Tea Party Candidate Wins Historic Race For PA Senate As A Write-In

Wow: it all starts with one or two victories. With Paul winning the CPAC straw poll last week, it is going to get very interesting. At what point does the GOP leadership realize that this could be a complete revolution (for lack of a better word).

If only the true liberals would do the same with the authoritarians posing as liberals. Judging by what happened to Rand Paul at Berkeley, maybe we will.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Republican-Rand-Paul-fires-up-a-Berkeley-crowd-5332740.php


Regards,
BiR

 

Revmitchell:

Having been born and, for almost 40 or so years, resided in "The Keystone State [i.e., PA]," I've learned (mostly "The Hard Way") that a person shouldn't read too much into the election results of a "special election, especially when it's held in the middle of an incumbent President's [In this case, Obama.] final term of office.

For one thing, whichever political party has "Its Man" occupying the White House's Oval Office at that particular time generally always tends to lose several (and, sometimes plenty [You might recall what happened when "Bush I" was President in 1990.]!) seats in Congress.

The "problem" with PA state politics (and, I'd venture to say, in most of our other 49 states/commonwealths) is that, while there might be a "genuine" conservative figure (Which I do believe Scott Wagner is one.) who's proclaimed the winner in such an election, as a general rule, when it comes to the very next general election race two years after, the "official party big-wigs" invariably have a tendency to, so to speak, either out-rightly ignore such a person, or, worse yet, "Throw him/her 'Under the Bus.'"

This is exactly what happened in the 2010 PA US Senate race when then-incumbent US Senator Rick Santorium (A "relatively conservative Senator" himself.) gave only very lukewarm support to then US Republican Pat Toomey[whose Congressional district borders that in which I once lived]--A much more, IMHO anyway, conservative politician than Senator Santorium ever was.

Thankfully, as it turned out, in a special election held in 2012 (An election that, ironically, was held in somewhat similar circumstances as the one to which you referred in your OP's remarks), Toomey won that race--thus, at least for the time being anyway--giving PA two fairly conservative US Senators.

I might also point out that the Congressional District that Scott Wagner represents (just SE of Pittsburgh, and, FYI, is the very same district that on "9-11" was the fatal crash site of United Airlines' Flight 93 (Remember Scott Beamer's "Let's Roll"?).

At any rate, this particular district is not known for being one that is not either "Strongly Republican" or "Strongly Democrat" when it comes to the general elections for either political party's Presidential candidate.

IOW, it primarily is considered to be a so-called "swing district"--a district that could quite easily go to either political party, and one that is usually one by very slim margins by either party.

Of course, like you, I'd love to see Scott Wagner retain his seat in the 2014 general election, but I, for one, am not one of those people who'll hold my breath over this issue until all of the final election results are verified to be entirely accurate and complete.

May God richly bless you, Revmitchell, as you seek to serve our Savior in the area(s) in which He has called you! :thumbs:

 

Salty:

As I indicated in my above post to RevMitchell, as a general rule, "third party" Presidential politicians (at least to any great extent), historically speaking, rarely exert very much actual influence on the outcomes of the Presidential contests that the US holds every four years.

Of course, there have been some exceptions down through the years--and some of them actually did change the course of the American political scene. Some of these elections would include:

(1) The 1800 election. Up to this time, our Constitution stipulated that the person who received the highest number of Electoral College votes was declared to be the US President. Likewise, the person who received the second highest number of Electoral College votes was declared to be the US Vice President.

This setup worked fairly well in the Presidential elections of 1788, 1792, and 1792 when "Federalist" George Washington served as the 1st US President and John Adams served as the 1st US Vice President. This was the case because (with only a couple of exceptions) both of them held to the concept of a "strong" Federal government as opposed to a relatively "weak" collection of states and/or commonwealths.

That all changed when "Anti-Federalist" Thomas Jefferson was finally declared to be the 3rd US President, and "Federalist" John Adams [Adams, of course, was already the incumbent US Vice President, and he was seeking re-election in 1800.]. This was due to the fact that Article II of the current US Constitution stated that if the majority of the states' "Electoral College caucuses" had no actual clear-cut majority of its collective votes, the decision as to who would be declared the next US President would be decided by the US House of Representatives, and, likewise, the decision as to who would be declared as the next US Vice President would be determined by whoever received a clear-cut majority of the US Senate's collective caucuses' votes.

While Jefferson had little trouble being declared as our nation's 3rd President, the Senate had a lot of difficulty in deciding who it was who would serve as Jefferson's Vice President.

After several inclusive Senate votes, Alexander Hamilton (who was then serving as "the titular head of the NY state's Senate caucus") eventually decided to urge his State's caucus to vote for Aaron Burr of New Jersey, and thus, Burr was declared to be Jefferson's Vice President. (BTW, Burr's maternal grandfather was none other than the famous preacher Jonathan Edwards ["Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God"].)

[NOTE: Just FYI, Burr's entire political career was a rather blemished one "right from the 'Get-Go.'" In Fact, Burr only served as Vice President in the 1st Jefferson administration. His 1804 duel with Alexander Hamilton, in which Burr shot Hamilton to death, pretty much ruined Burr's political future; and, in 1834 Burr died--a forgotten and not very well missed man.]

---There were other, shall we say, "interesting" US Presidential elections down through the years such as---

(2) The "Contested" 1824 Election. In this election, incumbent President John Quincy Adams (son of former US President John Adams) narrowly won re-election over war (of 1812) hero Andrew Jackson.

This was primarily due to the fact that in this Presidential election there were four political parties all vying for the same office.

Adams named Henry Clay as his running mate.

 

Not sure, but my hope is that this changes in 2016. Perhaps Rand Paul may not win the nomination; however, it would be nice if there were several victories in other elections if he doesn't.

The more I hear him talk, I am less intersted in the social issues where we disagree - and more interested in our similarities (with respect to fiscal issues, for example).

In other words, he currently has my vote, and I am a liberal...................

Regards Salty - hope all is well with you and yours,
BiR

 

Is there enough support for such a write in effort on a larger scale? The dollars of the established parties seem to overwhelm most I've seen.