PA gubernatorial: Swann is rising
(I agree with Nordlinger.)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2006 — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
National Review managing editor Jay Nordlinger published his essay entitled Swann Rising in the August 28 issue of the conservative journal [contents]. (It has been on the official campaign site, Swannforgovernor.com, dated August 7.)
Well, the usually stridently hostile Pittsburgh Tribune Review has opted to publish Swann Rising today (Sunday), but they've decided to turn Nordlinger's statement ("Swann Rising") into a question ("Swann Rising?").
The point is Jay's piece.
Read More…
First, I have to go through this again. He writes, "First, Pennsylvanians have never -- never -- ousted an incumbent governor, odd as that may seem." No, it wouldn't be odd if it were true. It was only in the '60s that Pennsylvania modified its Constitution to again allow governor's to run for reelection. Since then, only Milt Shapp, Dick Thornburgh. Bob Casey (the elder), and Tom Ridge have tried it. All were successful, thus based on these four men, the "known fact" that no incumbent governor has ever been beaten in Pennsylvania was born.
But it is not true Think back to 1838, when Democrat David Porter defeated incumbent Governor Joseph Ritner (the eighth governor of PA) of the Anti-Mason Party. This election helped to fuel the infamous Buckshot War, which wasn't actually a war; it was a violent political dispute about which party controlled the State legislature. (Pennsylvania politics have become much more mundane in the years since.)
Anyway, that cleared up, we return to the essay. It's a good read.
Swann won't contemplate life after a November loss because he won't contemplate a loss. He's going all out, from early morning to late at night, executing his plan, making adjustments as necessary. The latest polls have him between 10 and 15 points down. His staff points out that Rendell has been spending his money, airing TV ads, which have been unanswered by Swann. The Republican's own ads won't go up until Monday, when his first ones are scheduled to hit the airwaves. It will be a whole new ballgame, they say.
An early concern about the campaign was that they were not taking matters seriously enough. It's easy to assume so in April, I suppose, but August has told a different story.
Nordlinger talks to a 'Boigh cabbie, a solid Dem, who scoffs at the notion of Swann being elected governor.
That is, indeed, the conventional wisdom. I myself am not so sure. We might want to check back in, 'round about the end of October.
It's the story of America, that reality melts conventional wisdom and "known facts."
(Cross-posted on the Swannblog.)
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | ABC News Joins Democratic Party, Will Campaign — Comments (16) »
PA gubernatorial: Swann is rising 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
20 points?
There's been a lot of polling since then.
Rasmussen's poll from the end of July ( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/pennsylva... ) has Swann down 10 and there have been others that have him in the 12 to 15 points down.
I believe Swann hit bottom towards the end of June and has steadily started creeping back up.
The early polls were meaningless, no one knew Swann and voters were fired up about Pennsylvania's legislative pay increase, etc. They knew Swann as a wide receiver.
The polls right now vary, and no one is yet paying real attention to the race, but Ed's been stagnant while Swann has been creeping towards him.
At first, I agree that Swann did not have much political skill. Have you seen him lately? Wow. He's also hired some first rate policy people for his campaign, so the movement there has been incredible.
You have to understand that the early conventional wisdom no longer applies. This is going to be a contest, and Swann has given every indication that he's ready for it.
Don't get me wrong, I would love it if Swann could pull this off. Admittedly, I have not seen Swann in action recently, but I just cannot seeing him being the first challenger to ever unseat a sitting Pennsylvania governor.
I think the Republicans best hopes for gubernatorial pick ups are in the Midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa).
What's most disconcerting about the PA governor race is the disparity between Swann and Santorum. It's impossible to dispute that one has gained ground and one has lost ground. Much of that falls on the candidate.
By the way, what polls are showing Swann within striking distance?? Quinnipiac has shown Rendell solidly in the lead (15-20%) since June.
* * *
First sentence should read: ...but I just cannot see him being the first challenger to unseat a sitting Pennsylvania governor since 1838.
My bad.
* * *
For a long time, Pennsylvanians did not have the option of retaining or unseating an incumbant governor. In recent memory, there have been only for times when we've had that opportunity: Shapp, Thornburgh, Casey (Sr.), and Ridge. The "curse," or whatever they call it, does not exist. That state is absolutely meaningless in the face of historical circumstances.
What you should say is that you do not think Swann can beat Rendell. You also say that you haven't seen Swann campaign of late and are going by ancient media proclamations.
There's goes the validity of your thinking on this matter, and that by no means is meant to demean or insult you. If you're interested, look at what's happening now.
I agree that the "no PA governor has ever lost a re-election" is a useless statistic, for the same reasons mentioned by the others. Further, in 1982, Dick Thornburgh only narrowly won re-election over an unimpressive opponent, demonstrating that it is possible for an incumbent governor to lose a re-election.
The biggest problem for Lynn Swann is not that silly statistic, but the fact that he is getting killed in the money race. The governor has outraised Swann by 4-1, with $13.7 million in his campaign account as of mid-June to Swann's $3.2 million.
Swann should put some of his own money into this race, to demonstrate that he is serious about winning. I am sure that he has an extra few million; the guy was a football star, and has been on tv for over twenty years. A big donation would prompt other people to donate to him as well, and could get him back into this race.
Without more money, I don't think Swann can win.
I'm all for optimism, but Swann has been going in the wrong direction (towards the reverse end zone, if you will). When he first garnered the nomination earlier in the year, he was essentially tied with Rendell. Now he is behind by nearly 20%.
What's even more confusing about this trend is that it happened over a span during which Senator Santorum steadily gained on his opponent (making it difficult to attribute to the broader anti-Republican climate). At one point Santorum trailed Casey by 20%; now he's only behind by 6%.
The difference? I think it has to do with political campaign savy. Santorum's got it, Swann doesn't (at least not yet). While Santorum's pretty sharp on the issues and knows what to emphasize to win over moderates, Swann's grasp doesn't come close to Rendell's. Throw in the fact that Santorum is facing a marginal at best candidate whereas Swann is facing a state powerhouse and closing the gap looks near impossible for the ex-Steeler.
We can dream though, can't we?
* * *
http://appletonian.blogspot.com