Republican Reboot?
Maybe state Republicans will now reboot and seek ways to recapture key voting areas outside Philly. Or not.
Republican Reboot?
John Baer, Daily News Political Columnist
(A brief discussion twixt Baer & Baer’s editor, a.k.a. BE)
BE: So, Pennsylvania Republicans must be pretty distraught and looking for ways to change their ways.
JB: You’d think so. They lost the presidency, a shot at a Senate seat and all three state row offices.
BE: But they’re not distraught?
JB: Well, no. They still control both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s office.
BE: Yeah but surely Tuesday’s results bode ill for the GOP future. Surely they're looking to revamp their direction and policies to recapture the Philly burbs again. Surely they're rethinking hard-line positions on budget cuts, immigration, voter ID, the female vote, guns, gays...
JB: Uh, actually, no. What they're doing is blaming Philadelphia.
BE: Oh?
JB: Yep. Wednesday, House GOP Speaker Sam Smith said he was told 90% of city precincts turned out 90% of their votes, and that is "questionable." When asked if he was suggesting fraud he said, "Maybe a good investigative reporter could track some of that down."
BE: But city turnout was about 60%.
JB: I'm just telling you was he said he was told. And, trust me, other GOPers are saying similar things less publicly, and a little more graphically.
BE: But they also lost Bucks, Montco and Delaware counties. Shouldn't they be rethinking stuff?
JB: They already have. It's called voter ID and redistricting. Both issues got tied up in court this time but GOP thinking put them in play and GOPers say they'll be in place come next election: new district lines more favorable to Republicans, and a new ID law to help keep down that "questionable" Philly vote.
BE: So their reboot already has happened. Pretty good planning.
JB: And clever, to boot.
Comments (45)
Comment removed.- Baer:
GOP tax cut for millionaire brought Bush depression
GOP false war cost us 3 trillion and 5,000 lives
GOP incompetence allowed Osama to fly hijacked planes over our skies for hours
But they did not change. Why would it be different this time?— Seed1 - GOP can still thrive if they can keep the education level low
And they just need to be able to peep into peoples bedroom to keep control of their private life
Control and ignorance are tested tools that worked for centuries. I don't know if it would work this century.— Seed1 - And the democrats will thrive while they continue to breed votes in the hood, while getting the rest of us to pay for them.
Then, they threaten them that those evil republicans will actually expect them to work for their "free" obamaphones if they don't vote democrat.— DeltaV - Red states has the most number of Moochers, according to Romney, that don't pay tax and leave on subsidy.
Red States are the one's that take more from Fed than they give.
Republicans are moochers at individual and state level according to data. But you live in an alternative reality, we know that.— Seed1 - so you honestly believe the majority of the people who voted for obama dont work? Does that include voters in swing counties outside DC, Philly, NYC, Boston, etc? Are you aware of the fact that generally speaking "blue" states are the states with the highest incomes? The poorest states in the US are largely in the south and they are red as the chinese flag. — Yakov
- I would love to see a breakdown of votes for people who had a net payment of taxes vs. those who had a net refund of taxes. — DeltaV
- you didnt answer the question. Do you believe that the swing suburban voters who helped put Obama in office don't work? In case you missed it, Obama won the female vote by a large margin. That includes many millions of white women. Are you suggesting they voted for him because they don't believe in working? Only a fraction of the populace receives more in refunds than they pay in taxes. The notion that the majority of the 51% who voted for Obama did so because they live off government handouts is silly. As noted, southern states are the poorest and they are reliably red. Poor whites vote republican all the time, even many of the ones who receive benefits from the government. — Yakov
of course, no mention that every single congressional republican won by massive margins, and that the democrats lost a seat (Critz)— hannibal barca- There's already been stories about how the Republican gerrymanered voting districts to give Republicans for state office a huge advantage. Their most recent attempt ended up in court and the judge ordered them to redo the districts. Now news there. — MikeP
- wrong. the congressional districts were never rejected by any court. maybe if democrats didn't nominate far-left radicals like kathy booqkvar they'd have a shot in district that obama won — hannibal barca
- Sadly, we Republicans who do not live in Philadelphia see rampant fraud and corruption throughout the city. If it's PHA, police officers selling drugs, the Dept. of Education's leader getting a million-dollar severance for messing up, L&I kick-backs, malfeasance at the Parking Authority, the Bridge authority, Fumo's "Other People's Money" and a host of other things, it seems as if everyone in the City of Brotherly Love is on the take.
It's not a leap for us to believe that unions and pols work together on election day to tip the scales. So, we initiate a voter ID plan (supported by 80% of Americans) to make elections fairer. It's easy to see how Democrats believe it's voter suppression of minorities. But the heart of Voter ID is a good-faith effort to reduce fraud in a city that thrives on it.
Perhaps I'm naive. But Philadelphia certainly has earned a bad reputation in other parts of the state. It's irrefutable that decades of one-party rule has produced a slimy mess of cronyism and corruption.— yahzooman - 1. PPA is run by the state
2. PHA isnt run by the city
3. A bad cop isnt a product of a political system. Cops are not elected and are nonpartisan. A bad cop is solely responsible for his own actions
4. You didnt list any specifics about which examples of rampant L&I corruption you are speaking about.
5. The school district is run by the state and they appoint 3 of 5 members of SRC. city government has no say over PSD.
6. No amount of voter ID legislation will change the huge number of votes philly delivers for democratic candidates. Preventing a few thousand minorities from voting will not make PA red again. Be realistic.— Yakov - No big surprise for people who deny global warming and evolution. It's really easy to learn the facts so no you're not naive. You're stupid and lazy. As Yakov pointed out, you have most of the facts wrong. Republicans took over the PPA and things got much muc worse. Salaries of crony management skyrocketed. PPA revenue was supposed to go to the school district but not a penny comes out of PPA depite the fact the Republicans estimated a $20 million surplus. That was all spent on patronage jobs. — MikeP
- The problem is Romney didn't go after the moderates...I mean, other than a handful of social issues, there's not much difference between Obama or Romney. But when the candidate panders to the farthest of the far right, you're gonna lose the moderate undecided voters...he shouldve focused on the moderate repubs and dems because the far right wouldnt have voted for Obama anyway. He isnt white and christian enough.— yourmomsfavoriteposter
- Romney adopted core Republican policies and that's why he lost. The election results make it pretty clear that there was a significant difference between the two. Pander to the far right? That's today's Republican party. They've purged all of the moderates from the party. Spector is a perfect example. Toomey is a do nothing Senator who has zero influence or power. No Republican candidate can win the nomination if they have moderate policies. This is what Republicans did to their own party.
jfar is a great example of the stupidty of Republicans. Comparing the results in MA with a national election. MA is comparable to the rest of the nation?— MikeP - Voter ID w/b here to stay folks. Amazing that anyone thinks this is a bad idea...unless you've got something to hide. The mere fact that I walked into my polling place, said, "I'm Bob Smith & live at such & such an address" & there's NO verification, well, it sounds 'stupider' every time I think about it. This is America, 2012 folks, how does anyone NOT have an ID? (unless you have something to hide).— Openyoureyesfolks
- We'll see about the Voter Id voter suppression law. It will be dealt with at the national level. It's a stupid idea because there is no voter fraud associated with impersonating another voter. And they have your signature in the log and you need to sign. It's 100% effective. In any event, the voter supression effort was a very effective get out the vote issue for Democrats. Every year there will be more minorities who find the voter supression effort offensive voting. The impact of voter id will be worse everytime it is in place. What state did voter id supress the vote? None. It totally backfired. — MikeP
- Politics has gone from an Enlightenment-era intellectual exercise to a Machiavellian-era exercise of brutish thuggery.
@Seed1 - Be happy. Your America hating group of thugs beat the GOP's America hating group of thugs.— plumb_stupid - — kitkat1911
Oh, you mean the guy who thinks social safety nets should be replaced by charities. Great idea, unless you spend anytime studying something called history. Just take a gander at what it was like for the poor before safety nets. Two things either occurred: the poor would struggle and starve, or the poor rose up and killed the rich. Well, if that's what you think is best. You have all our permissions to move to the dozens of countries all over the world who have just such policies in place.
yahzooman
That would be absolutely true if that 90 percent voter turnout wasn't a complete fabrication. 60 percent is actually pretty standard, and actually lower than in 2008. I got an idea, why doesn't the GOP take a long look in the mirror, instead of trying to pull the same nonsense and hoping it works. Here's the hard reality of it. If the GOP continues business as usual, they will see their house majority slashed in two years, and they sure won't see the white house for a long long time. The sensible people are tired of it, and they let you know Tuesday. Time's yours GOP.
— Hemingway - IN this election you had the cool parent versus the responsible parent. The responsible parent makes you eat vegtables, work out, do your homework and have personal responsibility. The cool parent let's you do whatever you want, with little or no consequences. Obama ran a better campaign and was fueled by a natural catastrophie. The best thing that can happen to the Republican party is to let him run on his current course(Reid said today they'll raise debt ceiling 2.5 TRILLION dollars to 19 TRILLION).
At the end of the day this will have little effect on the so called 1%'ers...they have tax planning, deferred comp and trust set up for their children. The people of the middle class are going to get crushed as unemployment spikes(and it will spike), Obamacare surcharges get levied on many things(3.8% when you sell your house, 3.8 additionally to CG, Divs, etc...middle class owns stocks and bonds as well)and at some point a significant cut in social programs.— scottyk - @DeltaV - you should do a little research before making an ignorant comment about "obamaphones":
"The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration."
Reference: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
— phillyboy1961 - I'm perfectly aware of the origin of the phone.
I'd bet you a week's salary, though, that a large majority of those who receive them think (and have been told by their handlers) they come directly from Obama.— DeltaV - so your argument is that Obama created the program but that people may give him credit for the program? Thats your big complaint? Do you have the same ire for corporate welfare recipients like the defense industry? — Yakov
- Seed stated that Republicans try to control their constituents. I replied that Democrats do the same thing, and are even lied to about the real source of various policies (such as the 'free' phone).
Yes, I do have ire for corporate welfare as well. I work in defense; I know for a fact that there is a ton of room for improvement. Take a look at the F35 program, for example; the cost is out of control, and a large part of the responsibility for that lies with the government continually changing and asking for unrealizable requirements.
Still, defense is a minor part of the budget: 100% of the defense budget could be eliminated, and the country would still run a deficit. At least the defense industry employs skilled Americans.— DeltaV - Defense is "minor"? are you serious? Its the largest part of the discretionary budget. Americans are so poorly informed and that fact explains why a guy like Romney can attack Obama on the deficit while proposing to enlarge it with tax cuts and military spending. Only in america. We spend like $800b a year on defense and you say that's on the margins. Let me guess, you believe that "most" of our money goes to food stamps and welfare. Compare the numbers and let me know what you find. Every other part of the discretionary budget is dwarfed by defense spending. The rest of the money goes to debt, medicare, medicaid and social security. actually if you eliminated defense you would be pretty close to eliminating the deficit. — Yakov
- You say it yourself: "if you eliminated defense you would be pretty close" but not eliminated completely. The defense budget is dwarfed by entitlement spending. And national defense is one of the few things that the government is constitutionally required to fund.
And don't quote Romney at me. I didn't like him either. I would cut everything (including defense) an equal percentage until we got to a sustainable budget.— DeltaV - what you said was that defense was a minor part of the spending equation. Its a MAJOR part. The deficit cannot be tackled without tax increases, if you say otherwise you don't care about the deficit. Balancing the budget without tax increases is impossible. As long as money can be borrowed cheaply there is no incentive for the government to really get serious about realistic tax rates. The government isnt constitutionally obligated to repair roads either but I think most would agree its a good thing to maintain and build roads. Society in 2012 is just slightly more complicated than 1787. Hey, back then they didnt think it was a good idea for women to vote or blacks to get paid to work the fields. The good old days, I know. — Yakov
- The Democrats are the welfare and entitlement party failed miserably. Keep on lying. Welfare makes up 50% or more of income for 1.7% of americans. 8% of americans receive some type of government assistance. The majority of americans on welfare are white. Obama received 50% plus of votes. That means millions and millions of hard working, middle class white people voted for Obama. They rejected core Republican policies. They rejected the Republican war on women. And they rejected the racism and bigotry. — MikeP
- its funny to read comments from folks trying to delude themselves into believing only brown people who wanted handouts elected Obama. Obama couldnt have won states like Ohio, Michigan and Wisconson without blue collar white voters, especially union members. What really disturbs the Obama haters is that many working class whites identified more with Obama and his positions than Mitt and the GOP. These folks want to believe that everyone votes along racial lines when thats not the case. Obama got almost 40% of the 72% of voters who were white. Thats a lot of people. I haven't seen a breakdown on how he did with white women, but I suspect he won that group. — Yakov
- the "responsible parent" would be the one who says in a time of record deficits I am going to cut taxes 20% and expand military spending by $200b a year. That is responsibility at its best. The country is broke but Romney says the government can afford to slash taxes by a few hundred billion a year. Paul Ryan's budget actually did nothing to reduce the deficit for the first 5-10 years, it balanced in like 20-22 years and even that was based on ridiculous growth assumptions and the fantasy that you could get huge program cuts through congress.— Yakov
- Papa Hemingway wrote: "Here's the hard reality of it. If the GOP continues business as usual, they will see their house majority slashed in two years, and they sure won't see the white house for a long long time. The sensible people are tired of it, and they let you know Tuesday."
Yes, everyone involved in Tuesday's election should take a look in the mirror.
We Republicans increased our number of governors to 32. We increased our majority in the House slightly and their winning margins increased. (Here in PA, we picked up a Dem seat). If Romney would have matched McCain's 2008 numbers he would have won the popular vote (although probably not the Electoral). Mr. Obama's raw vote total declined.
It's very hard to unseat an incumbent. Only once in the past 100 years have the Republicans dumped a seated president (Reagan v. Carter in 1980). But Romney made a credible effort. Next time, the Democrats will also go through a destructive primary in order to select a nominee. That takes money away from the general as well as exposes the candidate on controversial issue stands and statements.
The tide comes in and it flows out. Out of the last four presidential elections, we've won two and the Democrats have won two.
Republicans take heart for 2014 -- the party out of power during off-year elections usually picks up seats in Congress and the public may have Obama/Democrat fatigue in 2016 and sweep in Marco Rubio/Paul Ryan/Susanna Martinez/Chris Christie or some other rising Republican by then.
I'd rather have President Romney. But I'm optimistic about the party's chances.— yahzooman - 1. the GOP has lost popular vote in 5 out of last 6 elections. Lets not forget Bush lost popular vote.
2. The 2010 results were based on the fact that the electorate in midterms is whiter than the country as a whole. Its not a reflection of the views of the country as a whole
3. House seats are mostly safe due to gerrymandering
4. winning on the state level is far different because social issues and deficit issues arent typically on the table. Furthermore, republican state officials in many states are to the left of the party as a whole. Look at christie, he is not an acceptable conservative to many.
5. The demographics are not going back so the notion that this is just a temporary setback is nonsense. If the same electorate votes in the 2014 midterms republicans would lose dozens of seats.
6. If the economy is stronger in 2 years dont expect any gains in House and senate. There is a good chance economy will be better and Obama's approval rating will be higher in 2 years.
7. The primary in 2008 was not destructive because Obama and hillary didnt spend a lot of time trying to get to the left of one another. I wouldnt expect anything different in 2016. In the GOP primary challengers have to work hard to appeal to the tea party and talk radio types to make it out alive.
8. People arent going to vote for GOP candidate in 2016 only because they think its their "turn" to be in white house. What happens will depend on the PLATFORM and the tone of the party at that time. To suggest that they can just repeat what we saw in 2012 and get different results due to Obama fatigue is ridiculous.— Yakov - Wow, Completely delusional. The demographics of the country has changed and will change more before every future election. If Republicans don't attract minorities, it's mathematically unlikely that they'll ever win a national election. I know you guys hate math and facts but there it is. Nough said. — MikeP
- @scotty and deltav: gee obama and those "handlers" with their "obamaphones" and magical powers dialed up and timed the financial crisis wave(s)in '08 so he'd win. and then they dialed up the catastrophic wave(s) of sandy in 2012. boy, he (obama)and these "handlers" must of put christie under a spell and mesmerized the "47%" of america to re-elect him.— ihatenewyorkers
- Speaker Smith showed his ignorance by suggesting there might be a good investigative reporter anywhere near Philly...unless the story involved someone with a view that went against the libs.— Jethro66
- Yahzoo, you destroy your credibility right away by saying that the Republicans increased their majority in the House. They had 242 and won 234. Again, this majority is due 100% to gerrymandering, as the Democrats received 53,952,240 votes for the House and the Republicans received 53,402,643 votes for the House, with only a few primarily West Coast votes remaining to be counted. Keep reading something into the election that was not there. The Democrats received a pretty complete victory, and only political maneuvering by the Republicans (I'm not saying it's illegal, but it's wrong) to protect their House candidates prevented a complete Democratic takeover of the Federal Government. Continue to believe that the right message is being sent on your behalf as a Republican and what should have happened in this election is what will happen next time. Meanwhile, what do you say we call a truce and see if Boehner will actually come to the table with proposals that increase revenue and do not put the pain of any cuts solely on those who can least afford it.— Palestra Jon
- let's see if obozo the charlatan "comes to the table" ready to make cuts to medicare and SS — hannibal barca
- Oops, let me just add the link for my statistics on numerical voting for the House:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/07/1159631/americans-voted-for-a-democratic-house-gerrymandering-the-supreme-court-gave-them-speaker-boehner/
— Palestra Jon - Republicans have taken the "Old, White, Voter" for granted. Many of us still have our conscience and intellect, and many of us were activists in our youth, who lived through the Civil Rights movement. And the voter suppression effort rammed through our legislature (thanks Mike Turzai), in the guise of preventing "Voter fraud" were deja vu. Why not repeal the 15th and 19th amendments, and forget the Voter ID sham???I voted a straight ticket Democratic slate, for the first time in over 40 years. I will change my registration to DEM, and any PA legislator who supports true, fair voter ID laws will have to work to ensure our Commonwealth provides Voter ID with a nonpartisan oversight.— 8is2much
- Hannibal, Social Security is solvent and needs no cuts. Medicare is another issue. While my preference would be to enact a full blown single payer national health plan that would incorporate Medicare, I realize that isn't happening now. So actuarial changes have to be made and reductions in benefits for those with high income need to be incorporated. But we owe a duty to our elderly and should not pay for two unfunded wars on the backs of our parents. By the way, if you want to get it on politically (and your continuing wingnut excess like calling Obama Obozo), bring it on. I'll take you right off the cliff with me and after the mandatory expiration of the Bush tax cuts followed by the mandatory military cuts that are required if there is no deal will have you begging for a deal where the military receives more revenue and taxes are cut from the new much higher rates. Your choice---but you have no leverage. You won't get a better deal for a Grand Compromise than now. After the cliff, you can only beg.— Palestra Jon
- if them democrats want to drive the country off a cliff and refuse to compromise, that is on them. boehner has already agreed in rpinciple to raise taxes. then obama's new-normal of 8% unemployment will look like a picnic compared to the destruction the democrats would wreak. and btw i have no problem with defense cuts as part of a solution to balance the budget
and if SS has no problem, why is it already paying out more than it takes in? the SS trustees 2012 report states that SS will be bankrupt by 2033:
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee12-pr.html— hannibal barca - Here's an article about voter fraud in Philly:
Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations. Coincidentally (or not), Mr. Obama received "astronomical" numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received "over 99%" of the vote.
Ward 4, which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Mr. Obama received 99.5% of the vote, defeating Mr. Romney 9,955 to 55.
Is it odd that a county that expelled GOP inspectors and had people openly campaigning for Obama ended with 99.5% for Obama and 9955 votes for him? It's up to you to decide.
Another problem: "Voter turnout in Philadelphia was around 60 percent, according to state election figures." In these precincts it was well over 90% according to House Speaker Sam Smith of Pennsylvania.
Link:
http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/fraud-in-pa-obama-got-over-99-of-vote.html
I'm not familiar with this site so it should not be taken as gospel.
However, it raises some questions.— yahzooman - Jim Carvell called it. PA is Philly and Pittsburgh at the corners and Alabama in the middle. Living in Bradford County it is heavy Republican. Funny that up here you would think they would all be hard working people. In Canton half the population is on public assitance.— Jeff C.
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
John Baer has been covering politics and government for the Daily News since 1987. The National Journal in 2002 called Baer one of the country's top 10 political journalists outside Washington, saying Baer has, "the ability to take the skin off a politician without making it hurt too much." E-mail John at baerj@phillynews.com.
John is the author of the book "On The Front Lines of Pennsylvania Politics: Twenty-Five Years of Keystone Reporting" (The History Press, 2012). Reach John at baerj@phillynews.com.
John Baer
Daily News Political Columnist
John is the author of the book "On The Front Lines of Pennsylvania Politics: Twenty-Five Years of Keystone Reporting" (The History Press, 2012). Reach John at baerj@phillynews.com.
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: