A big flip for the republicans. Dave McCormick wins the seat

[Common Sense 1]

A big win for the republicans. A little bit more of a cushion for their control of the Senate.

Trump-backed PA Senate candidate flips longtime Dem seat red in nail-biter election​

Sen Bob Casey has acknowledged the race against Dave McCormick would be 'tough'​

Trump-backed PA Senate candidate flips longtime Dem seat red in nail-biter election

Longtime Democrat Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey squared up for what he said was a "close" race against Trump-backed Republican challenger Dave McCormick.

www.foxnews.com

Republican Pennsylvania Senate candidate Dave McCormick was declared victorious in his high-stakes election against longtime Democrat Sen. Bob Casey on Tuesday.

Casey has served in the Senate since 2008 and ultimately became a stalwart within the Democratic Party. For example, he voted on legislation President Biden supported 98.5% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight data.

The Casey name also has deep roots in the state, with Bob Casey Sr., the senator’s father, serving as the Keystone State’s governor from 1987 to 1995 after years of serving in various other elected roles.

The longtime senator, however, faced what was described as his most difficult re-election effort to date, squaring up against Republican businessman Dave McCormick.

 

[Common Sense 1]

 

[poppopfox]

McCormick came under fire from Casey and Democrats for splitting his time between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, where his children attend school, painting him as a Keystone State outsider.
We saw this in 2022 with DR. Oz. Is this the shape of things to come?

 

[PoliSciPulse]

McCormick came under fire from Casey and Democrats for splitting his time between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, where his children attend school, painting him as a Keystone State outsider.
We saw this in 2022 with DR. Oz. Is this the shape of things to come?

Dr. Oz apparently had way more problems. I'd say pseudoscience was the disqualifier --- but then again, RFK, Jr. endorsed Trump, so maybe not.

 

[Paradoxical]

A big win for the republicans. A little bit more of a cushion for their control of the Senate.

Trump-backed PA Senate candidate flips longtime Dem seat red in nail-biter election​

Sen Bob Casey has acknowledged the race against Dave McCormick would be 'tough'​

Trump-backed PA Senate candidate flips longtime Dem seat red in nail-biter election

Longtime Democrat Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey squared up for what he said was a "close" race against Trump-backed Republican challenger Dave McCormick.

www.foxnews.com

Republican Pennsylvania Senate candidate Dave McCormick was declared victorious in his high-stakes election against longtime Democrat Sen. Bob Casey on Tuesday.

Casey has served in the Senate since 2008 and ultimately became a stalwart within the Democratic Party. For example, he voted on legislation President Biden supported 98.5% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight data.

The Casey name also has deep roots in the state, with Bob Casey Sr., the senator’s father, serving as the Keystone State’s governor from 1987 to 1995 after years of serving in various other elected roles.

The longtime senator, however, faced what was described as his most difficult re-election effort to date, squaring up against Republican businessman Dave McCormick.

That is big. That gives them 53 and it will make things much easier for Trump.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

The biggest problem that I saw with the way the Democrats ran again Trump was that, with the exception of the threat to Democracy, we'd seen this talking points in 2016, and again, with the exception of January 6th, we'd seen the results. Whether or not you think that January 6th was an indicator of a threat to democracy or not, the Democrats hung their hats on that and hardly anything else. And that is the problem: if that argument is not effective (And it wasn't really on me -- though I think Donald Trump was of poor character, and Jan. 6 was a disqualifier), then you're not reaching the voters you need to.

The thing is, I'm a left-leaning independent. When I looked at Donald Trump's -official- platform (so on his website), and equally weighted everything, completely disregarding who Trump was, and just if the ideas were good -- he scored the highest I've seen a Republican score when I did that experiment. I did the same thing to Harris, and her platform -alone- beat Trump's platform according to where I lean. So an anonymized Democratic candidate beat an anonymized Republican candidate's platform, and that Republican candidate's platform was off the charts to begin with. That to me says she would have been successful if she simply added the more popular planks of her platform into her speeches besides his character and Jan 6/threat to democracy. And sometimes she did, but it wasn't added either frequently enough, or she chose the wrong planks to use.

 

[tshade]

View attachment 67542042

DAVE IS NOT EVEN A pENNSYLVANIAN. wHAT IS WRTONG WITH THOSE PEOPLE???? He was a election denier as well. Pennsylvania is now in the contest for the stupid state of the year.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

DAVE IS NOT EVEN A pENNSYLVANIAN. wHAT IS WRTONG WITH THOSE PEOPLE???? He was a election denier as well. Pennsylvania is now in the contest for the stupid state of the year.

Naw, Florida has them beat.

 

[Paradoxical]

The biggest problem that I saw with the way the Democrats ran again Trump was that, with the exception of the threat to Democracy, we'd seen this talking points in 2016, and again, with the exception of January 6th, we'd seen the results. Whether or not you think that January 6th was an indicator of a threat to democracy or not, the Democrats hung their hats on that and hardly anything else. And that is the problem: if that argument is not effective (And it wasn't really on me -- though I think Donald Trump was of poor character, and Jan. 6 was a disqualifier), then you're not reaching the voters you need to.

The thing is, I'm a left-leaning independent. When I looked at Donald Trump's -official- platform (so on his website), and equally weighted everything, completely disregarding who Trump was, and just if the ideas were good -- he scored the highest I've seen a Republican score when I did that experiment. I did the same thing to Harris, and her platform -alone- beat Trump's platform according to where I lean. So an anonymized Democratic candidate beat an anonymized Republican candidate's platform, and that Republican candidate's platform was off the charts to begin with. That to me says she would have been successful if she simply added the more popular planks of her platform into her speeches besides his character and Jan 6/threat to democracy. And sometimes she did, but it wasn't added either frequently enough, or she chose the wrong planks to use.

It was very late in the game that Kamala stated any kind of economic platform and the way I saw it was this Robin Hood mentality that the rich people have way too much money, and we can just tax them more and take that money and give it to the poor. I grew up in a very poor family and the only one that held it together was our mother who worked sun up to sun down and none of turned out to be criminals. All of us learned we had to work to get where we wanted to be.

Because of this Kamala's policies were very wrong to me and in the end, it sent a message that she was just redistributing wealth. She had a slip of tongue with a black interviewer and said it would be 25K for a house and I think 50K for a business for only black people. Her campaign rushed out a correction the next day, but the correction was a lie. Like DEI, the line would have all black people at the front. This is what she means by helping "The community". What kind of message does this send to humanity? That you no longer have to struggle and save for a down payment on a house or business? That those who do struggle and work two jobs and pinch their pennies are saps and losers?

Then to have her be so economically illiterate that grocery prices were high because of gouging? So, all stores are gouging because all of them have high prices now? No stores want to reduce their gouging prices just a little to attract people to Fry's from Food King? Their average profit margins are just 1-3% and of course that fluctuates. But they are in stiff competition and if store A gouges, store B is right there with lower prices to get those people. She said she would lower prices on groceries. No one asked her how and that was in keeping with powder puff interviews by those who wanted her to win.

I see you are a left liberal and that's fine. John Kennedy was a true liberal and a great president. I think the CIA killed him but that's another story. He lowered taxes and he said "Ask NOT what your country can do for YOU. Ask what you can do for your country". Kamala's mindset is that people should demand that the government help them in everything because she thinks people are just unlucky, just as she thinks criminals are misunderstood. She can't fathom that some people just don't like working very hard.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

[deleted your first quote because my response was getting near the character limit, which respects no one's time]
I agree with the price gauging -- yes, her "proof" of that was too vague. Liked most of her policies. And, like I mentioned, But your points are well-taken. But slight correct: I lean left, and I've even voted for (NY) Republicans of the pre-Trump era -- and even voted for Tim Scott (R-SC) in 2022 -- if you can believe that :O

I believe you're partway right. The reason why I voted for Harris (And you don't -- which again, is fine ) is because I thought a lot of her policies were excellent tools to help people who want to work on themselves or have been screwed by situations not of their own doing. I do, however, understand your point that people who don't want to actually do that can abuse the system.

Like I told you in another thread, yes, some people make an active decision to avoid all sorts of employment coming their way -- way back when, they used to be called the "welfare kings and queens," though I would definitely argue that now it's the hospitals and doctors who are the welfare kings and queens, but that's another topic for another day.

But I'd like to hope that's the minority. I would (hope) that the vast majority of homeless and unemployed people got there by no fault of their own.

The thing about struggling and working two jobs -- that would be fixed by creating a living wage. You do that, the people in your example might only have to work -one- job. I mean, that's her bread-and-butter issue, right? Have a wage that pays high enough so you don't need to work only one job. Saves companies from having to pay the same person twice, and those that now have only one job can save a little bit of their sanity such that it may be.

So, as you can tell, I voted for her on the welfare issues. I felt that those are excellent tools to help hold people over while they work on getting a job, etc.

But as far as wealth redistribution -- we're never going to be able to see if that's all it was or not because she wasn't elected. But if she was, and had it been what you said, and all that you said, I would have no problem calling that out. I did not see that as you described on her official issues page. If the page is still up, you can point me to where you specifically see it on her official platform on her website and I'll take another look at it with that in mind. It's a debate I would welcome since -- whether I dis/agree, it will still give me another perspective.

Like I said, I liked her better overall. That doesn't mean I didn't like some of Trump's website policies -- in fact, I liked many of them. I just simply thought Kamala Harris was -better- for where I am in life right now. That's all.

I see you are a left liberal and that's fine. John Kennedy was a true liberal and a great president. I think the CIA killed him but that's another story. He lowered taxes and he said "Ask NOT what your country can do for YOU. Ask what you can do for your country". Kamala's mindset is that people should demand that the government help them in everything because she thinks people are just unlucky, just as she thinks criminals are misunderstood. She can't fathom that some people just don't like working very hard.

I would argue that the people who don't like working very hard (at least on themselves) are the die-hard Trump supporters who claim he can do no wrong. To your credit, I've believe I've actually seen you admit that yes he has felony convictions and does have flaws -- so you're not what I would call this die-hard "Trump can do no wrong" crowd. This specific crowd is the people who believe he is without fault and that anything he does, no matter how crude, rude, or lewd, is absolutely excusable. That's because his campaign is a massive deflection from trying to work on themselves to attain employment etc to blaming others.

I will say you are about halfway right about her. It's good to have a new perspective and thank you for your explained opinions

 

[Paradoxical]

[deleted your first quote because my response was getting near the character limit, which respects no one's time]
I agree with the price gauging -- yes, her "proof" of that was too vague. Liked most of her policies. And, like I mentioned, But your points are well-taken. But slight correct: I lean left, and I've even voted for (NY) Republicans of the pre-Trump era -- and even voted for Tim Scott (R-SC) in 2022 -- if you can believe that :O

I believe you're partway right. The reason why I voted for Harris (And you don't -- which again, is fine ) is because I thought a lot of her policies were excellent tools to help people who want to work on themselves or have been screwed by situations not of their own doing. I do, however, understand your point that people who don't want to actually do that can abuse the system.

Like I told you in another thread, yes, some people make an active decision to avoid all sorts of employment coming their way -- way back when, they used to be called the "welfare kings and queens," though I would definitely argue that now it's the hospitals and doctors who are the welfare kings and queens, but that's another topic for another day.

But I'd like to hope that's the minority. I would (hope) that the vast majority of homeless and unemployed people got there by no fault of their own.

The thing about struggling and working two jobs -- that would be fixed by creating a living wage. You do that, the people in your example might only have to work -one- job. I mean, that's her bread-and-butter issue, right? Have a wage that pays high enough so you don't need to work only one job. Saves companies from having to pay the same person twice, and those that now have only one job can save a little bit of their sanity such that it may be.

So, as you can tell, I voted for her on the welfare issues. I felt that those are excellent tools to help hold people over while they work on getting a job, etc.

But as far as wealth redistribution -- we're never going to be able to see if that's all it was or not because she wasn't elected. But if she was, and had it been what you said, and all that you said, I would have no problem calling that out. I did not see that as you described on her official issues page. If the page is still up, you can point me to where you specifically see it on her official platform on her website and I'll take another look at it with that in mind. It's a debate I would welcome since -- whether I dis/agree, it will still give me another perspective.

Like I said, I liked her better overall. That doesn't mean I didn't like some of Trump's website policies -- in fact, I liked many of them. I just simply thought Kamala Harris was -better- for where I am in life right now. That's all.

I would argue that the people who don't like working very hard (at least on themselves) are the die-hard Trump supporters who claim he can do no wrong. To your credit, I've believe I've actually seen you admit that yes he has felony convictions and does have flaws -- so you're not what I would call this die-hard "Trump can do no wrong" crowd. This specific crowd is the people who believe he is without fault and that anything he does, no matter how crude, rude, or lewd, is absolutely excusable. That's because his campaign is a massive deflection from trying to work on themselves to attain employment etc to blaming others.

I will say you are about halfway right about her. It's good to have a new perspective and thank you for your explained opinions

This calls for a long discussion and I appreciate your tone and demeanor in your posts. I will have to reply when I have more time.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

This calls for a long discussion and I appreciate your tone and demeanor in your posts. I will have to reply when I have more time.

Thanks. I'm always learning. May not always agree with you, but I like learning how and what other people think. I was a PoliSci/History major, so the tone and demeanor probably comes from being genuinely curious. Looking forward to your response

 

[Common Sense 1]

DAVE IS NOT EVEN A pENNSYLVANIAN. wHAT IS WRTONG WITH THOSE PEOPLE???? He was a election denier as well. Pennsylvania is now in the contest for the stupid state of the year.

He won!! And he beat Casey......

 

[tshade]

He won!! And he beat Casey......

??? that's my point

 

[Absentglare]

GOP really did a good job with their voter purge cheating this cycle. I think Trump was right when he said you won’t have to vote again.

 

[Linc]

Another carpetbagger owned by a citizens divided billionaire who lost to Oz in the ‘22 primary.

 

[Linc]

Naw, Florida has them beat.

Is that why Florida won this century for the GOP?
Or was that Nader? Or the corrupt Rehnquist court?

 

[Paradoxical]

GOP really did a good job with their voter purge cheating this cycle. I think Trump was right when he said you won’t have to vote again.

You mean purging nonexistent people, or people who give nonexistent addresses or a bowling alley as their residence or non-citizens is wrong?

 

[Credence]

A big win for the republicans. A little bit more of a cushion for their control of the Senate.

Trump-backed PA Senate candidate flips longtime Dem seat red in nail-biter election​

Sen Bob Casey has acknowledged the race against Dave McCormick would be 'tough'​

Trump-backed PA Senate candidate flips longtime Dem seat red in nail-biter election

Longtime Democrat Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey squared up for what he said was a "close" race against Trump-backed Republican challenger Dave McCormick.

www.foxnews.com

Republican Pennsylvania Senate candidate Dave McCormick was declared victorious in his high-stakes election against longtime Democrat Sen. Bob Casey on Tuesday.

Casey has served in the Senate since 2008 and ultimately became a stalwart within the Democratic Party. For example, he voted on legislation President Biden supported 98.5% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight data.

The Casey name also has deep roots in the state, with Bob Casey Sr., the senator’s father, serving as the Keystone State’s governor from 1987 to 1995 after years of serving in various other elected roles.

The longtime senator, however, faced what was described as his most difficult re-election effort to date, squaring up against Republican businessman Dave McCormick.

BS. He hasn't won anything yet. They are still counting mail in ballots and most are coming from the Dem areas.

 

[trixare4kids]

A big win for the republicans. A little bit more of a cushion for their control of the Senate.

Trump-backed PA Senate candidate flips longtime Dem seat red in nail-biter election​

Sen Bob Casey has acknowledged the race against Dave McCormick would be 'tough'​

Trump-backed PA Senate candidate flips longtime Dem seat red in nail-biter election

Longtime Democrat Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey squared up for what he said was a "close" race against Trump-backed Republican challenger Dave McCormick.

www.foxnews.com

Republican Pennsylvania Senate candidate Dave McCormick was declared victorious in his high-stakes election against longtime Democrat Sen. Bob Casey on Tuesday.

Casey has served in the Senate since 2008 and ultimately became a stalwart within the Democratic Party. For example, he voted on legislation President Biden supported 98.5% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight data.

The Casey name also has deep roots in the state, with Bob Casey Sr., the senator’s father, serving as the Keystone State’s governor from 1987 to 1995 after years of serving in various other elected roles.

The longtime senator, however, faced what was described as his most difficult re-election effort to date, squaring up against Republican businessman Dave McCormick.

Finally! It only took two weeks to confirm it.

 

[SCrider]

Naw, Florida has them beat.

Floriduh is a lifetime achievement winner in that category.

 

[ldub23]

BS. He hasn't won anything yet. They are still counting mail in ballots and most are coming from the Dem areas.

They ran out of ballots to fill out in the back room