Sestak already the 2014 frontrunner against Corbett?

[Keystone Phil]

http://www.politicspa.com/the-odd-couple-joe-sestak-and-dem-state-cmte/21078/


A Corbett meltdown is possible and I'm never going to believe that we're totally bound to this pattern (eight years of one party in the Governor's Mansion then eight years of the other and so on) but it's obvious that this state likes its incumbents. Running and losing in 2014 could really ruin Sestak. Plus, he doesn't seem like a state issue kind of guy anyway. I think his heart is in federal policy. The best bet would be to run for his House seat in 2012, hoping it is a good year for Obama/the Dems then aim for 2016 or 2018 when Casey's seat opens.

[J. J.]

The evil of two lessers.  I might actually contribute to Corbett in that case.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

They don't really have too much of a bench anymore do they?

[Keystone Phil]

They don't really have too much of a bench anymore do they?

Schwartz is part of the bench but she won't run for Governor. She'll be licking her chops to take on Toomey in 2016. Pat Murphy can be included, too, but he'll be angling to take back his House seat first (though there are rumors he may run for Attorney General). Potential statewide winners (Holden and Altmire) would never get out of a primary so I'm not sure that they'd even say they are part of any bench. Other than that, they have to start looking at a more local level for any rising stars.

[Torie]

They don't really have too much of a bench anymore do they?

Schwartz is part of the bench but she won't run for Governor. She'll be licking her chops to take on Toomey in 2016. Pat Murphy can be included, too, but he'll be angling to take back his House seat first (though there are rumors he may run for Attorney General). Potential statewide winners (Holden and Altmire) would never get out of a primary so I'm not sure that they'd even say they are part of any bench. Other than that, they have to start looking at a more local level for any rising stars.

Given that the Pubbies are almost certain to append SE Bucks to PA-13, making PA-08 about 3 points more Pubbie, I am not sure Murphy running to get back his old seat is going to be that attractive to him.

[Keystone Phil]

They don't really have too much of a bench anymore do they?

Schwartz is part of the bench but she won't run for Governor. She'll be licking her chops to take on Toomey in 2016. Pat Murphy can be included, too, but he'll be angling to take back his House seat first (though there are rumors he may run for Attorney General). Potential statewide winners (Holden and Altmire) would never get out of a primary so I'm not sure that they'd even say they are part of any bench. Other than that, they have to start looking at a more local level for any rising stars.

Given that the Pubbies are almost certain to append SE Bucks to PA-13, making PA-08 about 3 points more Pubbie, I am not sure Murphy running to get back his old seat is going to be that attractive to him.

Who is telling you that that's happening? No offense but forget your wonkish opinion of what ought to be done. There are plenty of other things to satisfy before doing that.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like what?  What about my map do you think is off base?  I may be clueless, but it would be nice if there were more specificity as to just why I am wandering around on the wrong side of the looking glass, if that is the case.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like what?  What about my map do you think is off base?  I may be clueless, but it would be nice if there were more specificity as to just why I am wandering around on the wrong side of the looking glass, if that is the case.

I'm not saying that your map is off base; it could be perfect but that doesn't mean political leaders here are going to go with it. There are other egos to satisfy in this process.

[Torie]

Well, I tried to satisfy every Pubbie ego I could think of - and then some, including even making Pitts' CD a point more Pubbie when I found out he was the point man for the GOP in drawing the lines. Can you think of something I missed Phil?

In any event, if you don't append SE Bucks to PA-13, then PA-08 remains a highly vulnerable seat for the Dems to pick up. There are no alternatives - none.

[Sam Spade]

Well, I tried to satisfy every Pubbie ego I could think of - and then some, including even making Pitts' CD a point more Pubbie when I found out he was the point man for the GOP in drawing the lines. Can you think of something I missed Phil?

In any event, if you don't append SE Bucks to PA-13, then PA-08 remains a highly vulnerable seat for the Dems to pick up. There are no alternatives - none.

What Phil's saying is that the locals probably have other interests more important than whether the GOP makes the seat more secure.

[Torie]

Well, I tried to satisfy every Pubbie ego I could think of - and then some, including even making Pitts' CD a point more Pubbie when I found out he was the point man for the GOP in drawing the lines. Can you think of something I missed Phil?

In any event, if you don't append SE Bucks to PA-13, then PA-08 remains a highly vulnerable seat for the Dems to pick up. There are no alternatives - none.

What Phil's saying is that the locals probably have other interests more important than whether the GOP makes the seat more secure.

Yes, apparently, but it is a pity in my view, that none of these other interests have been identified with any specificity.  I mean I thought about what each PA Pubbie incumbent would think about the district I drew for him - a lot - and then thought about it some more. If I missed something, I would really like to know what it is.

[Napoleon]

Sestak should primary Casey.

[SvenssonRS]

Sestak should primary Casey.

He should. I'd love to see him lose again.

[Napoleon]

Sestak should primary Casey.

He should. I'd love to see him lose again.

Lose in 2012 after barely losing in 2010? Please.

[Nichlemn]

Sestak should primary Casey.

He should. I'd love to see him lose again.

Lose in 2012 after barely losing in 2010? Please.

While I agree that 2012 is more likely than not to be a more Democratic year than 2010 -

a) There's still a decent chance it is more Republican. See how 2008 followed 2006.
b) Swings are not uniform.
c) The Republican candidate will be someone other than Toomey, who probably underperformed due to his conservatism.
d) Sestak's status as a retread might hurt him.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

If I lived in PA, Sestak would get my vote. I HATE Tom Corbett.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, I tried to satisfy every Pubbie ego I could think of - and then some, including even making Pitts' CD a point more Pubbie when I found out he was the point man for the GOP in drawing the lines. Can you think of something I missed Phil?

In any event, if you don't append SE Bucks to PA-13, then PA-08 remains a highly vulnerable seat for the Dems to pick up. There are no alternatives - none.

Torie, again, with all due respect, you're not satisfying local political egos. Politicians run this process and you don't know the people that are running it. You have to satisfy certain personalities.

Well, I tried to satisfy every Pubbie ego I could think of - and then some, including even making Pitts' CD a point more Pubbie when I found out he was the point man for the GOP in drawing the lines. Can you think of something I missed Phil?

In any event, if you don't append SE Bucks to PA-13, then PA-08 remains a highly vulnerable seat for the Dems to pick up. There are no alternatives - none.

What Phil's saying is that the locals probably have other interests more important than whether the GOP makes the seat more secure.

Yes, apparently, but it is a pity in my view, that none of these other interests have been identified with any specificity.  I mean I thought about what each PA Pubbie incumbent would think about the district I drew for him - a lot - and then thought about it some more. If I missed something, I would really like to know what it is.

Sam hit the nail on the head. No, I'm not going to specifically identify those other interests here. That would be incredibly unwise from a personal standpoint. From a fair but still favorable to the GOP standpoint, your maps could be excellent, Torie, but you're still not grasping the "need" to satisfy the egos of party leaders here. I'm not saying that it's right but it's the way it is.

[Keystone Phil]

Sestak should primary Casey.

He should. I'd love to see him lose again.

Lose in 2012 after barely losing in 2010? Please.

While I agree that 2012 is more likely than not to be a more Democratic year than 2010 -

a) There's still a decent chance it is more Republican. See how 2008 followed 2006.
b) Swings are not uniform.
c) The Republican candidate will be someone other than Toomey, who probably underperformed due to his conservatism.
d) Sestak's status as a retread might hurt him.

Exactly. People need to stop thinking "Presidential election year is always better for the Dems so if a Dem barely lost in a midterm, they're guaranteed a victory in a Presidential election year." There are so many other factors in play.

But I do agree with Napoleon on one point: Sestak should definitely primary Casey. 

[Napoleon]

Nichlemn, are you the same as the SSP poster?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't know anymore if a dude with Toomey in his signature is Phil or Vander Blubb.

[Brittain33]

Exactly. People need to stop thinking "Presidential election year is always better for the Dems so if a Dem barely lost in a midterm, they're guaranteed a victory in a Presidential election year." There are so many other factors in play.

I think seeing 2010 as a Republican high water mark which is not going to be matched by 2012 because Obama is heading the ticket for Dems, and he does well among groups which historically undervoted, is specific enough to be valid in a way your generalization isn't. Also, if anyone ever said "guaranteed" a victory, that particular verb should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Nichlemn]

Nichlemn, are you the same as the SSP poster?

Yes.