enough. An article in the newspaper today showed that if Toomey ran against Specter in the general election, he'd lose badly.

I've read Mr. Toomey's positions and his voting record, and I really don't like them. If he's the Republican candidate, I'll very happily vote for the Democratic candidate.

[Boyo Jim]

Well, what the hell do you expect Toomey to say? The guys got one chance at a Senatorial run and 2010 is that chance. He's got to play on the field before him and that means trying to assert that his chances are excellent for reasons X, Y, and Z even if those reasons appear delusional to outsiders. He MUST get his voters out there and that means trying to build an aura of victory.

I have to give the guy some credit for honesty. If getting elected is his main goal, he would moderate his political stances.

Spector has a different kind of honesty -- getting elected is the be-all and end-all for him, and he'd run with the Greens if he thought he could win that way. Personally, I hope some Dem smacks him down in the next primary and then kicks Toomey's ass in the general.

[jtgain]

But what he's overlooking is that Santorum got trounced a few years ago, and it wasn't because he wasn't conservative enough.

That comparison isn't really apt because Santorum ran against Bob Casey, Jr. a Dem from a well known political family who is pro-life and plenty conservative himself. It would be better to say that Santorum couldn't use his conservatism to full effect in that race.

All in all, Toomey is mostly correct. The whole of PA is a fairly conservative state. Gore and Kerry won tight races because they won by enormous margins in Philly.

[Boyo Jim]

That comparison isn't really apt because Santorum ran against Bob Casey, Jr. a Dem from a well known political family who is pro-life and plenty conservative himself. It would be better to say that Santorum couldn't use his conservatism to full effect in that race.

All in all, Toomey is mostly correct. The whole of PA is a fairly conservative state. Gore and Kerry won tight races because they won by enormous margins in Philly.


I'm not following this logic at all. Santorum lost to a less conservative candidate. Kerry and Gore won against more conservative candidates. And Toomey is 'mostly' correct? If he's 49% of voters correct, he's a loser.

[Kyla]

Can we have cites and shit? I don't know who this Toomey guy is.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That comparison isn't really apt because Santorum ran against Bob Casey, Jr. a Dem from a well known political family who is pro-life and plenty conservative himself. It would be better to say that Santorum couldn't use his conservatism to full effect in that race.

All in all, Toomey is mostly correct. The whole of PA is a fairly conservative state. Gore and Kerry won tight races because they won by enormous margins in Philly.
You're awful close to calling not-Philly "the real Pennsylvania" there.

[MilTan]

All in all, Toomey is mostly correct. The whole of PA is a fairly conservative state. Gore and Kerry won tight races because they won by enormous margins in Philly.

I'm not a fan of this type of argument. Does racking up huge victories in Philly not count? Philadelphians are Pennsylvanians, too. If Philly makes PA lean Democratic, then the only fair thing you can say is, "The rest of PA is fairly conservative," since the whole of PA has been voting for Democrats at the Presidential level for the past 20 years.

[Boyo Jim]

Can we have cites and shit? I don't know who this Toomey guy is.

Don't have cites, but Toomey is they guy who was going to challenge, and probably beat, Arlen Specter in the Republican primary. It's arguable he's the reason Specter switched parties.

He's also a bigwig in an extremely conservative group called the Club for Growth, which among other things wants to get rid of Republicans who aren't conservative enough for their tastes.

[Death of Rats]

The other thing to consider is that people on both sides of the Dem/Rep line will vote for Spectre off the name alone because that is who they have been voting for for years and as part of the majority now it is more likely that he will be able to pull some pork for his constituents before campaign time. You would be surprised how many middle of the road voters there are who are voting less on the D or R after the name and more for "who do I like". If he can wave some recent successes under the voters noses that will gain him more than the partisan bullshit.

[Simplicio]

I have to give the guy some credit for honesty. If getting elected is his main goal, he would moderate his political stances.

Except a week ago, his political stance was keyed to beat Arlen Specter in a GOP primary on the grounds Specter wasn't conservative enough. So not being "moderate" was basically his whole shtick. And he still may have a tough primary battle against moderate Tom Ridge.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

Some of us tried praying that a right-wing nutjob like Reagan would get the Pubbie nom in the 1970s and 1980s, 'cuz he'd get beaten like a gong.

Put us off prayer forever, I tell ya.

Oh my stars! :eek:

THAT'S what happened! :p

How depressing, though. It's so much better to have sane enemies. At least if you don't always win it doesn't mean there's monkeys burning down the house.

[Minnie Luna]

jtgain

While the rural areas of PA are "mostly conservative", no one really cares. Philly, Pittsburgh and "moving toward liberal" Harrisburg are the population centers where the Repubs need to get votes, and they are having a hard time doing so.

Santorum is a joke. He was the number 3 Republican and couldn't count on that to keep him in office. He tried to promote Intelligent Design by adding it in to the "No Child Left Behind" Act. Not to mention the equating of homosexuality with bestiality.

[Anne Neville]

I promise not to vote for Toomey.

I'm not a fan of this type of argument. Does racking up huge victories in Philly not count? Philadelphians are Pennsylvanians, too. If Philly makes PA lean Democratic, then the only fair thing you can say is, "The rest of PA is fairly conservative," since the whole of PA has been voting for Democrats at the Presidential level for the past 20 years.

We Pittsburghers lean Democratic, too.

I have heard Pennsylvania described as "Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Alabama in between". I try hard to make sure to vote and cancel out at least one vote from the center of the state.

[Carl Corey]

I promise not to vote for Toomey.



We Pittsburghers lean Democratic, too.

I have heard Pennsylvania described as "Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Alabama in between". I try hard to make sure to vote and cancel out at least one vote from the center of the state.

I always heard it as "Pennsyltucky." From people who grew up there.

[Giles]

I always heard it as "Pennsyltucky." From people who grew up there.
I've never lived there, but I've driven around the area a lot, and Appalachia from Tennessee through Kentucky, southeast Ohio and West Virginia, to central Pennsylvania does seem to be a distinct region.

[HelenTroy]

I promise not to vote for Toomey.



We Pittsburghers lean Democratic, too.

I have heard Pennsylvania described as "Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Alabama in between". I try hard to make sure to vote and cancel out at least one vote from the center of the state.

I have to comment on this. I used to joking say the same thing, oh almost 20 years ago. Times change. Central PA is more liberal and progressive than it is given credit for. As noted above, Harrisburg is pretty blue and that has spread to the surrounding areas. The backwards folk stereotype has got to end. There are still pockets of places that may still fit that image, but "Pennsyltucky" we aren't. Obama won by a decent margin here, and it wasn't just Philly carrying him.

[Captain Amazing]

Some of us tried praying that a right-wing nutjob like Reagan would get the Pubbie nom in the 1970s and 1980s, 'cuz he'd get beaten like a gong.

Put us off prayer forever, I tell ya.

Well, in that case, you were the one with a delusional opinion about the public mood.

[Boyo Jim]

Except a week ago, his political stance was keyed to beat Arlen Specter in a GOP primary on the grounds Specter wasn't conservative enough. So not being "moderate" was basically his whole shtick. And he still may have a tough primary battle against moderate Tom Ridge.

So Toomey has some interesting choices to make. If he moderates to improve his electoral chances, he'll alienate his extremist conservative buds. (He used to be the chairman of the Club for Growth.) If he wants to be a mover and shaker in the cigar smoke filled back rooms of Pub conservatives, he's probably going to lose the election.

I don't think he understands this. I think he really believes that Pubs are losing because they are moving to the left, rather than -- like Specter -- they are moving to the left because they are losing.

[jtgain]

jtgain

While the rural areas of PA are "mostly conservative", no one really cares.

That's a good electoral strategy: We don't care about you.


Philly, Pittsburgh and "moving toward liberal" Harrisburg are the population centers where the Repubs need to get votes, and they are having a hard time doing so.

Republicans have never won urban areas and they will continue to not win them. Reagan didn't win them. Bush I and Bush II in his two wins never won them.

All of these "Republicans need to do X to win" posts that have infiltrated this board come from posters who don't want Republicans to win. These posts all show extreme overconfidence in the level of the victory last year. The GOP is not dead by any stretch and they don't need any type of massive overhaul of their message. They simply need to rid themselves of the personalities who became drunk on their own power. Santorum was one of those..

[Really Not All That Bright]

They simply need to rid themselves of the personalities who became drunk on their own power. Santorum was one of those.
Then why are they lining up to kiss Rush Limbaugh's dimpled ass, pray tell?

[Zeriel]

Then why are they lining up to kiss Rush Limbaugh's dimpled ass, pray tell?

Because what they NEED to do and what they ARE doing are two different things?

[Captain Carrot]

The GOP is not dead by any stretch and they don't need any type of massive overhaul of their message.Yeah, you go ahead with the same message. We'll enjoy watching you lose over and over again.
They simply need to rid themselves of the personalities who became drunk on their own power. Santorum was one of those..Santorum's main problem, I think, was that he was a sex-crazed (in terms of ranting about it) conservative Christian, and Bob Casey was a lot more appealing.

Power-crazy incumbents do not alone make a party lose 50 House seats and 14 Senate seats in two cycles, not to mention the White House, several governors' mansions, and not a few legislatures. You've got bigger problems than that.

[Giles]

You've got bigger problems than that.
Yes, the big picture is that the American electorate is slowly moving to the left (even if it's nowhere near Canada or western Europe yet), while the GOP is rapidly moving to the right, and there doesn't seem to be a realistic scenario where it would move back towards the centre.

What might happen is a new centre-right party, formed from moderate Republicans like Senators Snowe and Collins (R-ME), and moderate Democrat leaners or independents like Senators Lieberman and Specter. If I had a vote, I wouldn't vote for a party like that (I'm too leftist), but it would fill what is now a gap in the political spectrum, and appeal to a large segment of the voting public. The big problem is that electoral laws in the US are hugely biassed against third parties.

[Stink Fish Pot]

Santorum's main problem, I think, was that he was a sex-crazed (in terms of ranting about it) conservative Christian, and Bob Casey was a lot more appealing.


Bob Casey appealing? Have you seen the man's eyebrows? :dubious:

OK, Santorum was being pushed hard by the GOP because he was a Republican Senator from a large rust belt state. And he didn't handle it well. His head swelled. The thing I remember the most about him was that his collars were always tight around his neck, and he looked like "Sam the Eagle" from the Muppet Show.

Pennslytucky it is not. That's mostly spouted by (IME) from the snobby weenies from NJ, who elect their own set of "advanced" people. The Alabama in the middle always comes around at Presidential election time, but that's the media. And anyone in NJ who couldn't tell that McGreevy was gay was as delusional as any "Pennsyltuckian" :p

When it comes down to it, Philly IS the major problem for Republicans. Pittsburgh leans to the left, but they are a mostly fiscally conservative group and as a whole I'd guess they are pretty centrist, even if they tend to vote democratic. But they vote democratic in large part out of habit. The unions were very strong there, and families tend to vote the way their parents did. I had a conversation about this with my father, who's father was a union man. A very social and fiscal conservative voted Democrat because they were for the working man. My father voted democrat for the same reason. But on most singular issues, they would be right of center.

If PA could give Philly to NJ, Republicans would have a chance.

And seeing Spector move to the Dems is both a great and pathetic thing. Great in that the Republican party will be rid of the man who came up with the "magic bullet" theory, but pathetic in that he just can't give up the power. He's in his 70's. Go play with the grandchildren, already.

Toomey is an interesting choice. He scared Spector enough to dump the party that kept him in the Senate for twenty years, but how he plays in the state will be a good watch if he wins the primary. Ridge will go down against Spector, but Toomey is another animal. He is a true fiscal conservative, and I think most people on both sides of the spectrum are fed up with the spending in Washington. I don't think Arlen is a shoe-in, and if he loses, I think it will send a strong message to the country that many of us are fed up with the bailouts, tarps, monopoly money and the "government will solve all your problems" mantra that has been mixed into everyone's kool-aid.

[jtgain]

Yeah, you go ahead with the same message. We'll enjoy watching you lose over and over again.


A huge Congressional win in 94; held Congress in every year from 96 to 2006 with victories in the Presidential race in 2000 and 2004; all with the same "hard right" ideology regarding abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, whatever.

Sure, you can pick out some of the more extreme positions: no stem cell research, Terry Shaivo, etc. and accurately say that most people don't agree with those positions. They also don't turn most people away.

This country isn't like this board. I think you see a strong majority of people who are very socially conservative that the GOP appeals to. Where the GOP lost was in its hypocrisy over spending: saying that it was the party of fiscal discipline when it simply continued big government.

[Really Not All That Bright]

This country isn't like this board. I think you see a strong majority of people who are very socially conservative that the GOP appeals to. Where the GOP lost was in its hypocrisy over spending: saying that it was the party of fiscal discipline when it simply continued big government.
What?

You know we're currently fighting arguably the least popular war in American history, right?

[saoirse]

This country isn't like this board. I think you see a strong majority of people who are very socially conservative that the GOP appeals to. Where the GOP lost was in its hypocrisy over spending: saying that it was the party of fiscal discipline when it simply continued big government.

That's very true. Only 18-25% of Americans identify as Republicans. A lot fewer than on this board.

[Helen's Eidolon]

I have heard Pennsylvania described as "Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Alabama in between". I try hard to make sure to vote and cancel out at least one vote from the center of the state.The ACTUAL center is relatively left-leaning. More than a few miles away from here... I make no promises.

[Captain Carrot]

A huge Congressional win in 94; held Congress in every year from 96 to 2006 with victories in the Presidential race in 2000 and 2004; all with the same "hard right" ideology regarding abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, whatever.And that message isn't working anymore, you fucking moron. Or did you miss the parts where you lost significantly in 2006 and 2008? (and in the former you failed to knock off a single Democratic Congressional incumbent)

[BrainGlutton]

This country isn't like this board. I think you see a strong majority of people who are very socially conservative that the GOP appeals to.

Actually, I think you'll find only a minority of Americans are socially conservative. Check out the Pew Political Typology (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949) groups and stats.

[jtgain]

And that message isn't working anymore, you fucking moron. Or did you miss the parts where you lost significantly in 2006 and 2008? (and in the former you failed to knock off a single Democratic Congressional incumbent)

So what changed in 2006 and 2008? Did the electorate suddenly demand a liberal social agenda? Were the Republicans pro-abortion, anti-school prayer and pro-gay marriage until 2006 and they suddenly changed?

Please cite me something where these teeming masses are demanding this. Hell, gay marriage is a losing issue in California for christsakes.

Actually, I think you'll find only a minority of Americans are socially conservative. Check out the Pew Political Typology groups and stats.

And your poll also shows a small minority that identifies as liberals. I don't doubt that. My argument is simply in response to the argument in this and in many other threads that the GOP lost/is losing because they are too far right on social issues.

The swing voter who decides elections vote on the basis of their wallet. That voter was fine with right-leaning social postions when the GOP was in power and are equally fine with left-leaning social issues now. The GOP did NOT lose these elections because people feel that they are "too far right" and that won't be the reason they lose the next election.

[Captain Carrot]

So what changed in 2006 and 2008? Did the electorate suddenly demand a liberal social agenda? Were the Republicans pro-abortion, anti-school prayer and pro-gay marriage until 2006 and they suddenly changed?The electorate got fed up with the GOP message, which I thought was kind of obvious.

[AdmiralCrunch]

So what changed in 2006 and 2008? Did the electorate suddenly demand a liberal social agenda? Were the Republicans pro-abortion, anti-school prayer and pro-gay marriage until 2006 and they suddenly changed?

People awoke from their fear-induced terrorism coma and realized that the hard-right ideas they disagree with aren't worth tolerating any more. And the Republicans squandered ever ounce of unearned political capital with a quickness. America was behind the invasion of Iraq until it was clear that the people in charge didn't know what the hell was going on. People were all for hands-off economic policies until it wrecked the world economy.

And the message is bogus, anyway. Who was the last Republican who didn't spend like a maniac? You can't praise Reagan's budgets while bitching about the deficit. You can't keep hawking the same "small government" message from 1980 when there's 3 decades worth of evidence that you're full of crap when it comes to ruling on those principles. Either stop pretending like it's a small government party, or repudiate the hypocrites who've marched in lockstep behind reckless government expansion.

[Zeriel]

The ACTUAL center is relatively left-leaning. More than a few miles away from here... I make no promises.

It generally strikes me as surprisingly centrist for the fact there's a large university here--we've got just as many wingnuts on both sides of the spectrum at PSU (or at least we had when I graduated at the beginning of this decade.)

[Lizard]

I'm not a fan of this type of argument. Does racking up huge victories in Philly not count? Philadelphians are Pennsylvanians, too. If Philly makes PA lean Democratic, then the only fair thing you can say is, "The rest of PA is fairly conservative," since the whole of PA has been voting for Democrats at the Presidential level for the past 20 years.

Talk to any Philadelphians lately? I'm not so sure they agree! :p

I've only lived in this state for a few years, but from my perspective, Philadelphia has more in common with southern New Jersey than with the rest of PA. (Of course, they freak out if you say that out loud; I think in Philly they kind of consider themselves a world apart.)

PA definitely has it's right-wing nutjob element, most of whom live in the Appalachian area and westward. People say Pittsburgh leans liberal, but I never see any strong evidence it.

Arlen Spector is popular enough statewide that I suspect he could run as an independent and win, but he doesn't have the money and political apparatus to do that. I met him once and we talked for a while. He reminded me of my kindly grandfather.That made me feel good, until I remembered my grandfather is completely senile. :(

[Lizard]

So what changed in 2006 and 2008? Did the electorate suddenly demand a liberal social agenda? Were the Republicans pro-abortion, anti-school prayer and pro-gay marriage until 2006 and they suddenly changed?

Please cite me something where these teeming masses are demanding this. Hell, gay marriage is a losing issue in California for christsakes.

And your poll also shows a small minority that identifies as liberals. I don't doubt that. My argument is simply in response to the argument in this and in many other threads that the GOP lost/is losing because they are too far right on social issues.

The swing voter who decides elections vote on the basis of their wallet. That voter was fine with right-leaning social postions when the GOP was in power and are equally fine with left-leaning social issues now. The GOP did NOT lose these elections because people feel that they are "too far right" and that won't be the reason they lose the next election.


First of all, no one is "pro-abortion." That is an inflammatory and borderline offensive term.

Secondly, you may be right about the public not being as tired of conservatism as is claimed, but then, how on-board were they with it to begin with? Bush won election the first time only by a court decision; he won re-election the second time by the narrowest margin for a sitting president ever. The Republicans were operating with a razor-thin majority in Congress for years, and acting like they had some mandate. That's not true democracy, and I think the people reacted to that as much as anything.

I really doubt swing voters have no opinions on far-left or far-right positions. But they probably have a subtle clue that it really doesn't matter, because things like gay marriage and abortion are just talking points for the two major parties to rile up their bases. Abortion? As easy to get now as before Bush was elected. Gay marriage? Obama has done nothing to support it since he was elected, and I suspect he never will. All the initiative is coming from the state level, and even Bush just talked about the issue--he never DID anything about it.

The one exception to this is gun control, which really does have political ramifications, and on which the two parties have staked out diametrically opposed positions in reality instead of just rhetorically. Then again, despite the headlines, Obama's not exactly going toe-to-toe with anyone over this issue either. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/world/americas/17prexy.html?scp=14&sq=Obama%20weapons&st=cse)

[Argent Towers]

Just for the sake of asking, I wonder if anyone got the Langoliers reference in Post 2?

[Rigamarole]

Sort of depends on your definition of change. Some might say people haven't changed much in the past 3000+ years.

[Captain Carrot]

That's a fairly useless definition in a political context, though.

[Der Trihs]

Just for the sake of asking, I wonder if anyone got the Langoliers reference in Post 2?Actually yes.

[11811]

I have heard Pennsylvania described as "Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Alabama in between".

Pennsyltucky

[Captain Carrot]

Missed this the first time:
Republicans have never won urban areas and they will continue to not win them.True for the most part, though in 2004 Salt Lake City went for Bush, and in 2008 Oklahoma was entirely red (I'm pretty sure OK has some cities). However, there's a difference between losing an area and being destroyed in that area; Republicans who win tend to lose the urban areas by relatively small amounts, and completely dominate the rural areas.