Dem Mark Critz slaughters Republican last best hope till Nov, Tim Burns; Steele had guaranteed win!

[FrenchieCat]

My headline should be a headline somewhere, but of course, can't have that!

Michael Steele guaranteed a Republican win!
The NRCC has spent $958,897 -- one tenth of their cash on hand -- and nine (9) shady outside groups have spent more than $445,000 to defeat Democrat Mark Critz. Republican Committee Chairman Michael Steele guaranteed victory for Republican Tim Burns.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/the_dccc_wants_us_to_watch_pa-.html

The DCCC wants us to watch PA-12
I've been picking up signs of Democratic optimism about the special election in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, which was left vacant by the death of John Murtha (D). A quick rundown:

- Public Policy Polling, a North Carolina firm, released a survey Monday showing Republican candidate Tim Burns leading Democratic candidate Mark Critz by only one point, 48 to 47. I noticed some conservative blogs reporting that Burns had "moved into the lead," but that result actually represented a six-point bump for Critz and only a four-point bump for Burns since the last poll.

PA-12 is the Only Republican Vs. Democratic Election Tomorrow

Independent Analysts Say PA-12 is “Must-Win” for Republicans

As House Republicans continue to make predictions of winning 45, 100, 130 or more seats this fall, it’s important to remember that only one election tomorrow features a Republican versus Democrat: PA-12

· Charlie Cook, Cook Political Report: “Republicans have no excuse to lose this race. The fundamentals of this district, including voters' attitudes towards Obama and Pelosi, are awful for Democrats. And Democratic party registration advantages here are just as obsolete as GOP's advantages in Upstate New York were last year. Timing is no excuse for Republicans either. This special election, not the competitive statewide Democratic primaries held the same day, will be driving turnout on May 18th. With both candidates and party committees plus some outside groups likely to be up on air with full buys between now and the election, there will be far more dollars spent per vote on the PA-12 race than on the Senate or gubernatorial primaries.”

· Chris Cillizza, Washington Post: “Both sides see the race as a must-win but, in truth, it is a muster-win for Republicans who have to prove they can emerge victorious in seats like this one -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) carried it in 2008 -- to make a reasonable case that the majority is in play this fall.”

· Stuart Rothenberg, Rothenberg Political Report: “The special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th district is a far more important event, since it’s a head-to-head contest in a Democratic part of the state…Republican Tim Burns is about as strong a candidate as Republicans could have hoped for.”

· Amy Walters, National Journal’s Hotline: “In some ways, PA-12 seems to be a must-win for Republicans. After all, if they can't win the only district in the country that voted for both John Kerry and John McCain, what does it say about their ability to win other GOP-tilting seats this fall? Republican donors and members cut NRCC chairman Pete Sessions a lot of slack after the losses in New York-23 and -20. Will they be as forgiving if he comes up short once again?”

· David Wasserman, Cook Political Report: “David Wasserman, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said that Republicans have a good chance to pull out a victory in the Keystone State. “They have been fumbling special elections for a long time, but Pennsylvania ought to be different. This is a place where President Obama’s approval rating among Democrats is at 50 percent,” Wasserman said.”

· Professor Stephen Medvic: “Franklin and Marshall political science Professor Stephen Medvic pointed out the wind is at the GOP’s back: “All the excitement is on the Republicans. If the Republican wins, not that big of a shocker. If the Democrat wins it will be better news for the Democrats than the Republican winning would be for Republicans.””
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/the_dccc_wants_us_to_watch_pa-.html

[KingFlorez]

1. This is exactly right

McCain won PA-12, albeit very narrowly, but this is still the sort of the territory Republicans need to win in order to get a majority in the House of Representatives. There are 49 Democrats that represent districts won by McCain in 2008, they range from very narrows win for McCain to some over 60%. Republicans need to win at least 40 of those seats just to reach a majority exactly.

Many of these districts are similar to PA-12, being that they have long held by Democrats, but the difference is that most of them are occupied. If the GOP can't pick up a marginal seat in an open special election, then it lowers the chances of knocking off incumbents in marginal districts and even furthers lowers the possibly in less marginal districts. What we saw in PA-12 was a 6% swing away from what McCain got and only a 3% gain from what the Republican that ran against Murtha got in 2008.

It's safe to say the Republicans will gain some seats in the House, but not enough for the majority. Newt Gingrich made the prediction that Republicans could win from 45 to 70 seats in the House, in order to do that, they would have to practically run the table to even get close to the lowest end of Newt's estimate.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Great Post!

Thank you for it.

I'm glad the Repugs were wrong on this!
They don't have much luck predicting PA, I've noticed.
Remember McCain in 2008 during the general election?
That was his last best hope too!

[DrToast]

3. I think some pundits need to re-evaluate their November forecasts after tonight

I'm looking at you, Charlie Cook.

[FrenchieCat]

4. they know what they don't know till its no longer what they knew.

Eerie, hey?

They rarely admit to being wrong.
They just move on to their next prediction,
which is usually Doom for the Dems!

[dmr]

34. Sometimes I think the pundits say things in hopes to plant

a seed in the voter's mind that their guy is THE GUY. The guy that the implied majority sees as the best candidate.

Or something like that.

I don't usually like pundits.
:hi:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. This really is the story of the night. A story that the M$M refuses to tell. Rather than Specter's

loss and Lincoln's run-off reflecting a referendum on Obama. The true story is that (1) the Republican Party is divided; (2) Republicans are not excited about their candidates; (3) though tea baggers gained momentum in some races, the Tea Party Movement itself is divided.

What's going to happen after these primaries? Are the Republicans going to now side with the tea bag candidates after throwing them under the bus? Will the true tea baggers who don't like the Republican Party stay home or hold their noses and vote for the Republican? Will the Republican Party convince Indies and mainline Republicans that they aren't crazy tea baggers?

We'll see.

Seems to me that it's the Republican Party that's in trouble, not the Democratic Party. Not President Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Hard to get that message from the Talking Heads.....

who got their talking points by pulling it out of their ass, after they had been approved by the RNC!

Notice Steele not getting any negative coverage after the fact.

The articles I posted are from BEFORE the election.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. Interesting. Establishment Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour warned that

tea baggers need to "come home" and vote Republican. Well the Republican Establishment lost tonight. Really, Sarah Palin lost tonight. It'll be interesting to see what she does now. Can she show her face at a Rand Paul campaign event after ridiculing the tea baggers? Will they embrace her?

What about Michelle Bachmann? She's up for reelection. Will the MN Establishment Republicans work with tea baggers to reelect her?

This is going to be interesting. And the reason why the M$M isn't saying a word against the Republicans and Steele is because they are so busy creaming their pants at the chance to stick it to Obama.

[Cha]

7. Thanks Frenchie for all this

research! And, what will charlie cook say now?

So much for steele's guarantees..if the media isn't talking about this..it's just more rock solid proof that they are complicit in manipulation and manufacturing of the "news".

[FrenchieCat]

9. Yep...like I said in my OP from yesterday,

Antiestablishmentpushbymedia ism, the obvious is obvious.....even to the naked eye!

Oh...and there was no research involved....as that is all from the WAPO, but thanks anyways! :blush:

[Divine Discontent]

10. isn't it sweet? such a great nite. Specter loses as he should have, and Halter gets a runoff

against Lincoln!

GO PROGRESSIVES!

[FrenchieCat]

11. A much better night than the msm will admit....

that is definite!

[Divine Discontent]

12. they're furthing displaying who owns them, for sure! this was not an embarrassment for the WH

and even if I'm not pleased with everything (who is!), to say it was a mark on the president is so laughable! Specter lost because he's a Republican and "primary voters" know this - these are the people that follow politics. And as for Murtha's seat being held - like WOW - that is freaking awesome, since McSame won that area.

:bounce: Go Dems!!!

[FrenchieCat]

13. In full agreement.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Freepers joining to Unrec?

LOL!

this is for you!

[Jennicut]

15. Great finds Frenchie!

The thing is, this was not a referendum on Obama. It was too all over the place to be that way. Critz ran against health care. Sestak ran more to the left but is not a big time progressive (Sestak is for us being in Afghanistan). Halter seems pretty progressive. So what does that all mean? It means that Dems hate candidates that are too conservative but in a district that is more conservative Dem leaning, they picked someone similar to them but rejected the Rethug. How is that a bad night for Dems or even Obama?

[zbdent]

16. Maybe the only thing Steele can guarantee these days is

reimbursement for credit card expenditures at the 2012 strip club, er ... RNC national convention.

[Bitwit1234]

17. Specter lost because the Democrats will always think of him

as a republican. We have had enough of the Blue Dogs and won't get fooled again. This race was basically between a republican and a Democrat and the Democrat WON. It is as simple as that.

[ellie]

18. Thanks for compiling that information!

That was a nice read.

[Dappleganger]

19. Sweet...K&R! nt

[spinbaby]

20. Those outside groups were IMHO what got us the win

They produced ads that were so extreme and wingnutty, they drove people away from Burns. I hope they keep it up.

[quiet.american]

21. K&R, Frenchie. nt

[backtomn]

22. Nice victory.........NOT !!!

Critz is 1) Pro-Life, 2) Pro-Gun, 3) opposed to healthcare, 4) Pro-bring-pork-back-to-the-district, 5) Pro-oil drilling, 6) Against Cap-N-Trade.

Is that a victory???........in a 2 to 1 Democratic district???

Wow....our standards have gone VERY low.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Yes, anytime a Republican is defeated, it is a Democratic Victory.

As for standards, the only thing we want is the media to stop
being on bended knees coddling Republicans and making the news
favorable to them. I don't believe that this is asking too much,
and in fact, I did bother to ask.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x305264

[Zambero]

32. The GOP tied Critz to the "evil" Nancy Pelosi

And it was an absolute flop, no traction whatsoever despite spending a ton of money. If Republicans had hoped to coast to victory this November on the basis of Pelosi-izing Democratic candidates, they may need to go back to the drawing board and revisit that strategy. That I think is the take home message, not the fact that Critz is a Blue Dog.

Also, the 2-1 Democratic advantage in this District seems questionable. I know Limbaugh has been spewing that statistic. McCain actually carried the District in 2008, and since Obama retained an overwhelming majority of PA Democratic votes and carried the state by a comfortable margin, the notion of a heavily "Blue" PA District swinging Republican seems to be a fabrication (at least the blue part that is).

[laurel46]

23. I checked state voter registrations and found....

good news. It seems as if most of the losses are from repubs going independent. I have wondered if this will be another Goldwater election. Rollingstone wrote and article about republican jihad that makes this case.

Here is a voter registration list: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/voter_registration_trends_may.php (click on the picture of figures and it opens up with a clearer picture.)

[Ikonoklast]

25. And once again, what is 'common knowledge' proved to be bullshit

pulled out of the Republican's collective asses.


Reality is coming hard for these clowns in November, along with their media cheerleaders.

K&R.

[samsingh]

26. hard kick

[JohnWxy]

27. recommended. (no doubt this will be whispered about on M$M)

[jenmito]

28. I was waiting to hear Michael Steele mentioned even ONCE since the loss, and didn't.

Not ONCE did ANYONE mention that Steele promised a win with Burns and that he failed. I couldn't believe it! Not even Keith nor Rachel brought it up.

[FrenchieCat]

29. It's just the way it goes.......

Republicans escape much scrutiny, even here at DU

while,

Democrats get a magnifying glass inserted up their ass
every morning.

[jenmito]

30. Yeah, but I thought at least

Rachel, Keith, and maybe Ed Schultz would bring it up.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Oh Well, they didn't read my DU OP! LOL!

[Zambero]

33. The GOP needs to "Steele" a few more

The more the merrier actually. Spend, spend, spend. Lose, lose, lose.

[Peacetrain]

35. A Hard Kick back up... Good OP!

[Kingofalldems]

36. Kick this for the sneaky freepers

[Optimistic]

37. One Thing

This Democrat ran to the Right of Sean Hannity.