Posted on 05/19/2010 9:17:44 AM PDT by DB9
The old media has been furiously spinning last night's loss by Tim Burns in PA-12 as proof that the Democrat Party is really in great shape going into the fall mid-terms and that ObamaCare is actually going to help the Democrats. However, a sober analysis of Tim Burn's loss should give the Democrat Party no such solace. Burns loss can be chalked up primarily to Ed Rendell's shrewd move to schedule the special election on the same day as the primary.
I had been worrying about this since Rendell made that announcement and as I watched the election returns online last night, my concerns were confirmed. It became clear very early that there was no way Tim Burns could win a special election run concurrently with a primary election for the same race. This was evident to me despite the point made by Rick Santorum and others early in the evening that the initial numbers were coming from Democrat strongholds and Burns could come back to win when the more conservative precincts were counted. This wishful thinking was unrealistic. There was never going to be sufficient Republican votes to overcome the 2-1 Democrat to Republican advantage in the district given that voters had to declare their party affiliation to vote in the primary on the same night.
The data I paid particular attention to in the PA-12 race were the results coming in from the primary election. From the very beginning, the number of votes being cast in the Democrat Primary for the 2012 general election in PA-12 was nearly twice the amount being cast in the Republican Primary. You would expect this since, as Santorum noted, mainly Democrat precincts were being counted. But as numbers began coming in from more conservative areas, the trend continued. Indeed when all the votes were tallied, 80, 736 were cast in the Democrat primary and only 45, 852 in the GOP Primary. The results from the primary and general election for PA-12 appears below via Fox News:
U.S. House - District 12 - Democrat Primary: Critz, Mark: 57,704 Bucchianeri, Ryan: 16,618 Mackell, Ronald: 6,414 Total Votes Cast: 80,736
U.S. House - District 12 - Republican Primary
Burns , Tim GOP: 26,120 Russell , William GOP: 19,732 Total Votes Cast: 45,852
U.S. House - District 12 - Special General Critz, Mark: 70,662 Burns, Tim: 60,500 Agoris, Demo: 3142 Total Votes Cast: 134,304
In primary elections, voters go to the polls and are asked their party affiliation. They are then given a ballot which corresponds to that affiliation. Independents are given a separate ballot. Nearly 35,000 more voters filled out Democrat ballots than Republican ballots. For Burns to have won, he would have had to overcome those 35,000 votes by a combination of Independents and ticket splitters. Independents, of course, are not known for their high levels of participation in primary elections...quite the opposite in fact.
Ticket splitting is fairly common in general elections but not in primaries as Rendell, a product of the Philadelphia Democrat machine, undoubtedly knows. It's difficult to imagine significant numbers of Democrat voters asking for a Democrat ballot upon arrival at the polls, then voting simultaneously for Critz in the primary and Burns in the special. Partisans, by definition, show up on primary day, not squishy ticket-splitters. Undoubtedly there were a few ticket-splitters, but to expect a sufficient number to swing the election to Burns was pure fantasy. That Burns was able to close that huge gap from 35,000 to 10,000 with independents and ticket splitters on a primary election day is actually quite impressive. (About 7700 more votes were cast in the special election than in the two primaries combined.)
To be sure, there were other factors in Burns' loss. The fact that the Pennsylvania Democrat Primary for Senate between Sestak and Specter was of national interest only added to Burns' problems. This undoubtedly further increased the number of voters who turned out in the Democrat Primary. Add to that a somewhat lackluster campaign by Burns and a machine Democrat candidate who ran as far away from Obama as possible while claiming (falsely) he was really a conservative and last night's result should have surprised nobody.
The fact that McCain carried the district in 2008 is irrelevant. That was a general election, not a primary. Any attempt by the Democrats to suggest Burns loss is an endorsement of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda going into the fall mid-terms is fantasy on their part. Credit Critz's victory to some good old-fashioned politicking by consummate Democrat insider Ed Rendell, something our side could learn from. Rendell, naturally, claimed the move was to save money:
“At a time when all governments are trying to meet their challenges with reduced revenues,” Rendell said in a statement, “it would be unconscionable to force counties to spend money to hold an additional election which, by law, could be held little more than 30 days earlier.”
Unconsionable for a Democrat to spend money? Right.
Update: (H/T Rob Harrison) Michael Barone notes that a further complication for Tim Burns was the fact that his opponent in the primary election, William Russell, pointedly did not endorse Burns' candidacy in the special election.
I thought Russel lost.
My bad. This election was for both the special election and the primary for the fall.
I hadn’t realized that.
You hit it right on the head and the fact you have to explain it is what makes Boortz’ campaign so quixotic. Think of this: did Critz have to run ads correcting himself? No? Then he got what he wanted and all he needed was some doubt in less-informed heads (not necessarily stupid ones, just ignorant). He got that and might well get it again in November.
Burns has got to run a better campaign or he may as well move and try somewhere else.
Scott Brown and Tom Corbett headlined a rally in Washington, Pa.(my hometown) for Burns on Friday. It drew 75 people. Counting media, Burns volunteers, local cops and security for Corbett and Burns, the headcount was about 125.
Apparently, the support just wasn't there for Burns, for whatever reason. Hopefully he can work on his strategy in the coming months.
I stand by what I said. I am not criticizing Burns. Not at all. People are stupid. It is easy for them to grasp 23% sales tax. Harder for them to grasp the whole concept and its ramifications. Critz is a liar!? That never stopped anybody from winning elections.
Those commercials were devastating. Viewers had no idea of anything called the Fair Tax. Just a new tax.
Burns was appointed by the state check pants Repub committee to run in the special election rather than Col. Bill Russell, the Conservative Republican that ran against murtha in the last election.
Such was the animosity between state GOP Chairman Rob Gleason and Col. Russell that Gleason, a good buddy of murtha, refused to endorse Russell in his 2008 run against the incumbent.
Word on the street is that Burns was chosen as he had the finances to support his own campaign. These shenanigans raised a lot of ire in the Russell camp with, I would guess, probably a few staying home in disgust.
Also AFSCME and some others were running adds saying that Burns wanted to raise sales taxes to 23% (part of the Fair Tax) without telling voters anything about the rest of the plan.
Burns did little to counter this, running no adds that I saw to educate voters on his position.
thanks nutmeg
“Burns still has a shot in November, when the Indies come out to vote.”
Yes he will, and perhaps so will Bill Russell? :)
Nathan, another big reason why this race was an anomaly and should not be considered a bellwether.
This is an interesting explanation...
I hope this is not a omen come Nov. for FR’s sake. Things can still go the Obama and Dems way this Nov.
More important, the KY race put a Tea Party favorite in over an establishment picked candidate in a landslide. If team Bam Bam is smart they'd be very concerned behind the scenes.
True, even sadder that the same people scared of a Fair Tax will accept the lie that Barry's European VAT is the same thing and enthusiastically support 'The 0ne'
Exactly! And Burns NEVER countered that ad!
The SEIU ran deceiving ads claiming Burns supported a National Sales Tax of 23% on everything purchased. Talked about how much more everyday items (groceries, gas) would cost. Sneaky but effective, especially since Burns did nothing to counter the ads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.