Saccone to take on Casey

According to CBS Pittsburgh. Republicans have not been doing well in state-wide races, generally, and I question whether Rep. Saccone has enough state-wide name recognition. But I can’t think of anyone better. The PA GOP does a pretty awful job of developing talent and moving them up the ladder. Of the state-wide state offices that are typically stepping stones to Senator or Governor, the Dems now control all of them. Casey’s advantage going against Santorum was name recognition, in that his father, Bob Casey, was a Pennsylvania Governor. Saccone has an uphill climb, so he is going to have to be a stellar candidate. I’d suggest if he can’t learn to channel some of that good ol’ populism that was Trump’s schtick, he’s probably doomed. One advantage Saccone has is he hasn’t been in office all that long. It’s a lot harder to pull off populist everyman when you’ve held office as long as some voters have been alive.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Casey’s Shift on Gun Rights
  2. The Numbers Landscape for 2012
  3. Senate Race Against Casey Suddenly Gets Interesting

13 thoughts on “Saccone to take on Casey”

  1. Saccone reportedly has said he is running because “God wants Christians to rule over us,” and he was backed up by Sam Rohrer of the American Pastors Network (I think it is.)

    Sorry, but if Saccone wins it will be without my vote. That doesn’t mean I’ll vote for Casey, but I’m tired of those people using our issue to advance their theocratic agenda. It has to stop somewhere, to bring some honesty back into the gun rights movement.

      1. But over 35+ years, those people have become past masters at stealth. There’s a good chance the Republican base and gun owners in general would never hear the thumping.

        Saccone made his statements on Sam Rohrer’s “Stand in the Gap” radio show. I can’t quote the show’s ratings, but I’m reasonably confident there were about 12 million Pennsylvanians who weren’t listening to it.

        I don’t know about this case, but usually those people get really POed when someone records precisely what they said, and distributes it (e.g., via SoundCloud) to a larger and more critical audience.

  2. Sigh. Its amazing how the GOP can control both legislatures so well, and yet have NO good state wide candidates available. And not for years! Even Corbett was meh when he first ran.

    I’m worried about PA going more purple.

  3. 2018 will be anything but typical and there’s a lot of time between now and the general. Last time Casey was on the ballot he was on a ticket headed by Lord King Master BHO. Before that it was Senate a only election in the heat of the anti-Bush period. So, seeing what happened in 2016 in PA. Casey should be worried that Philly will sit home and mid state will stay angry and come out.

  4. “Casey should be worried that Philly will sit home. . .”

    Yes he should stay worried, but thanks to the anti-Trump movement, right now there appears to be little chance they’ll sit home. Trump seems hell-bent on pissing off the base of urban voters, and he will be blamed for every one of their individual misfortunes.

    I don’t know if he said it first, but I recall Alan Gottlieb writing about the efficacy of “hate, fear, and revenge” as political motivators. Right now there appears to be no shortage of any of those commodities.

    But, you are right that November 2018 is a lifetime away. Especially as things are right now.

      1. Well, I haven’t followed it closely since it’s not one of my hot-button issues, but I did hear today that part of his budget includes ending or severely reducing the school breakfast program for needy children, and for Meals on Wheels for seniors. It is not my suburban neighbors (in general) who partake of those programs, so at the risk of stereotyping, I’m guessing the urban poor are most targeted, and will be in other ways in the future. My guess is his base will be expecting it from him.

        1. I stand partially corrected. I just looked into what’s being said, and it seems the working poor — the demographic that most supported Trump — get hit the hardest. Not that the urban poor aren’t in that working poor demographic, too.

          How did that H.L. Mencken quote go? “Democracy is that system that presumes the voters vote for what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Something like that.

        2. Meals on Wheels wouldn’t be ended, or even “severely reduced”. I doubt the school breakfast programs would be either. Trump’s budget eliminates a program that wasn’t producing results, so much so that Obama had cut the budget for it last year as well. A very small proportion of the money from that program was used by states to partly fund Meals on Wheels, but it isn’t necessary for MoW to keep operating.

          The Department of Housing and Urban Development runs a program called Community Development Block Grants. It’s exactly what it sounds like. It provides funds to states that they can use for a variety of approved purposes.

          Last year, the Obama administration recommended cutting its budget from $3 billion to $2.8 billion.

          This year, Mulvaney proposed that the program be eliminated entirely. Here’s what the Trump budget has to say about it:

          Eliminates funding for the Community Development Block Grant program, a savings of $3 billion from the 2017 annualized CR level. The Federal Government has spent over $150 billion on this block grant since its inception in 1974, but the program is not well-targeted to the poorest populations and has not demonstrated results. The Budget devolves community and economic development activities to the State and local level, and redirects Federal resources to other activities.

          Some bright bulb noticed that a few states use a small portion of their HUD CDBG money to fund Meals on Wheels. Actually, small isn’t the right word. Microscopic is the the right word. Elderly nutrition programs like Meals on Wheels receive about $700 million from other government sources—most of which aren’t targeted one way or the other in the Trump budget—but hardly anything from CDBG grants.

          http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/meals

          1. Thanks, and good, sourced research!

            But together we have sort of identified a point, tactically speaking: “School Breakfasts” and “Meals on Wheels” will be to the Trump Budget (and he will own it) what “Death Panels” were to Obamacare: Criticism of something that deserves criticism, but for bullshit reasons. Though, providing the kinds of reasons that will actually get people out to the polls and perhaps into the streets.

            Political tactics have no ideology, and both camps seem to have the U.S. population pegged.

  5. Saccone in action in his natural habitat.

    It is rumored That Asshole Barletta is now considering running for the seat in the Republican primary. My guess is he decided beating Saccone would be easy.

    Barletta is the guy who as mayor of Hazleton, PA, implemented a number of ordinances that the SCOTUS declared unconstitutional. As did I, but I’m not a Justice. Anyway, that made him so popular he leveraged it into a seat in congress.

    My apologies. As a gun owner I just get nervous when a politician uses popular/populist, unconstitutional laws to further expand their popularity and name recognition — regardless of the issue in question.

    As I saw written elsewhere, “It didn’t take Pennsylvania Republicans long to bring crazy to the 2018 U.S. Senate race.”

Comments are closed.