The latest poll in the Pennsylvania Senate race is the sort of result that makes political observers sit up and take notice. The Rasmussen poll of likely voters shows incumbent Senator Bob Casey, Jr. leading Republican challenger Tom Smith by just one percentage point. The 46-45 percent margin is shocking because this is a race that virtually no one in either party thought would be competitive, let alone be in doubt this late in the campaign. However, it also shows that Democratic confidence about Pennsylvania being a reliably blue state may have been overstated all along.
The smart money is still on Casey to pull out a win, as well as on President Obama to take Pennsylvania without that much trouble. But both Casey and Obama have seen their leads shrink dramatically in the Keystone State in the last month. Though no Republican has carried Pennsylvania in a presidential election since 1988, it should be remembered that the GOP won both the governorship and a Senate seat (Pat Toomey) in 2010. Yet while Obama has maintained a consistent, albeit decreasing lead, in Pennsylvania, Casey may actually be in more trouble than his backers are willing to admit. His problems are due in part to growing Republican enthusiasm as Mitt Romney gained momentum this month. But Casey’s own shortcomings as a candidate are the major reason he finds Smith snapping at heels. If he can’t right himself, there is a chance the GOP will make up for unexpected losses elsewhere and steal a seemingly safe blue Senate seat.
To listen to most Democrats, the explanation for what’s happened in the Senate race is readily apparent: a low-key candidate running a lackluster campaign against a millionaire willing to spend money freely. They’re not far wrong about this. Casey is well known to be a nice guy in a business filled with not-so-nice people, but he has the charisma of a plate of soggy, mashed potatoes. A non-controversial mien was the right formula six years ago when Democrats nominated Casey to knock off the controversial and widely disliked Senator Rick Santorum. But to the dismay of many Democrats, the stealth candidate of 2006 became the stealth senator. Though he can still trade on his identity as the son of a popular namesake two-term governor, Casey is a virtual nonentity in the state despite being the incumbent. Smith, a former Democrat who owned coal mines, is a political novice who won his nomination in a Tea Party insurgency. But he has avoided gaffes and spent freely. After a couple of months of the airwaves in major markets being deluged with ads denouncing Casey as “Senator Zero,” Smith has gone from a double digit deficit to being virtually tied.
The idea of Smith actually beating Casey is still scoffed at by most savvy observers. But Casey’s characteristic low-key strategy has played right into Smith’s hands, as he has dominated the political stage in the state. Even worse by granting Smith only one debate (which will be taped today and then aired on Sunday) Casey has set himself up for some real problems if the Republican is seen as holding his own or even besting the incumbent.
If the Democratic machine is able to generate — by hook or by crook — a big turnout in Philadelphia, Casey may be saved. But the era in which anyone named Bob Casey can simple put his name on the ballot in Pennsylvania and expect to cruise to victory is probably over. In a year in which Republican enthusiasm is rising in the way it did in 2010, Smith must now be said to have at least a fighting chance. So must Romney, though he may have a higher hill to climb in the state. While it might be foolish for Republicans to divert scarce resources from other battleground states to contest Pennsylvania, there’s little doubt it will not be the Democratic cakewalk that most people thought it would be only a couple of months ago.
The methodology of Jimmie Lee's Susquehanna polls uses a different demographic than other polls and from information, which is reliable to me, the Smith internal polls show a win. It will, no doubt, be close and I cannot but think that the latest Benghazi's outrage will not mobilize the large veteran's network in Pennsylvania. I see a Smith win in Pennsylvania because of the money he has been willing to invest in his own campaign. The media has looked at what the opportunistic odds makers have been saying and failed to see Tom Smith's entrepreneurial risk taking skills applied to the campaign and have underestimated his determination. Tom Smith is the Real Deal Citizen Candidate.
Don't underestimate Obama's "War on Coal" to make Pennsylvania a competitive state. Lawn signs declaring this are all over rural western PA. Now appearing there are signs decrying Casey's "War on Coal", as well. I don't know what signs are appearing in Scranton where Casey is from and is also coal country but I bet it isn't pretty. I can tell you from first hand experience that Casey strongly supported Cap and Trade and most other anti fossil fuel legislation.
The things I've read on Pennsylvania suggest that there are a lot of illegal/non-existent votes for Democrats in Philadelphia. What strikes me is that none of the non-existent votes would show up in a pre-election poll.
An article on how voter fraud is a myth? Sorry, but it's not. There are lots and lots of examples which you can find and read about; however, when, as happened in Minnesota, a Dem Secretary of State finds a car with a trunk load of ballots overwhelmingly for Al Franken and decides they must have been misplaced in transport and never counted, so he counts them, those Democrats who think voter fraud is a myth no doubt think in this case justice was served (and probably not because they think the story was true but because they were able to get a Republican). Since the fraud ALWAYS favors Democrats, could it be that's why you think it's a myth?
I had a conversation with a colleague before the election of 2008. Basically ended with her saying that voter fraud didn't impact elections anyway, so conservatives should quit whining about it. My last comment was "It only matters when it matters." A few weeks later in MN it mattered… nI also remember Dee Dee Myers joking about the "Street money" in Philly on election night in 2004. Boosted her confidence in a Kerry victory there. Hillel must have missed that one.
I see now that Obama is buying ad time in…Minnesota. Hmm. Perhaps targeted at WI, but even that is a big deal. Biden campaigning in WI, ads. Ohio may not matter.
The Ohio presidential race is the last state-lottery scratch card the average Democrat holds that he "just knows is a winner!" in a lengthening list of "sure winner" cards that he has already torn up, discarded, and spat upon from North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida to Colorado and New Hampshire. Additionally, he has stopped buying tickets from the Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania lotteries. n nOhio has become the Democrats' Alamo—without the courage, honor, and nobility of purpose of the original, naturally, but otherwise just the same. Daily they mount the parapet and scan the horizon for reinforcements. Every cloud of dust kicked up is a reason to celebrate, when in fact it could very well mean curtains for our brave little band. n nHow do I know all of that? Lately (I mean for the past week) I have taken to reading the comments sections for articles at The New Republic, Daily Beast, Politico, Wahington Post, and the like toxic-waste sites. I recommend the exercise; but let me hurry to add the important warning NOT to squander even 10 seconds on the articles that provoke the comments, which are pretty much a waste of time. No. Look at the headline if you must, perhaps the subheading too, for context, then shoot straight to the comments. n nThe happy-go-lucky bravado of only a few weeks ago has vanished like Amelia Earhart, is as dead as George McGovern, and as likely to return as Frederick Barbarossa. What's left is a single pitiful and overarching message: OBAMA WILL WIN IN OHIO! The simpleton needs a simple plot, and there is none simpler. It matters not that with Wisconsin slipping away, never mind Michigan AND Pennsylvania, an Ohio narrative makes NO sense as a life raft for Democratic hopes without Obama winning in, say, Texas. In other words, it makes no sense at all. n nBut so what? One must keep confusing, un-simpleton-friendly stuff like that to oneself. Like the old kerchief-headed women fingering their beads whilst chanting their novenas, "Obama is winning in Ohio" is all that one is allowed to focus on nowadays if you are a Democrat. The words carom at high speed about their otherwise empty crania like balls in a squash court. Hope, change, reality itself have congealed into an emaciated slogan. n nDeviant opinions from 24-carat optimism as regards any OTHER State are permissible and, in fact, occur regularly (as regularly as they're ignored). Indeed, right now it appears that there are NO other States! Insofar as the nation holds any interest at all for the Democratic base, "USA" has been redefined as "USO": the United States of Ohio. Raise a question in those precincts, however tepidly, as to the president's undeniable preëminence in Ohio or his looming "smashing victory" there, and you will receive the back of the hand within milliseconds of clicking on "SUBMIT." What's worse, you also risk being buried under an Everest of endless factoids about the minutest and most quotidian details of Ohio electoral politics all of which point unerringly to "Ohio the Blue. n nNot, I think, since Stalin's 1939 decision to ally the USSR with Nazi Germany or the Alger Hiss trial a dozen years later has a political line been advanced by the dedicated left with such desperate single-mindedness.