The Pennsylvania Senate race tightens and it's partly my fault

According to this story, Pennsylvania's Senate race is tighter.

Santorum has narrowed the gap from an 18-point difference in June, according to the poll, and a recent appearance of a Green Party candidate also is considered a spoiler for the Democrat.

In a three-way contest, the new poll found Casey leading Santorum 45 percent to 39 percent, with Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli picking up 5 percent. Eleven percent said they were undecided or did not plan to vote, according to the Quinnipiac University poll.

As a two-way race, without Romanelli, 47 percent of the same respondents favored Casey to 40 percent for Santorum, with 13 percent undecided or expressing another opinion.

I expect many people are steaming mad at the Green Party right about now, because the Green Party accepted the help of Santorum's campaign to get enough signatures to be on the ballot.

This "deal with the devil" strategy was actually pioneered by me in Pennsylvania.

Sorry...!

See, in Pennsylvania, it's really hard for a third party or independent candidate to get enough petition signatures to be on the ballot. The system has been rigged, pretty much, with a strange set of moving requirements. I could explain it here, but I'd lose you; what it boils down to is, if you don't have $200,000 to throw out, you wouldn't get on the ballot as a third party or independent, in 2006 in this state.

The PA ballot access requirements are amongst the toughest in the country. For example, it was one of the states Ralph Nader couldn't get on in his first Pres run, because he wasn't spending any money.

When my buddy Ken was running for Gov in 2002, it looked like he wasn't going to have the signatures to make the ballot. In a late night strategy session I told him to go to Rendell's people -- the very top guy, the campaign manager, whom I identifed -- and tell him the situation.

Kenny did that, and shortly thereafter he found that he did in fact have enough signatures to get on the ballot.

Kenny's glorious and beautiful campaign made that idea worthwhile, although I advanced it to him because by that time I was in favor of Rendell. The Greens were already in that race, to get their percentage, and Kenny did a beautiful job getting his percentage as well. In the end it wasn't enough for either third-party candidate to have thrown the race. But in sheer dollar per vote, it made sense for the Rendell campaign to keep Kenny's percentage in the mix.

In that race, the signature requirements were about half what the 2006 requirements were. It's possible that the Green guy got on in 2002 without any help.

No Libs had me advising them this year. Kenny's all out of money. Ah well, it was fun while it lasted. Throwing a monkey wrench into the system wasn't my intent, but everything's kind of fucked up now anyway.

Yes, I remeber Ken bragging about that deal at a Pink Pistols luncheon. In front of press that was there to cover us.

Not a very smart move (the bragging, I mean), IMHO...and I know it turned a lot of our people off on him. Now we know who to blame. :-)

It's funny...every time the Greens/Santorum connection comes up on the news around here, Gwennie fumes about the fuss over that vs. the silence when Rendell did it. I guess it goes to show you that people take the Greens more seriously than the Libs. Go figure.

Ken was on some early petitions this year but I think really only to make a court challenge the number of petitions needed. The courts shrugged and said "this sucks but it's not really our job to fix" and threw it back at the legislature, which promptly did nothing as always.

I guess its not likely that after both old parties have been bitten that they'd do the right thing and reform ballot access, so Greens and Libs would always be there...

Elected person in Harrisburg......"Hmmm, my party is one of two hogs at the trough. Should I make it easier for more hogs to share the slop...or possibly replace one of us? Nope, next question."

Won't happen until enough people pressure the politicians. If there were enough people to do that, signatures wouldn't be a problem. :haha:

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Elected person in Harrisburg......"Hmmm, my party is one of two hogs at the trough. Should I make it easier for more hogs to share the slop...or possibly replace one of us? Nope, next question."

Oh my god!!! Are you comparing politicians to pigs! For shame! :shock:

Why do you think they call it pork?

Because it isn't kosher.

Pigs are cleaner.

(n.b. So far, PA's state legislature politicians are the worst politicians I've ever seen. They're emboldened by power they don't deserve, act like they're the world's greatest gift to the citizenry, they're relentlessly political, they don't solve any problems or lead in any sense of the word. These are the morons who elected themselves pay raises at 1AM in the morning hoping nobody would notice, and, having been found out, voted it out at 1AM in the morning hoping nobody would notice. They give themselves $800/month auto leases so they can get limo service to ride to the state capitol. They appear to be unable to solve even minor problems and have permanently backwards-facing arms so they can pat themselves on the back. Most of them are 20-year incumbents because people pull the party lever for those offices as no attention is paid to them. Rant over, I had to get that off my back.)

I'm not up on the other counties, but Republican machine in Delaware County has built such a stranglehold organization, you can't do anything unless you're registered Republican.

Want to start a business, get zoning relief, get a fair court hearing, have your elected officials listen to your problem, and of course, do business with or work for, County or Local Government, register Republican.

They're so cocky, they won't even take bribes from non-party members.

But, that's the first half of the problem. Like UT said, "people pull the party lever for those offices as no attention is paid to them", which solidifies their power.:mad:

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

They're so cocky, they won't even take bribes from non-party members.

So, you're admitting you offered them one? :-)

This is another reason why he must go.

Maggie wrote:

So, you're admitting you offered them one? :-)

Didn't have a chance, I was informed I wasn't eligible for the program, up front. :(




damn spelling

What do you need? Dads going to the GOP meeting tonight... wrong county.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001410.php

According to that story, too many Green signatures have been found to be invalid, and so they are challenging the law in PA state supreme court in such a way to require fewer signatures.

I expect this will fail and the Greens will be pushed off the ballot.

I saw an ad for Prick Sans-rectum today. It was about how he introduced legislation that helps seniors get early detection of colon cancer. Why is it that repubicans advertise their liberal accomplishments to try to get votes? Notice he didn't advertise that the repububicans kept senior citizens taxes high by giving a tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Notice he didn't say that the money we're spending in Iraq could have been better used to refill the coffers of Social Security. Or that he supports the government's power to determine when a person should be allowed to die. No - he advertises how he spent more tax money to help senior citizens, a concept in direct conflict with conservative ideals. What a hypocrit!

Outsiders watching the race right now should know that Santorum is running a ton of both positive and negative ads while the Casey campaign is doing nothing. The race has tightened as a result, which is the only way the Santorum campaign can manage, because running ads this early is not to convince voters but to make sure that the money spigots don't shut off too early. If the race is seen as unwinnable, nobody will donate to it.

Spexxvet wrote:

Why is it that repubicans advertise their liberal accomplishments to try to get votes?

Ya think maybe it's because the Republican voters are already going to vote for them? Hmmm... This politics stuff is hard. :-)

MaggieL wrote:

Ya think maybe it's because the Republican voters are already going to vote for them? Hmmm... This politics stuff is hard. :-)

False advertising, huh? Hopefully the repubicans will see the ads and be disenchanted with and stay away from the polls. BTW - Democrats are too smart to fall for the lies.

Spexxvet wrote:

False advertising, huh? Hopefully the repubicans will see the ads and be disenchanted with and stay away from the polls. BTW - Democrats are too smart to fall for the lies.

It's the swing voters that have the power. Fickle bastards.

Undertoad wrote:

Outsiders watching the race right now should know that Santorum is running a ton of both positive and negative ads while the Casey campaign is doing nothing.

I've been hearing Casey Jr. spots on KYW (on those rare occasions when the right wing talk station is broadcasting baseball and I don't like the show on the religious station), but most of them seem to be negative ads about Santorum rather than positive ads about Casey's intent, which leads me to believe that Casey Jr. doesn't have any positive intent.

MaggieL wrote:

Ya think maybe it's because the Republican voters are already going to vote for them? Hmmm... This politics stuff is hard. :-)

You know, Maggie, you could have been helpful and courteous, and just posted the first sentence. But, no, you had to add that second sentence, trying to show that you are superior. Is your inferiority complex so huge that you must take every opportunity to try to show how much better you are than everyone else? This kind of post is why conservatives make me want to puke. It's not so much the ideology as it is the personality of the typical right wing asshole.

Spexxvet wrote:

You know, Maggie, you could have been helpful and courteous, and just posted the first sentence.

Don't you think it's more than obvious that the purpose of political advertising (which is rather expensive) is to get more people to vote for the candidate, rather than to preach to the idiological choir?

Maybe that is kind of an obscure concept...look at the chairman of the DNC these days (speaking of assholes). Not to mention the Senate race in Connecticut.

Spexx, your post #19 and your post #22 do not work well together.

#19 wrote:

BTW - Democrats are too smart to fall for the lies.

#22 wrote:

Is your inferiority complex so huge that you must take every opportunity to try to show how much better you are than everyone else?

MaggieL wrote:

Don't you think it's more than obvious that the purpose of political advertising (which is rather expensive) is to get more people to vote for the candidate, rather than to preach to the idiological choir?

Maybe that is kind of an obscure concept...look at the chairman of the DNC these days (speaking of assholes). Not to mention the Senate race in Connecticut.

I wasn't addressing the content of your first sentence, my post was directed at your snide second sentence.

Spexxvet wrote:

I wasn't addressing the content of your first sentence, my post was directed at your snide second sentence.

My snide second sentence was mocking how obvious a point it was. If you expect a Cellar without mockery you'll be sorely disppointed. Especally in view of how much a pot you are to that kettle.

My expectation in post #15 has played out:

Green Party hopeful is out; win for Casey

The prospect of a three-way U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania appeared all but over yesterday as the state Supreme Court rebuffed Green Party Senate candidate Carl Romanelli's bid to get on the November ballot.

The ruling, in a one-sentence order, was good news for the Bob Casey campaign, which had feared that Mr. Romanelli's presence on the ballot would siphon votes from the Democrat. For the same reason, it was a blow to Sen. Rick Santorum and to the Republican donors who had funded the petition drive that sought to establish the Green hopeful's access to the November ballot.

State election law dictates that independent candidates for statewide office submit nominating petitions with a total number of signatures from registered voters equivalent to 2 percent of the votes cast for the top vote-getter in the most recent statewide election. The justices upheld a Commonwealth Court ruling that set a 67,000-vote threshold based on 2 percent of the votes cast for Mr. Casey in his 2004 race for state treasurer.

Mr. Romanelli's attorney, Lawrence Otter, argued that state elections officials should have used a 2005 judicial retention election for Justice Sandra Newman, a move that would have resulted in a signature requirement of approximately 15,000. The Green candidate had originally submitted nominating petitions, which he said, contained early 100,000 signatures.

After a review by state elections officials and litigation before Commonwealth Court, thousands of those signatures were ruled invalid, leaving him at least 9,000 short of the required total. Requirements for valid signatures are exacting under state law. Signatures collected must be from registered voters, and precisely match the data, such as address, recorded on state voter rolls.

100,000 signatures submitted, 58,000 found valid. That's a terrible rate. We used to hope for a 20% cushion.

Perhaps that says something about people likely to support a Green candidate? Unregistered, but enthusiastic enough to lie about registration status on a petition drive?

Also coming true is my point in #17. The race tightened when only Santorum was running ads. Now that both are running ads, the race returned to a 10-point margin.

You don't need to be a Green supporter to sign, you just have agree that they have the right to be on the ballot.

The judge will allow a certain amount of signatures with no registration data -- because the signers only need to be registered in time to vote in the election, and there is no proof that the person didn't submit a registration application that wasn't processed yet.

This many bad sigs is more than likely cheating on behalf of the paid signature gatherers. Easy to figure. It's really hard to get signatures and they get as much as $2 per signature. You can get as many as 12 signatures per hour if you go door to door and are good at it. But if you're good at faking signatures you can get many more per hour.

Apparently JSM, Inc., which was hired to collect signatures, has a history of having their signature sheets thrown out.

This has taken a turn for the worse. The Green candidate is now under threat of covering all the legal fees for the Democrats' court challenge. The actual cost to the gentleman may be well into six figures.

This, in turn, will definitely ensure the end of any third-party state-wide candidacies in Pennsylvania. Nobody will run if there is a threat of personal loss of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

...paying for the right not to participate.

Happy Monkey wrote:

Apparently JSM, Inc., which was hired to collect signatures, has a history of having their signature sheets thrown out.

I should think they would smarten up and at least copy names from valid voter lists. But I suppose they are using the lowest priced help they can....being a business. :(