I don't think you should throw in the towel. I said that Fisher isn't surging. He needs to surge to make up for his poll deficit. Is Fisher surging?

Now this race becomes lib v. conservative. Up till now it has not been that and the Fisher folks did not take off the gloves. THE GLOVES COME OFF NOW BABY.

Pretty soon every person in the state will know:

Rendell wants gay mariages, tax-payer funded abortions and to take your guns.

Fisher's campaign has been "above" that. Guess what - it's time.

Is Fisher surging?

I think that's between Mr. & Mrs. Fisher. Shame on you!

The following is by a decent guy - though a Dem. And if he is saying it ain/t over - the Dems know it ain't over.

http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2002/09/02/editorial4.html

From the August 30, 2002 print edition

Government Busters

Governor's race remains a wide-open contest

Jon Delano

With the Labor Day weekend upon us, it's likely that you are aware that Pennsylvania will elect a new governor in nine weeks.

Campaigns in the 21st century are virtually nonstop, and nobody was particularly surprised that Mike Fisher and Ed Rendell kept up a frenetic pace as the rest of us vacationed, barbecued and lounged by the pool.

So one can wonder whether the traditional campaign kick-off that surrounds Labor Day means much any more.

Well, even if the candidates and their political partisans have been thinking politics all summer, the rest of us are just beginning to tune into what promises to be a furious fall campaign for the governor's mansion.

Conventional wisdom is that Mr. Rendell, a Democrat, will defeat Mr. Fisher, a Republican, by double-digit percentages, continuing the "eight-year jinx" in Pennsylvania politics that dictates that every eight years the party in the mansion switches.

After eight years of Republican rule, it's the Democrats' turn, the theory goes.

I don't buy it.

The history of Pennsylvania gubernatorial elections over the last half century confirms that most of these races without incumbents prove to be highly competitive and frequently come down to a 100,000 voters. That's a small number when compared to the three to four million people who will cast their ballots on Nov. 5.

In 1994, Republican Tom Ridge beat Democrat Mark Singel by only 198,000 votes out of the 3.5 million cast.

A shift of less than a 100,000 in the last days could have made Mr. Singel governor, a possibility until a felon paroled by the pardons board, chaired by Mr. Singel, murdered someone.

In 1986, Democrat Bob Casey beat Republican Bill Scranton by just 79,000 votes out of 3.3 million cast.

That victory was often attributed to scare tactics employed by Mr. Casey, whose campaign broadcast Mr. Scranton's interest in transcendental meditation and a long-haired guru.

A 40,000-vote shift would have been enough to put Mr. Scranton in the governor's mansion.

In 1978, Republican Dick Thornburgh beat Democrat Pete Flaherty by only 228,000 votes out of 3.7 million cast. That 8-point win for Mr. Thornburgh hardly constitutes a landslide.

Other gubernatorial races, remembered only by the old-timers, had finishes that were just as close.

In 1950, Republican John Fine beat Democrat Richardson Dilworth by just 86,000 votes and, in 1958, Democrat David Lawrence beat Republican Arthur McGonigle by 76,000 votes.

The point is that talk of double-digit percentage wins for any nonincumbent gubernatorial candidate defies Pennsylvania history.

Since World War II, only two such candidates won the governor's mansion by over a half million votes: Republican James Duff in 1946 and Democrat Milton Shapp in 1970.

This, of course, is some solace for Mr. Fisher who, according to the summertime election polls, trails Mr. Rendell by 15 points or so.

Those polls were taken in somewhat of a vacuum, however, long before the Labor Day kick-off of that period in which voters actually start to pay attention to what the candidates are saying.

If history is any predictor, the victor on Nov. 5 will win by less than 200,000 votes, and those who will determine that winner have not yet made up their minds.

Mr. Fisher, the most conservative Republican nominee in a generation, hopes to capitalize on strong support from the pro-life and anti-gun communities, coupled with an appeal to this region as the "hometown boy." He also looks to capitalize upon a traditional anti-Philadelphia bias present throughout the rest of the Pennsylvania.

Watch for his campaign to label Mr. Rendell a "big city liberal" who is out-of-step with basic Pennsylvania views and values.

For Mr. Rendell, watch for a repeat of his primary campaign theme, that he is a pro-growth, can-do mayor who can replicate as governor the same economic turn-around that he claims to have delivered while running the show in Philadelphia.

He has mended fences with organized labor, which opposed his nomination, while trying to keep his ties to traditionally Republican business groups.

Watch for his campaign to label Mr. Fisher as "inexperienced and ineffective" when it comes to running a multibillion-dollar government.

In the end, most Democrats will vote for Mr. Rendell and most Republicans will vote for Mr. Fisher.

But there is that core group of about a half million independent thinkers from both parties who will be targeted over the next two months by both of the candidates.

How they eventually choose to vote on Nov. 5 will determine the winner, and, in my view on this Labor Day, this race for governor is still very much a wide open affair.

MR. DELANO teaches public policy at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz School and is the money and politics editor for KDKA-TV and Radio and the political analyst for WQED-TV's "On Q Magazine." Contact him at jdelano@andrew.cmu.edu.

© 2002 American City Business Journals Inc.