So... how about that Tea Party?

[Sqrl]

pichu_pichu said:

Sqrl said:

Yeah I know right?

When the pro-life, anti-health-care, anti-cap-and-trade, pro-gun, democrat wins in blue PA it sure is a sign that the conservative brand is going to be in trouble in the general election .....  Democrats moving to the right and winning aren't exactly an endorsement of their chances in November given the current climate and perceptions.  Things may change on both counts, but you can't give a serious analysis of a race without actually considering what the candidates ran on.  If it takes a conservative democrat to win in an already blue territory don't you think any stemming of losses in November will come at the expense of moving those seats to the right anyways?  Even if it is less than if they had lost?

As for the difference in votes, it's pretty basic that  participation in primary voting is far from being a primary indicator of true voter enthusiasm, the breakdowns in party participation simply don't hold in the general.  I'm really not sure how you thought this was anything but a non sequitur.

Who knows, maybe you're right, maybe things won't go so well for the republicans in November, but your reasoning for it here is closer to wishful thinking than reality.

Since it's a slight conservative district, it's pretty sure that the Democrat will have some conservative beliefs as well like many other right blue areas. Since this election happened, I still think Republicans won't be taking as much seats as they have hoped to have. Also, PA 12 isn't really a 'true' blue district since McCain had won it, and it still went Democrat. Burns was really endorsed by the right, even the almighty blue-turnin'-red Scott Brown came. FL 19, NY 23, CA 10, CA 32, IL 5... special elections before this was all won by Democrats. In 1994, it was the other way around with red districts winning consecutively. So, I don't really see Republicans really winning BIG this November like it happened in '94 if they couldn't win PA 12. Sure, Dems might lose some seats, but just not a lot.

 

OT: Me thinks the Tea Party will affect Republicans more than Democrats by introducing more libertarians, I get what they're rallying for, and I respect that. 

Some conservative beliefs sure, but the guy was practically running on a fresh print-off of a Republican party platform flier as it was.  I think Critz is further to the right than Scozzafava was in NY22 (the RNC endorsed candidate there), but that it is even close at all is quite telling. 

Add to that a nationally spotlighted democratic senatorial primary that undoubtedly bolstered Critz's turnout (and arguably by more than he won), and I really think you guys are seeing what you want to see here.  Of course I was saying the same thing about Republicans a week ago when they were feeling confident they were going to win the seat.....there is a reason Murtha held it for as long as he did in spite of his record being somewhat at odds with the "slight conservative" bent of that district.