In Pennsylvania’s 12th district, Republican Tim Burns has conceded to Democrat Mark Critz.
One reader’s on the ledge:
Pa12 is more than a disappointment. It is a disaster. You know politics as well as I do (even though I’m probably your senior by at least thirty years). When there is a political wave the following happens: parties win special elections in normally difficult districts; they win with weak candidates; they win all the close elections. They just win, win, and win. Burns’s defeat shows, as of now, the Rs will unlikely take the House. Perhaps they’ll do well; as today’s generic Gallup indicates around a gain in the low thirties. But not what we need. I didn’t read much about what Burns’ campaign was like, perhaps you can offer some meaningful analysis. My guess is that the Republican label is still a liability in many areas; areas that they have to win in order to take the House.
A point: Tim Burns’s task was complicated by the fact that he was running against a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat who ran against the health-care bill and the cap-and-trade legislation. The Burns campaign did everything they could to tie Critz to Democratic figures and laws that polled badly in the district — Pelosi, the health-care bill — and it appears that in the end, voters in the district weren’t buying it.
But I am wondering about the Burns campaign’s get-out-the-vote operation at this hour. Also, another conservative blogger mentioned to me a few days ago that some supporters of Bill Russell, the Republican who ran against John Murtha in 2008, wouldn’t be supporting Burns in the special election. (Russell is competing against Burns in the primary election for the November ballot; at this moment, Burns leads Russell, 56 percent to 43 percent.) I was skeptical that enough Russell supporters would do this to effect the race, but now I’m wondering. Did the Russell folks keep their ballots blank?
UPDATE: Jay Cost: “I count about 95,000 votes in special election and 111,000 in primaries.” (UPDATE: Nevermind, it’s a glitch on the Pennsylvania site.)
It seems to me that if this special election were for a seat formerly held by a Democrat in a heavily- or leaning-Democrat district - which it was - then it stands to reason that the Democrat candidate stood a good chance of prevailing. November isn't going to be determined by the Democrats or by the Republicans, but by the Independents.
Show me a Democrat win in a balanced district, with a substantial number of Independents (gee, like the Scott Brown Senate race...), and then I'll worry. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over a Democrat winning a seat in a district that was willing to have a scoundrel like Murtha as their Representative for all these years.
Imagine a Democrat winning a special election in Nazi Pelosi's district. Big friggin' deal. (Although just the idea of a special election for Pelosi's seat sends the heart a-flutter!)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't live in the 12th, but I do live in the same Pittsburgh media markets that ran the non-stop avalanche of ads. With the contested Dem Senate primary, a 4-way Dem Governor primary, Tom Corbett running gubernatorial ads that seemed suited for the general, and the Burns-Critz back-and-forth, voters may have had election fatigue here.
Add to that the fact that as recently as Sunday night I saw misleading ads saying Burns wanted a 23% sales tax, I think Burns just got buried in the deluge. His ads frankly weren't that good. I believe the content of political ads matters, and even though Critz's ads were blatantly false, they were better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure how bad this is. The Republican lost to a Democrat who tried as hard as he could to look like a Republican.
It's not like he ran on Obamacare and Cap-and-Trade . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLike the first poster, I, too, live in the same media market though not District # 12. The airwaves, radio and all the TV stations have been peppered with union and Democrat Committee ads painting Burns as wanting a 23% sales tax and as someone who sent jobs overseas when he owned a local business. All of this was UNANSWERED. I would be surprised if Burns own mother voted for him as badly as he was trashed in the media with NO RESPONSE.
Both candidates ran as fiscal and cultural conservatives and these negative ads, a huge volume of them, are responsible for the outcome of this election.
If the Republicans are not prepared to outspend Soros and the Democrats in Nov., there may be lots of new faces in Congress after Nov., but most of them with have a (D) after the name.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Dems should have won this district, since they've held it for decades. It was always going to be an uphill battle for the Rep, who needed to run an exceptional campaign (doesn't sound like he did.) That the Dem had to run AWAY from Obama-Pelosi to win is the interesting part.
This result fits the "anti-Washington" theme better than the "anti-incumbent" theme.
When a Dem who supports Obamacare wins in a purple district, then you can start to worry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStop the hand-wringing. This is a typical failure of the PA GOP establishment and a set of special circumstances:
1) The GOP should have run Russell, the man who opposed Murtha last time. Instead, they picked an unknown. The consequence was Burns running against Critz in the Special , and Burns running against Russell in the primary _on the same ballot_.
2) The PA primary is closed. Dem turnout was very high because of Specter v. Sestak.
3) Burns ran a horrible campaign. He was practically invisible until the last few days of the contest (my district is right next door.)
4) Critz actually ran to the right of Burns. He deliberately kept current big name Democrats out of the district.
5) 2-1 Democrat registration advantage, in -- did I mention -- a closed primary.
6) A very heavy Big Labor district, specially gerrymandered to Murtha's advantage.
7) An extremely popular, even if corrupt, predecessor who recently died while in office.
So please stop with the doom and gloom.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse