Replies

I would really like to agree with that line of thinking, that pure conservatives can win, and i really like Toomey. But i've been looking at the Pennsylvania's political scene lately tracing back thru 1988 and done the math. Some important developments have taken place since then. 1) Eastern Pennyslvania has gotten more liberal. George Bush won PA in 1988 50-48, the son lost it 47-50. The strong margins that typically went towards the Republicans in the 80's has shrunk significantly. Many of the Eastern PA suburbs cast strong margins for the GOP 16 years ago has now either been trending towards the Dems or reliably Democratic. It's very much like what has happened in NJ, strongly Republican in '88, now strongly Democrat in 2000's. Republicans cannot win without those margins. George W. Bush lost precisely because he couldnt match his fathers margins in the crucial Eastern areas in 1988. Now to be fair, W. did better than his dad in Western PA, but his margins there were just not high enough to offset his losses in Eastern PA. This is exactly the reason why Casey lost to Rendell, and Fisher lost to Rendell. Rendell picked up these votes of moderate Republicans. Specter will do the same thing.

I wish PA was more conservative, but it isnt and is getting less so. Santorum won largely because he was better known, better financed, and his oppenent had the same view on human life that he did. Between the two candidates, Moderate Republicans are more inclined to vote for a Socially conservative Republican than a Socially conservative/fiscally liberal Democrat.

So, i really cannot envision a scenario where Toomey would pull this off. You may say that he will do well in Western PA, but Western PA is complicated. Yes, a voter there will tell you that they are very pro-life, but they will ALSO tell you that they are very Democratic. I'm talking New Deal FDR. This has been a puzzle for political consultants of both parties. Toomey has done quite well as a conservative in his district, but he would need to do exceptionally well in the rest of Western PA to offset his losses in the East. Can Toomey do it ? Can he pick up the votes of socially conservative but fiscally liberal New Deal
Dems being a staunch government shrinking Republican ? That is the dillema !

I really think that this race should be reserved for a time when Republicans control the Senate with 54-55 seats, i would be all for Toomey then. But this isn't the time unfortunately.

"...i've been looking at the Pennsylvania's political scene lately tracing back thru 1988 and done the math."

No disrespect intended, but while you were in Arizona looking at numbers, I've been working with the campaigns and the candidates. Bush I won because people thought that his first term would be Reagan III. For term II, Bush I screwed the pooch by breaking his no new tax vow. Conservatives stayed home. Bob Dole sucked as a candidate. He got the nomination because he paid his dues and wanted to tell his great grand children that he ran for president. Again, conservatives stayed home.

Before you (or any one else) goes off on conservatives for this practice, all I can say is deal with it. Conservatives with principles won't compromise their values and the GOP better learn the lesson or expect to lose.

Mike Fisher was Bob Dole II. His candidacy was a payoff for years of faithful service to the GOP. He must have thought that Rendell signed off on the deal too, because he forgot to campaign. Fisher was the weakest candidate that I've ever seen. I worked on the campaign purely because I didn't want Rendell to win. I won't put that kind of effort into another candidate if he doesn't show the promise of a Pat Toomey. Casey lost the primary to Rendell because he didn't have the feet on the ground to make it happen. It was a dismal campaign effort.

Interestingly, Rick Santorum - one of the most conservative GOP Senators - WON the same election that "W" lost. Toomey won his race that year too by preaching the conservative message. It was his biggest margin to date.

Another race that you don't mention is for the Allegheny County Chief Executive. The incumbent Republican was pro choice. The Democrat challenger was pro life. The pro life groups swarmed to him and he handily defeated the incumbent.

I think what you are missing is the people themselves, the candidates and their personalities. Where a strong and principled candidate runs a strong campaign, he wins. When he tries to blur the differences thinking that he can pick up the middle, he loses. The reason is that the few (relatively speaking) 'undecideds' that he picks up are more than offset by the loss of the base that is alienated by the pandering. He also loses the activism and vote generating capacity of the base. (W, are you listening?)

"So, i really cannot envision a scenario where Toomey would pull this off."

Have you seen the poll numbers? In the last 90 days, Toomey has gone from a 23% point deficit to a 9% deficit. It is now a horse race. The closer those numbers get, the more outside support Toomey will get. There are a lot of people around the country that want Specter gone and they are putting their money where their mouth is to do it.

In this race, like the others I mentioned above, it is the candidate and how he presents his philosophy that makes the difference. They both boast of their conservatism but only Toomey has the record to back it up. Specter's disingenuousness is costing him. He'd do better if he proudly proclaimed his liberalism than lying about it.

" I really think that this race should be reserved for a time when Republicans control the Senate with 54-55 seats, i would be all for Toomey then. But this isn't the time unfortunately."

Toomey is the man and this is the time. We've waited almost 70 years for an opportunity to rule based on GOP principles. The Specters, Snowes, Chaffees, and Jeffords have obstructed that chance as much as the Democrats. Specter and the rest of the lot have to go.

And rest easy. We will pick up other seats as well as converting the PA seat into not only a Republican (from RINO) but also to conservative.

AZ, I am really tired of this argument coming from Conservatives that we can't run Pat because of the risk of losing the majority. What difference does it make if we have Joe Hoeffel in the Senate or if we have Arlen Specter who votes like Joe Hoeffel in the Senate? The Republican Party has let too many people like Arlen who have abandoned the principles of our party stay in office because they have the "tenure" or we need to keep the seat. What kind of message is this sending to our elected officials? It tells them that they can run on a platform of catering to our values and ideals, but once in office can do whatever they want and we won't hold them accountable. Sorry, but don't whizz down my back and tell me it's raining.

I'm the one going out door to door on the weekends hearing the overwhelming responses from the voters, not you. From what I have seen over the past month, I can't see how we will lose this. Nobody likes Arlen. His time is past due and on April 27th we'll be handing him his pink slip.

Throw your numbers out the door and stand for principle. I would rather lose and have dignity knowing I stood up for principle instead of being a "Yes Man".