http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060801/ap_on_...MDMzBHNlYwM3MDM

 

hanks to the generosity of GOP donors, a Green Party candidate is expected to make it onto the ballot in Pennsylvania's Senate race and siphon votes from Democratic front-runner Bob Casey in his bid to unseat Republican Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record).

 

Records on file with the

Federal Election Commission show the Luzerne County Green Party received $66,000 in June from 20 contributors who gave between $1,000 and $5,000 apiece.

 

The Luzerne County Green Party in turn reported paying $66,000 in June to a Florida company called JSM Inc. for work that Romanelli described as an integral part of his signature-gathering campaign.

 

An analysis showed that at least $29,000 came from donors who also have given to Santorum's campaign, and nearly all the donors had given to Republican candidates in recent elections.

 

Santorum said he hopes Romanelli makes it onto the ballot.

 

"This is politics," the second-term senator told reporters Monday while campaigning in suburban Pittsburgh. "It's no surprise when you're an incumbent, it helps to have more people on the ballot."

 

A Casey campaign spokesman accused Santorum of "earmarking" GOP contributions for an ostensible opponent.

 

"He's been the biggest supporter of the Green Party candidacy," said the spokesman, Larry Smar.

 

Virginia Davis, Santorum's campaign spokeswoman, declined to answer questions about whether he solicited the contributions.

No different than what they did with Nader, and no different than things the left would do if say, Roy Moore or someone like that were to have run against Bush in 04.

or Ross Perot in 1992

 

without him Bill Clinton probably wouldn't have won

 

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/nat...0&year=1992

or Ross Perot in 1992

 

without him Bill Clinton probably wouldn't have won

 

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/nat...0&year=1992

 

Bull.

Perot took votes from Clinton just as much as Bush.

Otherwise is a bogus myth.

 

But, otherwise, I'm amazed at how stupid some Liberals can be in voting for a third party when they know it'll lead to a REAL momo getting elected.

Maybe they actually want to build support for a third party instead of keeping the status quo with the equally inept and clueless R's and D's?

If you think nothing at all changes when one party takes over two houses of Congress you haven't been paying attention since 1994.

Bull.

Perot took votes from Clinton just as much as Bush.

Otherwise is a bogus myth.

 

 

you are incorrect, my friend.

you are incorrect, my friend.

I lean towards Mr. Genius on this one, Perot likely took more votes from Bush than Clinton, but at some scale, he almost certainly took votes from both. The question of course is whether he took the 5 million or so additional votes from Bush that would have been needed to swing that election the other way. I think it's possible, but I don't know if there's data that can prove one way or the other.

The election was Clinton's whether or not Perot was in the race. I think Perot kept Clinton from hitting a majority and kept Bush from hitting 40%.

 

BTW: Some enterprising blogger researchers at this point have identified over 55K of the 60+K that the Green Party raised for this Senate candidate has come from GOP donors. So far only the $30 that the candidate has donated to his own campaign has shown itself to be confirmed to be not from a GOP donor.

No real surprises here, but the TPM folks have tracked down the last few donations they couldn't get a handle on yesterday. Know how much money has gone to this candidate by anyone other than Republican donors? $30. All from the Candidate himself.

 

The Democrats are also going to challenge the signatures submitted to get that candidate on the ballot. They allege there's a history of fraud on the part of the company that did the collecting, and:

The Green Party counts fewer than 20K members in PA; it took 67K signatures to earn a spot, and Romanelli turned in more than 90K.

The election was Clinton's whether or not Perot was in the race. I think Perot kept Clinton from hitting a majority and kept Bush from hitting 40%.

 

Thank you. So few people believe that, and it drives me mad.

Clinton and Perot sang a similar song.

Had similar backgrounds.

Were both tooting about change.

Blasted away at Bush, but generally respected each other.

 

What, because fiscal Conservatives were probably Perot's biggest backers, all of a sudden they'd all have voted for Bush over Clinton because there's a bullsh-t myth that Republicans -- at the official level -- believe in saving money?

 

It's a more disgusting myth than the Tale of Robert F. Kennedy -- the Idealist Crusader! RFK is characterized as some Roman hero who came to inspire the nation on principle PJ -- post-Johnson!

 

He was a shameless piece of opportunism, that man. Came in pretending to be an anti-war candidate after Eugene McCarthy had done the real heavy lifting, but when your father is a Mobster and your brother's a dead President, I guess you get that sort of sympathy.

Thank you. So few people believe that, and it drives me mad.

Clinton and Perot sang a similar song.

Had similar backgrounds.

Were both tooting about change.

Blasted away at Bush, but generally respected each other.

 

 

Perot was much more in-line with Bush and the Republican party. Low taxes, pro business, ect. And yea, they both attacked Bush. Perot attacked him trying to take Republican votes from Bush, which he was successful in doing. It's hard to know exactly how many Perot voters would have voted for Bush, it's pretty much a guess on anyones part and my guess is Perot took a lot more votes from Bush than Clinton.

I'm willing to wager that half of Perot's votes in 1992 came from voters who would have stayed home on Election Day rather than voted for Bush.

I'm willing to wager that half of Perot's votes in 1992 came from voters who would have stayed home on Election Day rather than voted for Bush.

 

i don't thnk so, but you could be right.

 

the same could also be said of Green Party/Nader voters.

This is an unwinnable debate on all sides. Perot's support probably came in part from people who wouldn't have voted, in part from Republicans, and in part from Democrats. I'd say it's likely more Republicans were in there than Democrats, but aside from that, it's impossible to even really make an educated guess at the real ratios unless someone has exit poll data I don't know about. If someone does, then show it, if not, this debate has absolutely no point.

if not, this debate has absolutely no point.

 

 

 

 

as compared to the other debates here on soxtalk?

Edited August 2, 200619 yr by mr_genius

You know, whatever, it's a ridiculous myth.

 

Bill Clinton was whipping Bush like a government mule pre-Perot, and he beat him with Perot. Clinton went down significantly in the polls, and so did Bush, while Perot rose in the polls.

 

There's nothing to suggest that Clinton wouldn't have beaten Bush, and everything to suggest that Clinton was going to dominate the President. I'm sick and tired of people saying, "LOL WITHOUT PEROT CLINTON ISN'T PRESIDENT LOL!" when it's blatantly untrue -- or, at least, it's unsuggested by the evidence, if I may use my own words.

1. If Bush 41 hadn't sucked so goddamn bad, then he wouldn't have lost votes to Perot. That's the Rupubs fault for running a bad candidate.

 

2. This Green candidate WILL NOT hurt Casey. People are more anti-Santorum than the Repubs know, and will do anything to get him out of there.

1. If Bush 41 hadn't sucked so goddamn bad, then he wouldn't have lost votes to Perot. That's the Rupubs fault for running a bad candidate.

 

2. This Green candidate WILL NOT hurt Casey. People are more anti-Santorum than the Repubs know, and will do anything to get him out of there.

 

I've got a finger on PA's pulse, and number two is blatantly false. PA is a mildly Conservative state, especially by Liberal standards. Casey is mildly Liberal, and you might call him a Centrist. He'll almost certainly lose votes amongst College Liberals and some other Liberals to the Green candidate. I don't think it'll be enough to derail him, but it'll be significant.

 

PA is a state where you never know where an election will go. Santorum is fully capable of a rally.

I think he'll be defeated, but please don't confuse California or Illinois with Pennsylvania. He won't lose in a landslide like Alan Keyes.

I've got a finger on PA's pulse, and number two is blatantly false. PA is a mildly Conservative state, especially by Liberal standards. Casey is mildly Liberal, and you might call him a Centrist. He'll almost certainly lose votes amongst College Liberals and some other Liberals to the Green candidate. I don't think it'll be enough to derail him, but it'll be significant.

 

PA is a state where you never know where an election will go. Santorum is fully capable of a rally.

I think he'll be defeated, but please don't confuse California or Illinois with Pennsylvania. He won't lose in a landslide like Alan Keyes.

 

I hear ya, but I don't think way left libs, despite hating Casey's more centrist (and sometimes downright right) views, will chance splitting their vote and leaving Santorum in there.

I hear ya, but I don't think way left libs, despite hating Casey's more centrist (and sometimes downright right) views, will chance splitting their vote and leaving Santorum in there.

 

Probably not, but Liberal voters have done some stupid things before!

Probably not, but Liberal voters have done some stupid things before!

 

 

yea, what morons. i mean, who votes for the candidate they want to win?only a fool.

Edited August 3, 200619 yr by mr_genius

yea, what morons. i mean, who votes for the candidate they want to win?only a fool.

 

Yeah, actually, I think the people who voted Nader are fools.

Yeah, actually, I think the people who voted Nader are fools.

 

they probably think the same thing about you.

 

John Kerry supporter.

they probably think the same thing about you.

 

John Kerry supporter.

After 6 years of this President, I think a lot of them would actually agree that they are fools. There's a reason why Nader put in so much worse of a showing in 04.