Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yes he was there for 35 years, and he won for so long because he was an entrenched incumbent. However, being an entrenched incumbent doesn't mean that the district is your party. Chris Shays CT-4, and Nancy Johnson CT-5 both lost in recent elections. They were both Incumbents for 20+ years. Even before they lost and even before it looked like they would lose no one was going to suggest either one of those districts were Republican. Similar to Murtha, the two of them were able to hold on as long as they were due to Incumbency.
You don't exactly lose a district (even narrowly) on the Presidential level when you win nationally if its staunchly your party. It use to be a staunch Democratic district, but hasn't been in years, which is why Kerry only barely won it, and why despite winning by more than 7 nationwide, Obama lost it narrowly. Locally the Dems are still strong, but nationally the district is not staunchly Dem and hasb't been in years.
Wrong again. Shays was an incumbent R in a democrat district, same with Johnson.
PA-12 is a seat held by the democrats since the 1930's, in a district where the democrats hold a 2-1 registration advantage.
Please...stop with the nonsense.
Registration doesn't always mean everything. Until recently Jim Gerlach's district (PA-6) had a GOP registration advantage (may even have had it in 08) Obama won it by 17 points. Many districts in Kentucky and Oklahoma have Dem registration advantages, but no one in their right mind would say most of them are Democratic. Johnson's old district was actually slightly closer to the national average than Murtha's district. Ct-5 was 7 points more Democratic than the nation on the Presidential level, PA-12 was 8 points more Republican than the nation. On the local level PA-12 is fairly Democratic, but it has been swinging GOP for some time on the national level. Its very much an old school Appalachia type of district, very populist. Liberal on most economic issues, and socially conservative.
Registration doesn't always mean everything. Until recently Jim Gerlach's district (PA-6) had a GOP registration advantage (may even have had it in 08) Obama won it by 17 points. Many districts in Kentucky and Oklahoma have Dem registration advantages, but no one in their right mind would say most of them are Democratic. Johnson's old district was actually slightly closer to the national average than Murtha's district. Ct-5 was 7 points more Democratic than the nation on the Presidential level, PA-12 was 8 points more Republican than the nation. On the local level PA-12 is fairly Democratic, but it has been swinging GOP for some time on the national level. Its very much an old school Appalachia type of district, very populist. Liberal on most economic issues, and socially conservative.
Again, you have absolutely NOTHING to back up this claim. Since Murtha has been elected year after year, it is nothing but a fairy tale that the district is more republican.
Where are the statistics that say PA-12 was 8 points more republican than the nation?
Again, you have absolutely NOTHING to back up this claim. Since Murtha has been elected year after year, it is nothing but a fairy tale that the district is more republican.
Where are the statistics that say PA-12 was 8 points more republican than the nation?
Yes Murtha did win the district over and over again, however a well established Democratic Incumbent who keeps winning doesn't automatically mean its a staunch Democratic district. Just like an Incumbent Republican who keeps winning, it doesn't mean that its automatically a GOP district.
McCain won the district by a little under 1 point, Obama won nationally by a little over 7 points. Hence 8 points more Republican than the nation.....
Gore won the district by 11, Kerry won it by 2, Obama lost it by 1. If thats not the very definition of trending Republican....
Yes Murtha did win the district over and over again, however a well established Democratic Incumbent who keeps winning doesn't automatically mean its a staunch Democratic district. Just like an Incumbent Republican who keeps winning, it doesn't mean that its automatically a GOP district.
McCain won the district by a little under 1 point, Obama won nationally by a little over 7 points. Hence 8 points more Republican than the nation.....
Gore won the district by 11, Kerry won it by 2, Obama lost it by 1. If thats not the very definition of trending Republican....
Add to that a 2-1 registration advantage for the democrats. And it IS a staunch democratic district, no matter how much you don't want it to be.
Oh please. Really, the bold has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's a republican district and I think your use of statistics leaves something to be desired.
This is one of those districts obama was talking about - those that cling to guns and religion. Just because they didn't like obama, doesn't mean it's not a democrat district, as their support for Murtha and Hillary shows.
Add to that a 2-1 registration advantage for the democrats. And it IS a staunch democratic district, no matter how much you don't want it to be.
Oh please. Really, the bold has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's a republican district and I think your use of statistics leaves something to be desired.
This is one of those districts obama was talking about - those that cling to guns and religion. Just because they didn't like obama, doesn't mean it's not a democrat district, as their support for Murtha and Hillary shows.
The district also was a solid Gore district, but one Kerry barely won. Its the same type heart of Appalachia district the GOP has made gains in recently. The idea that PA-12 is a Democratic district is absurd. it use to be one. However, it is no longer one. It is no longer a stanch Democratic district, just like PA-6 despite Gerlach winning it, or IL-10 which had Kirk winning it over and over again or DE-AL which had Castle winning over and over the other way, once fairly solid GOP seats not anymore.
The district also was a solid Gore district, but one Kerry barely won. Its the same type heart of Appalachia district the GOP has made gains in recently. The idea that PA-12 is a Democratic district is absurd. it use to be one. However, it is no longer one. It is no longer a stanch Democratic district, just like PA-6 despite Gerlach winning it, or IL-10 which had Kirk winning it over and over again or DE-AL which had Castle winning over and over the other way, once fairly solid GOP seats not anymore.
I guess it depends on the democrat who is running.
The bold is absolutely hilarious. By ALL measures, registration (2-1 dems), elections (Murtha, 35 years), which party has controlled the seat for 35 years, every single article analyzing the race that says what a tough haul it will be for the GOP to win there - absolutely the lamest bit of spin I've seen in a while.
But I know what you're trying to do with spin like that.
If the republican wins, the narrative will be "oh well, it was a republican district, he SHOULD have won, no biggy".
If the democrat wins, the narrative will be "ohhhh, guess that "red wave" is not so red, the republican couldn't even win in a district that.........had a 2-1 advantage for dems in voter registration and has been held by the democrats since the 1930's".
Candidates seeking Murtha seat shun President Obama’s policies
Quote:
It is not terribly surprising that Critz has distanced himself from the president.
Obama’s approval ratings in the 12th district have hovered in the 30s and he was soundly defeated by Hillary Rodham Clinton in Pennsylvania in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.
Strange headline - OF COURSE the republican would shun and oppose obama's policies.
I guess it depends on the democrat who is running.
The bold is absolutely hilarious. By ALL measures, registration (2-1 dems), elections (Murtha, 35 years), which party has controlled the seat for 35 years, every single article analyzing the race that says what a tough haul it will be for the GOP to win there - absolutely the lamest bit of spin I've seen in a while.
But I know what you're trying to do with spin like that.
If the republican wins, the narrative will be "oh well, it was a republican district, he SHOULD have won, no biggy".
If the democrat wins, the narrative will be "ohhhh, guess that "red wave" is not so red, the republican couldn't even win in a district that.........had a 2-1 advantage for dems in voter registration and has been held by the democrats since the 1930's".
Look at the registration advantages the Dems have in some of the districts in the south, especially Kentucky and Oklahoma. Are you going to suggest that those districts are Democratic?. Yes, the Dems have controlled the seat there for many years. However, long term incumbents can often hold seats even if its not a stronghold for their party.
As I said before locally the district is still Democratic, nationally it is not, and has trended Republican.
Look at the registration advantages the Dems have in some of the districts in the south, especially Kentucky and Oklahoma. Are you going to suggest that those districts are Democratic?. Yes, the Dems have controlled the seat there for many years. However, long term incumbents can often hold seats even if its not a stronghold for their party.
As I said before locally the district is still Democratic, nationally it is not, and has trended Republican.
Ky and Ok are NOT PA, a democratic stronghold for years.
No, it has not trended republican and I can say that with certainty because the last election the man who has owned the seat for 35 years was re-elected.
Whereas you have only your "feelings" on the matter.
Are you aware there are over 60 districts that currently have a dem rep where Republicans have performed better than this one?
The seats that are key for the republicans are those taken over by dems in 2006&2008, that are clearly republican districts. It is in those districts that hold the key to a majority for the Rs.
I know the Left and the media would like to claim this is a "must win" for the Rs, but really it is not.
Last edited by sanrene; 05-16-2010 at 02:51 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
