Did Sestak win or Weldon lose?
Lots of articles and comments and discussions on whether it was more that Curt Weldon lost this race by the FBI raids or poor campaigning, or whether it was Joe Sestak who pushed the envelope and won the race.
Tim Logue in today's Delco Times cites:
Logue goes on to describe other factors that brought Weldon down or how he brought himself down. The FBI raids of course, and the underlying ethics problems. The attacks on Sestak that only seemed to raise Sestak's profile. The rusty campaign skills. The Able Danger conspiracy. The missing WMDs conspiracy.
In his left-handed way, even the Times' Gil Spencer almost compliments Sestak in his piece "All credit to Sestak for his flawless campaign", which despite the headline, offers a few token kudos while taking a few less-than-subtle shots at the guy who knocked off his pal Weldon.
==============================================
At the end of the day it really doesn't matter if you think Weldon blew it or Sestak won it. My opinion is that Sestak won it because of his positions on the Iraq War and many other important issues that held sway with the voters. I also think that he inspired people to come out and work for him that haven't done that in a long time, if ever. Lots of individuals gave time and money because they believed in the cause and believed Sestak would win. Weldon was on the wrong side of many issues. He also tried to distance himself from his Republican/Bush connections. Maybe he should have tried to stay the course! Weldon voted in ways that his constituents did not like. Couple that with an opponent with stellar qualifications and good positions, and it all adds up to a Sestak victory.
It would be foolish to think that the margin of victory was not inflated due to the FBI raids and the ensuing publicity. But I'd say Sestak wins anyway. It's all idle speculation of course, but hey, that's what blogs are for!
==============================================
If you want to look ahead 2 years, how about this one from today's Philadelphia Daily News:
Tim Logue in today's Delco Times cites:
"A loss by Curt Weldon can only be self-inflicted," Democratic political consultant Larry Ceisler said in the summer of 2004. "The opponent doesn’t matter. The external factors don’t matter."
Logue goes on to describe other factors that brought Weldon down or how he brought himself down. The FBI raids of course, and the underlying ethics problems. The attacks on Sestak that only seemed to raise Sestak's profile. The rusty campaign skills. The Able Danger conspiracy. The missing WMDs conspiracy.
In his left-handed way, even the Times' Gil Spencer almost compliments Sestak in his piece "All credit to Sestak for his flawless campaign", which despite the headline, offers a few token kudos while taking a few less-than-subtle shots at the guy who knocked off his pal Weldon.
==============================================
At the end of the day it really doesn't matter if you think Weldon blew it or Sestak won it. My opinion is that Sestak won it because of his positions on the Iraq War and many other important issues that held sway with the voters. I also think that he inspired people to come out and work for him that haven't done that in a long time, if ever. Lots of individuals gave time and money because they believed in the cause and believed Sestak would win. Weldon was on the wrong side of many issues. He also tried to distance himself from his Republican/Bush connections. Maybe he should have tried to stay the course! Weldon voted in ways that his constituents did not like. Couple that with an opponent with stellar qualifications and good positions, and it all adds up to a Sestak victory.
It would be foolish to think that the margin of victory was not inflated due to the FBI raids and the ensuing publicity. But I'd say Sestak wins anyway. It's all idle speculation of course, but hey, that's what blogs are for!
==============================================
If you want to look ahead 2 years, how about this one from today's Philadelphia Daily News:
Platt won't quit his day job
Joe Sestak's victory over Curt Weldon for the longtime congressman's seat has shattered Larry Platt's political dreams.
Though Platt, editor of Philadelphia magazine, doesn't yet live in Weldon's old district, he was mulling a 2008 run for Weldon's seat.
On Friday, Platt confirmed that he'd "idly fantasized" about challenging Weldon in 2008. But with Weldon's loss, Platt says his "dream is not only deferred but dead." Platt says he wouldn't challenge a fellow Democrat and that, furthermore, he's "a card-carrying coward and wouldn't stack up well against Admiral Sestak."
posted by Seventh Watch at 10:31 PM
5 Comments:
I think the big difference in this election (besides Pa7Watch, of course) was that the Dems had enough money to get out our message. It the past, we didn't have sufficient funds to mail everybody a sample ballot, let alone full color, multi-page newsletters and position pieces. TV and radio advertising was simply out of the question.
This election showed that on a level playing field, where Democrats can get out our message, we can win.
Level playing field?,Joe was going against a corrupt congressman while an unpopular war is occuring.The next election will be more of a true sign of that,if the seat can be held.
Anonymous-
Congratulations. I think you may be first "anonymous" to refer to Weldon as "corrupt congressman". Most anonymous cry "how can you say 'corrupt'? he hasn't been convicted".
Without the money to level the playing field, Joe would have been overrun by Weldon's ads and literature. Joe would not have been able to fund a staff or hire election day GOTV volunteers. Heck, he would have trouble affording the infrastructure for fundraising.
The race could easily have been one-side. The money prevented Joe's message getting buried by Weldon's.
Holding the seat will be less of a challenge. Joe outraised a 20 year incumbant. As an incumbant himself, his financial status and name recognition will be far greater (at the beginning of the summer less than 1/3 the voters even knew who he was). Unless he does something really bad, many people will stick with him next time rather than take a chance on another new guy. This is especially true if people expect the Democrats to remain in the majority.
Sestak won it. Many die-hard GOPers in our township voted for Joe, and they had never voted for a Democrat before in their life. They even gave Joe money and put up yard signs for him.
They were, frankly, tired of the failed GOP rhetoric. Joe is the face of the new Democratic Party -- strong on middle-American values and tough on defense. Weldon is the face of the failed Republican Party -- government beholden to no-bid contractors, the ultra-rich, and lobbyist-driven agendas.
"Joe is the new face of the Democratic Party",isn't it kind of hypocritical that he said he was going to support Murtha after making an issue of Weldons ethics,is he going to be a puppet with Pelosi pulling the strings?Can't wait to see if PA7-Watch will call him on this.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home