If your goal to be the blogosphere's Joe Lieberman (Democrat with decent views, but who loves to tear down other Dems with republican talking points), Chris Matthews ("balanced" loudmouth, spouting Republican frames), or just our old friend, Bob Shrum.
The media now generally mentions Chuck's name, along with Alan Sandals. How do they poll? Together, in a poll with like 4 percent margin of error, the two of them combined for three percent. Three! I mean, hell, with the margin of error, he could be at zero. At this point, lets stop blaming the media. Chuck is now polled, and he comes across as an extreme, extreme, extreme long shot. What do you want them to do, make up for the millions of dollars that he does not have, but needs?
Please, lets be realistic. Target races early, and help us build a base of progressives. Why does everyone think we can so easily skip steps along the way?
Like buildng a third party, building a progressive bench is hard work, that will take a long time. Yet, instead of putting his energy into that, Chuck has decided he should be a Senator. Nice guy or not, that just is not how it works.
Why is he not viable? Because he is down 50 some odd points in a poll, has zero name recognition, little money, and is up against someone who has both money, recognition, and whether we like it or not- a hugr base of support.
Together, bloggers can make differences in targeted races. But, we will never, ever be able to take a candidate from 2 percent to 50. That is just the reality. We have to pick our battles, and get n early. Going after Bob Casey might make us feel good, but in the end, if Chuck cracks ten percent in the polls, I will be shocked. I am a firm, proud liberal, but really, this is not the fight we want to pick, because we will lose very, very badly.
I think you are pretty off-base Matt. Who says he will be the template for Democratic candidates? He was chosen because, above all else, he was extremely well-known, and just collected a ton of votes one year earlier. Casey is popular here, whether we like it or not. That is why he was chosen- because PA voters like him, and, if he had run anyway, he likely still would have clobbered Hafer, Hoeffel or anyone else that did not have a base of support that is the entire Philadelphia region.
Casey has run a terrible campaign, if you can call it that. But, I also think that what his terrible campaign has done has overshadowed, at least for me, that besides choice, a lot of people who I trust think that Casey will be a good Senator, and will be a more labor-tailored politician than we usually get. And, again, if Casey was not forced upon us, there is little doubt that he would at least have been the Dem nominee for Governor in 2010, with or without Rendell's support.
You say he is kind of stupid, which is a kind of stupid thing to say, because I don't think that has any basis in anything.
What you are dead right on though, is this: Democrats, especially Democrats in Pennsylvania, have done a poor job in multiple things: one, creating any sort of depth amongst progressives at the State rep and Senate level. (And our most reliable, smart progressive- Alan Kukovich, lost, and is gone.) Second, there is no progressive infrastructure to push back when someone like Rendell clears the field. Someone like Hoeffel would have made a good candidate, but, its not like there was an outcry of support for him. The most likely candidate was Barbara Hafer, who switched parties to the Dems out of spite. Then there was Kukovich, who again, lost his own seat in the Senate.
I feel your pain about a lack of a progressive candidate. But, I hope you feel ours about a lack of a progressive bench in Pennsylvania, and instead of trying to make man-on-dog launch his campaign for presidency from our ashamed State, help us develop a real bench
And you are more than an ordinary candidate. I look forward to watching you beat Gerlach. I hope and expect that my friends in the Philly burbs see just how stark a choice we have in the upcoming election.