This is just the standard conventional wisdom tripe. Basically, you have taken the Democrats talking points in total and reprinted them into your article.

Turnout is always lower in urban areas for a mid-term. Actually, the turnount relative to other mid-terms was not below par. The problem for the Democrats this time was that they did much worse in the counties located in the suburbs relative to the results in 2006 and 2008. Go look at the results and turnouts. These stats are not hidden. Very poor journalism on your part.

Obama may win re-election but the “most likely” status you give the event is unwarranted. You can’t possibly know what will happen. Certainly, he is not making any indication that his policies had anything to do with the trouncing that occured. It is a simple fact that a majority of people in PA (and pretty much every state) want the health insurance reform bill to be repealed. People ARE interested in litigating the last 2 years despite President Obama’s view that they are not.

We also have no idea if he is going to compromise or not. The fact is that Bill Clinton did NOT compromise for the first 2 years of Republican control except on free trade which he was naturally inclined to favor. Clinton was very fortunate to be running against a candidate who did not understand the importance of fundraising and to have a 3rd party candidate draw signficant votes.

I could go on all day regarding the shallow aspects of this article. Hopefully, next time you will bother to do at least a minimal amount of research before posting such utter nonsense.

This website has gone to shit.

I do agree though that the public was not rewarding Republicans so much as punishing Democrats. However, I will contend that it did had very little to do with the economy. The economy always polls as the #1 issue, in good times and bad. No, this was a reaction to a classic overreach that was going to affect millions of people adversely.

Even if UE would have stayed at the “promised” level of under 8%, the Democrats still would have lost the House. Look at 94 and 06. Both shifts had very little to do with the actual economy. On both occassions, it was a reaction to the policies of those who held power.

Freind,

I want to know one thing: Who were the “observers” who estimated that the swing in Catholics toward the GOP was 34 points?

I want names, exit polls, some tangible evidence of this trend.

TB

I don’t know where those stats come from. Many Catholics I know, me being one of them, are registered as independents. There was a big shift with indies.

I’ll see if I can find that sourcing. I would actually bet that Obama would win in 12 if forced to bet. My problems with the article above is that it seems to be a reiteration of talking points.

Pew did an analysis and compared 10 to 8.

It looks like a 12 point shift which pretty much mirrors the independents as a whole, maybe slightly less.

Maybe he will have a source that shows 34. We all know that polling firms can vary widely on any issue.

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/11/03/for-democrats-u-s-catholic-vote-was-the-one-that-got-away/

This is evidence that a single demagogue does not run the Dem. Party. We need to work together and reach out and forge alliances. That clearly was not the case here in this election cycle. It was a rather unconventional tact by Sestak, and in the end it may have costed him.

He probably should not have snubbed the western counties too, like Beaver County.

To shit or not is not the question …

The points and the statistics, although all over the board, seem to point one way. Sestak lost the Democrat muscle here in Philadelphia by not towing the party line early on. He was shut out and refused to play.

Our election day observations are that the party did not have the “street money” to activate the polling stations (people) as is traditional. The hype was not there and a 35-40% turnout is not good. It is certainly not good enough.

ed

Check this out…

http://sleestakforsenate.blogspot.com/

The first article is telling, how he wouldnt help the local dem candidates.

Well DONE, Chris! Extremely well thought-out.

Blah, blah, blah… guess what author of this article… TOOMEY WON!!!!!!! Just in case you missed it… PAT TOOMEY DEFEATED THE COCKY, ARROGANT, FIRED MILITARY MAN JOE SESTAK!! TOOMEY WON! TOOMEY WON! TOOMEY WON! Democrats and liberals appear to be in some kind of denial, but at the end of the day let the record show that TOOMEY WON! So in case I haven’t rubbed it in enough… TOOMEY DEFEATED SUSPECT, oops, I meant SESTAK!! Typo!! My bad.

P.S. TOOMEY WON!!

O Most Beautiful Flower of Mt. Carmel,Fruitful Vine, Splendor of Heaven, Blessed Mother of the Son of God, ImmaculateVirgin, assist me in my necessity. O Star ofthe Sea, help me and show me herein you are my Mother. O Holy Mary, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and Earth, I humbly beseech you from the bottom of my heart to succor me in my necessity (make request).
There are none that can withstand your power. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee (3 times). Holy Mary, I place this cause in your hands (3 times).

Philadelphia did NOT hurt Sestak. They came out strong for him. In regards to raw numbers of voters the turnout in Philly was comparable to the 06 mids. Statewide, about a 100k more turned out than in 06. Sestak actually did better than Obama in Philly on a % basis. Sestaks issues were that he underperformed in Chester, Lancaster, Berks and Lehigh counties relative to Obama’s performance. If Sestak had cut his margin of loss in half in each of those counties then he would have been virtually tied.

I know some here seem to have problems with simple facts and math. No worries. I will be here to help.

Nice article, Chris. I would argue with your conclusion about the passage of the healthcare insurance reform bill and I would add that you did not address the abject failure of the Dems messaging strategy (both since Obama took office and during the recent campaign); but I agree with most everything else you wrote.

Ignore the partisans and give us more.

MD is right that it’s not fair to blame Philly. Sestak’s strategy was to rely upon Philly (and to some extent Pittsburgh) to overwhelm the rural areas. This was foolish, as Philly turnout was easily predictable as being no higher than 2006 levels.

Sestak lost by 9 votes per precinct state wide. How many “under-votes” where there by people disgusted with both candidates? He also might have won by flipping 4 or 5 votes per precinct.

Sestak pushed away the former Specter supporters and the party infrastructure, as he built his own “Sestak uber-alles” organization. Of course, this is especially ironic considering Sestak’s bunker-style mentality.

Sestak turned off Dems who were interested in the party and coordinated campaigning for the whole ticket. He certainly didn’t make any friends in the leadership for how he treated them once he won the Primary and acted like they were supposed to kiss his ring (or rather his ass).

Sestak defeated himself by being a complete douche.

David,

That is Joe Sestak in a nutshell.

Lee – sorry that you have problems with basic facts. The numbers are the numbers and they do NOT change. The article is pure junk. I think it was written in 15 minutes. Clearly the site does not have a fact checker employed.

Notice how the author has not defended his “34 point swing” in the Catholic vote? Try as I might, I cannot find any evidence that this type of shift actually happened.

Again, a bit of fact checking is in order.

@MD

Sorry that you have problems accepting that others may have an opinion different from yours. I didn’t dispute any facts or numbers. I said that I had a different opinion than the conclusion stated by the author about passage of the healthcare insurance reform bill.

Sestak always won in the past by being a total douche, so why should he mess with a successful recipe.

Lee – I am commenting on the numbers. Those are facts, not opinions. I made no mention of healthcare or Joe Sestak’s personality. Yet, you felt free to label me as a partisan.

The facts are the facts. This article is poorly written, sourced and desperately required a fact checker.

David,

I could actually make the opposite argument that Toomey’s reliance on the ex-burb strategy almost cost him the election. Sestak did a good job on turnout in Philly (despite what is written here) and almost pulled off an upset. He was behind in 95% of the polls over the last month before the election, most by more than 2%. The Toomey people did not have a great presence in Philly or the surrounding burbs. Toomey won by 2%, which is razor thin.

Corbett won by 8 so I could argue that Toomey underperformed. Sestak only needed to do marginally better in a handful of counties that Obama won and he would have prevailed. He did very well in Philadelphia.

Clearly the GOP has absolutely no intention of doing ANYTHING to benefit America over the next two years … Hence their unified opposition to the New START treaty. Every living fmr Secretary of State is behind it, as well as the entire uniformed military. Yet, since the President is a Democrat, Republicans have lined up against it. It’s just ridiculous!

@flynnbw

We hear, largely from the right, that the country is going to hell and that it has to be “taken back”. In reality, what is damaging this country is the attitude that the good of the party, the ideology, or the candidate is paramount to the good of the country and its people. Your example of the START treaty is a perfect illustration.

To at least some U.S. Senators and some strategists in the Republican Party, verifiable nuclear arms reduction and the lessening of the threat of nuclear war is less important than scoring partisan political points for their party and its candidiates. Makes one long for the days of Ronald Reagan again. His famous quote was: “Trust; but verify”. That’s precisely what START does.

TOOMEY!!!!!!!!

Lee – Have you not heard from Wikileaks the type of place Russia is these days? We can’t trust them.

Having said that, I think we all have enough bombs to blow everyone up a million times over so I am OK with a reduction if it makes sense and saves us $.

The protective shield is the answer in the end which by the way Russia is COMPLETELY AGAINST.

Facts.

Also, it is funny that this site basically went dark after the Democrats took a spanking on election day.

Hey, cheer up. Election night in 12 will be a whole lot better for you guys if historical norms hold, which I think they will.

By the way, Chris Friend is not a partisan Democrat. You guys need to take 2 minutes to do a little research. My problem was that his article quoted stats that apparently were not sourced and came to a conclusion that is easily debunked if you look at the numbers.

I repeat, I don’t think Chris Friend is a partisan in anyway. Naturally, the far left here got hot and bothered. Before defending him on a partisan basis you might want to read some of his other stuff.

Was Democratic turnout in Philly less than what it might have been?

Well Tom Corbett publicly told his troops to get out and suppress the vote there. He publicly said “keep that down.”

It’s all on video and online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwpXTg6Ryjw

Vote suppression is illegal and a federal crime, but nonetheless Corbett blatantly made these remarks while he was serving as our state’s chief law enforcement officer.

Hold on to your hats when he takes over the Governor’s office.

@ MD

Did you not read what I wrote before you addressed it? The fact that Russia shouldn’t be trusted is precisely why I used the words “verifiable” and “verify” in regard to the new START treaty.

Also, I hope that you don’t rely upon WikiLeaks for your “facts”.

Well, this site has certainly died and been buried. Too bad. It was good while it lasted.

Has gone downhill significantly since Dan left.

RIP

This website going dark at such a critical and newsworthy moment in our nation’s political history is really a shame.

I think the first sign of it was when the site’s new admin continued to post under Dan Hirshorn’s name.

Then, the use of profanity….

Politico is great, but it is not PA-centric. So this site is occupying space that I’m sure could be put to good use by someone who actually cared.

Actually Lee, I condemn the Wikileaks stuff. The intel is accurate though. Notice how the gov hasn’t denied any of it. Still, there are good reasons to keep certain information classified. IMO of course. I do understand that others feel differently.

As for Russia, this really boils down to the protective shield issue. They don’t want us working on that technology. It was the same with Reagan when he was negotiating with Gorby. In some ways, I am very worried about Russia. If you are not, then fine. We just see things a little differently.

My original point was that information should be verified if it is going to be presented as fact, not opinion.

C’mon MD

Try to show a little intellectual honesty. You know damn well that I said I do not trust Russia. That’s why I said we need verification. Don’t pretend that I said otherwise. It’s beneath you.

Lee – whatever. I don’t want to cave on the protective shield issue. Reagan refused to cave in and we should maintain course.

Man, did this site die or what? Who are these new “owners”? Funeral directors?