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.
A district that has 2-1 MORE registered democrats is now considered republican?
Totally ridiculous.
It IS a heavily democratic, union district.
62% of voters were democrats.
This is just the Left trying to spin the election into something it's not. I predicted this before the election.
Everything was in Critz favor, including a hotly contested Senate primary that brought out the Left.
Some portions in the southern states, especially Kentucky and Oklahoma have huge Democratic registration advantages, that does not mean they are Democratic. The district like some of those southern districts are Democratic on the local level, but they aren't Democratic on the federal level. I wouldn't exactly label PA-12 as Republican, but its not exactly Democratic anymore either. Its more along the lines of a marginal district. It is a blue dog type of district, and more so than most of the districts the GOP lost in 06 & 08.
62% that voted last night were democrats, 34% republican.
The state has been blue for almost 20 years.
The district has been blue and in the hands of dems for 32 years.
The state has not "been blue" for almost 20 years. The state may have voted for the Democratic candidate for pres for the last 20 years, but that's not the same. Since you haven't read my previous two postings of this on other threads, I'll post it again:
19 seats, 11 Dems (as of last night), 7 Reps. That's not "blue". Two Dem senators, one of whom was elected as a Repub. in 1980, has held office continuously since then, and changed parties in 2009. He was preceded in office by Richard Schweiker, another Republican who held the office from 1969-81.
In the last 20 years, Pennsylvania has had two Repub and two Dem governors. In fact, in the last 40 years, PA has had five Rep and 4 Dem governors. Pretty purple.
Some portions in the southern states, especially Kentucky and Oklahoma have huge Democratic registration advantages, that does not mean they are Democratic. The district like some of those southern districts are Democratic on the local level, but they aren't Democratic on the federal level. I wouldn't exactly label PA-12 as Republican, but its not exactly Democratic anymore either. Its more along the lines of a marginal district. It is a blue dog type of district, and more so than most of the districts the GOP lost in 06 & 08.
No, this is not the typical BD district. And to dispute the fact that even though democrats have a huge reg advantage does not correlate to mean they are not democratic districts, you would HAVE to have a republican at least winning the district occasionally, which we don't have here.
It is heavily democratic, heavily union - those FACTS are indisputable.
a highly rural region that still has a traditionally Democratic influence due to its labor leanings.....a large and Democratic edge suburb of Pittsburgh is a part of the 12th.....which includes the very Democratic former steel megacenter......a labor Democratic stronghold is part of this district.....
No, this is not the typical BD district. And to dispute the fact that even though democrats have a huge reg advantage does not correlate to mean they are not democratic districts, you would HAVE to have a republican at least winning the district occasionally, which we don't have here.
It is heavily democratic, heavily union - those FACTS are indisputable.
Perhaps, but I understand the Republicans spent $1 million on this race, so despite the fact that you keep harping on the 2-1 advantage, the Republicans clearly thought they could win it. Politics are local, and if the Republican candidate had offered a better deal, he surely would have won. The bottom-line is that your supposed 2-1 advantage doesn't mean squat when it comes to elections.
Perhaps, but I understand the Republicans spent $1 million on this race, so despite the fact that you keep harping on the 2-1 advantage, the Republicans clearly thought they could win it. Politics are local, and if the Republican candidate had offered a better deal, he surely would have won. The bottom-line is that your supposed 2-1 advantage doesn't mean squat when it comes to elections.
Really? Well, maybe that would be true if the republican had won against a 2-1 disadvantage.
A 2-1 dem advantage, as well as a hotley contested Senate dem primary, throw in the FACT that both candidates ran AGAINST obama's policies (btw, since that IS the case, how does that jive with the left meme that this wans't about obama?) AND the seat has been in dem hands for 32 years......
I want you to know I was enjoying a thick porterhouse and Bob's Chop House in Grapevine Texas when I got the news that Spector was defeated by a netroots candidate from the left and the GOP couldn't win an open seat that McCain won.
Heaven! Simply heaven!
Then I get back home and you're performing double back flips spinning excuses why the Tea Bag revolution can't win......LOL
Icing on the cake!
Be careful what you wish for! Icing on the cake, QUICKLY MELTS!
Sphincter, uh I mean Specter is your typical never get anything done career politician. With all the problems this country is facing this clown wanted to set up a commission to investigate if one NFL team was spying on another! He was the second most destructive senator in the country beside the late but no so great vehicular homicide charges dodging Theodore Kennedy. As those people across the pond with the funny accent and bad teeth say, "good riddance to bad rubbish!"
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.