CFAH.org

The State House Races to Watch on Election Night

HD146With so much attention being paid to the Gubernatorial and State Senate contests it can be easy to miss the competitive State House races.

At the moment, Republicans hold a 111 to 92 vote majority and it is extremely unlikely the Democrats will be able to pick up the ten seats necessary to takeover the lower chamber.

The redistricting process had a much larger impact on the House than the Senate, though, so we may still see some turn over. As a result, Democrats are planning on a major push in 2016 but only if they have success this year.

We’ve narrowed the landscape down to the top fifteen races.

Each district has been ranked by the likelihood it will switch parties, starting with the least likely.

14. HD-115: Maureen Madden (D) vs. David Parker (R) – Monroe County

Another newly created open seat. The district, however, favors the Democrat. Still, Republicans like their candidate and think they have a shot.

13. HD-48: Rep. Brandon Neuman (D) vs. Sonia Stopperich (R) – Washington County

Neuman ran for Lieutenant Governor earlier this year which gave the GOP some hope they could pull a sneak upset in the aftermath. If Rep. Neuman goes down, though, it means the Republicans are having a good night.

12. HD-145: Karen Chellew (D) vs. Craig Staats (R) – Bucks County

This seat belonged to retiring Rep. Paul Clymer. It’s a Republican district but is not completely out of the reach of Democrats.

11. HD-58: Rep. Ted Harhai (D) vs. Thomas Logan (R) – Westmoreland County

State Rep. Harhai has extensive experience and deep ties to the community but the district is trending Republican. For example, Mitt Romney won the district with 56% in 2012. The GOP feels that with enough effort they can finally turn this seat.

10. HD-74: Harry Lewis (R) vs. Josh Maxwell (D) – Chester County

Another open seat, relocated from central PA during redistricting. It was drawn in an effort to keep Chesco Dems concentrated in one area and out of the neighboring seats represented by GOP incumbents.

9. HD-176: Jack Rader (R) vs. Hope Smith (D) – Monroe County

This is a newly created open seat comprising areas that once belonged to Rep. Mario Scavello, who is running for State Senate this year. The Republican is favored, but as a fresh district with two first-time candidates, this could make for an unexpected result on Election night.

8. HD-161: Rep. Joe Hackett (R) vs. Leanne Krueger-Braneky (D) – Delaware County

This is yet another Southeast PA district, although it was significantly redrawn in order to secure the seat for Hackett. Krueger-Braneky is depending on some Wolf coattails to pull her over the finish line.

7. HD-52: A.J. Boni (D) vs. Ryan Warner (R) – Fayette, Westmoreland Counties

This seat is open thanks to the State Senate candidacy of incumbent Deb Kula. Therefore, the result in this district will likely mirror the results in the SD-32 race. This is a Democratic area in registration but it is also very rural and trending Republican. For example, Romney won the district with 59% two years ago.

6. HD-102: Russ Diamond (R) vs. Jake Long (D) vs. Robert McAteer (I) – Lebanon County

This may be the strangest race of the night. Good government activist Russ Diamond found himself in an embarrassing episode this week and has never been the favorite of establishment Republicans. Instead they’re backing McAteer, which could give Long a shot. Plus it’s an open seat, with Rep. RoseMarie Swanger retiring. Finally to top it all off, write-in candidate Wanda Bechtold, the woman who lost to Diamond in the GOP primary, could have a significant effect on the result. This is sure to be an entertaining race to watch on Tuesday night.

5. HD-46: Rep. Jesse White (D) vs. Jason Ortitay (R) – Allegheny, Washington Counties

This race, possibly more than any other, revolves around the personality of the incumbent. Rep. White has been through a number of personal scandals over the last few years, including writing anonymous attacks online – and that’s not the only thing. Republicans feel he’s dug his own grave but the jury is still out on this race.

4. HD-157: Rep. Warren Kampf (R) vs. Marian Moskowitz (D) – Chester, Montgomery Counties

Another SEPA district that Democrats are hoping to win over. President Obama won the district in 2012 yet so far Rep. Kampf has been able to survive. Moskowitz wants to be the one to finally flip this seat.

3. HD-83: Rep. Rick Mirabito (D) vs. Jeff Wheeland (R) – Lycoming County

This district is a prize the Republicans have been trying to win for years now. It’s the most Republican district held by a Democratic but some combination of circumstances has always get it out of their hands. This would be a sweet victory for them.

2. HD-163: Vincent Rongione (D) vs. Jamie Santora (R) – Delaware County

One of the more intensely contested districts in the entire Commonwealth, it is the seat of retiring Rep. Nick Micozzie. Almost half of the district is new, however, so it is difficult to predict how it will go. The GOP has the structural advantage yet Rongione has been aggressive in fundraising and in drawing attention. Most recently, the Delaware Republican Party is challenging Rongione’s residency. This will definitely be a race to keep an eye on Nov. 4th.

1. HD-146: Rep. Mark Painter (D) vs. Former Rep. Thomas Quigley (R) – Montgomery County

Here we have a good old-fashioned rematch. Quigley held this seat for four terms until Painter defeated him in 2012. This was the only district where a Democrat beat a GOP incumbent in that cycle. Will Quigley get revenge or will Painter emerge victorious again?

*HD-81: Rep. Mike Fleck (R) vs. Richard Irvin (R) – Huntingdon, Centre, Mifflin Counties

This is the one race where party control can’t flip – but it may garner the most headlines when all is said and done. Rep. Fleck made history by becoming the first openly gay lawmaker in PA history. He lost the GOP primary in this deep red conservative district but won the Democratic nomination as a write-in – though he pledges to caucus as a Republican if re-elected. His opponents’ supporters have made the race a thinly veiled referendum on Fleck’s sexual orientation including some ugly attacks. This will be a noteworthy result no matter who wins.

October 30th, 2014 | Posted in Features, Front Page Stories, Harrisburg, Top Stories | 25 Comments

25 thoughts on “The State House Races to Watch on Election Night”

  1. DELCO Observer says:

    My thoughts on Delco Races
    166 Vitali (D)
    165 Adolph (R) (closest its been in years)
    164 Davidson (D)
    163 Rongione (D)
    162 Miccarelli (wins as a D)
    161 Hackett (R)
    160 Barrar (R)
    159 Kirkland (D).
    SD 26 – Pure tossup…too close to call…GOTV will be the name of the game.

  2. HD 71 – State Rep Bryan Barbin (D) v. Jim Rigby (R)

    This is the third meeting. In 2008 and 2010, Barbin beat Rigby by 182 and 187 votes in a heavy democratic district. The enthusiasm for Rigby is higher than the previous contest. Should be another tight one.

  3. Barricks Einwohner says:

    The race in PA 5 may be worth a look. The 5th was moved from Erie to Berks County and is an open seat. The race is between the former Berks County Sheriffm Barry Joswiak and the incumbant Recorder, Fred Sheeler. The former Sheriff has tried to tie the Recorder to the President and the Recorder has responded by calling the Sheriff a liar. This much is clear, the Recorder modernized the office and saved the County $2.3 million each year while in office. The previous Recorder was convicted of theft after leaving office which was straightened out by the current Recorder. The former Sheriff was involved in several very costly lawsuits involving the release of gun permit holder info to the internet and for the use lists of permit holders for campaign mailings.

  4. Peter Sour says:

    Many Republicans rallied outside Hatfield office of Rep. Bob Godshall (53rd Legislative District) urging voters to support Dottie Miller(D) on Tuesday.
    Reason: Godshall pocket vetoed House Bill (HB 899)that would lower electricity costs. Some of 24 rallyers were from 5 hours away.
    (More info, pics at http://patch.com/pennsylvania/lansdale/next

  5. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    As wrote earlier, “You can run but you cannot hide.”

    You exhausted your supply of excuses to evade the necessity to document your claims.

    And anyone who tries to impersonate me will [1]–have to emulate my style, a high hurdle, and [2]–have to subject him-/herself to your withering counterattack, unpleasant as it usually is.

    [BTW, I registered under a different e-mail address.]

    This hyperlink will be preserved whenever it’s necessary to remind the readership of your lack of credibility.

  6. David Diano says:

    Not Ready-
    You’re right. I apologize for engaging Robert on his off-topic tirades.

    Robert-
    I’ve already made my points. I consider my previous responses to the topics you keep bringing up sufficient. If you don’t find them so, then tough sh*t. I won’t be responding to any more of your off-topic posts in unrelated threads, as it only encourages bad behavior and is annoying to the other posters. You can post in the original dead threads all you want.
    Also, I can’t believe that you were dumb enough to post your email address. Now, anybody here can post as you with fake posts that have the correct email address.

  7. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    I’m impressed that the irresistible force [me] moved the immovable object [you] when you withdrew your challenge to my instant-analysis of Guzzardi’s petition-signatures; although wrapped in your customary invective and tethered to other conditional renewals of your prior claims, this unprecedented admission suggests that there is hope for you…particularly after the Senate flips on Tuesday.

    BTW, any predictions?

    Thus, PoliticsPA has performed a service, although it may be wise for us to “take it outside”; for example, you should please e-mail your refutation of the voter-fraud claims which, BTW have been consolidated into a patter provided by FNC’s Eric Shawn.

    rsklaroff@gmail.com

    htt
    p://video.foxnews.com/v/3866898962001/voter-fraud-allegations-threaten-election-integrity/#sp=show-clips

    Regarding your claim that Bush-’43 spied on reporters, the Google-search led primarily to one source, and it seems that a good-faith attempt was made to stop the practice [per one hyperlink in one of the articles]; this contrasts with BHO’s concerted pattern of intimidation, particularly of leakers [except, of course, the person who besmirched BB with the charge of being a “chickens**t”…because BHO would have to investigate himself].

    ht
    tp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/08/AR2008080803603.html

    Just because FISA rubber-stamped, doesn’t justify AG-Holder doing so as well [noting its obviously absurd “co-conspirator” phraseology], now that you acknowledge he read the document.

    Indeed, you failed to acknowledge that “abuse of power” need not entail attempting to acquire a payoff…when evincing corruption.

    Until now, the House has been blocked from dominating any Congressional action, due to the D-controlled Senate; one would hope that more forthright action [such as with Ms. Lois Lerner] could emerge in ’15.

    Boehner’s litigation, per Politico, has been approved but was delayed after a D.C.-firm withdrew; in my opinion, rather than focusing solely upon ObamaDon’tCare, the entire panoply of Imperialism-incarnate should be encompassed…and you are requested to document your claim that the Congressional Research Office rejected any legal justification for it.

    Rather than claiming I’m “fixated” on BHO’s consigliere [AG-Holder], perhaps you might wish to acknowledge that he admitted he gave false sworn testimony to Congress.

    Finally, mirroring the Dem-incumbents running for Senate re-election, you portray the claim of “racism” as a default-charge against a view with which you disagree [“there aren’t many other reasons besides racism left for you and Bob (and I can’t think of any besides stupidity)”]; thus, covertly, you admit you had no foundation whatsoever to type that heinous claim [which you had rescinded against me, but now appear to have reinitiated].

  8. Hypocrisy says:

    Seriously? How could you have completely missed the Stip / Helm race?
    Even a hack could tell you this one has a better than good chance of an upset.
    Come on guys… You can do better than that.

  9. Denny Bonavita says:

    Anent (nice word, that) the request for a filter, isn’t freedom of speech wonderful? Anent the election, don’t forget PA-65, where the Speaker, Sam Smith, is retiring and Democrats have a solid chance of upsetting the unanointed (except by the Tea Party) Republican nominee.

  10. Not Ready says:

    Dear PoliticsPA: Can you provide a comments filter so that users who are bored to death with the self-indulgent fued between Dr. Sklaroff and David Diano and disturbed by the bordeline insane comments of PAINDY can only see comments that are relevant to regular people?

  11. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    Even though it says “awaiting moderation”, I can still see the post from my phone and two different computers. So, you should be able to see it as well. Try refreshing your browser or taking your head out of your ass.

    Search for: “bush administration spying on reporters” and you will get plenty of hits. This is common knowledge and old news. Try to keep up.

    Of course rubberstamps were applied. Duh. That’s what I’ve been saying about the policies. But, having a judge involved is the “legal” loophole the Bush administration constructed. This fits in with the FISA court who rubberstamped everything too.

    Whether Holder read the reports, or the just summary page or just asked someone what was in it before he signed off is irrelevant because the government is already spying on, recording and storing every phone call and email they can get their hands on.

    “Yet, none was censored for stonewalling Congress”?? You might mean censured. However, if Holder did anything illegal/actionable then the Republicans have a majority and could have voted to hold him in contempt or some actual penalty. Censure is no more a penalty than shaking your finger at someone. If they actually indict him on something criminal, let me know, because they have the votes.

    I’m still waiting for Boehner to “sue” Obama for an executive order related to ACA, after announcing his intention to do so this past June. But, I’ve got a long wait, because the Republicans asked the Congressional Research Office to look into it, and they came back with the conclusion that there was NO legal basis for charging the President for the order in question. None. Zip. Nada.

    As far as Holder, you are making a big deal over nothing and very fixated on finding him guilty of something nefarious/criminal rather than just being a bureaucrat. So, given the lack of any real crime or corruption by Holder, there aren’t many other reasons besides racism left for you and Bob (and I can’t think of any besides stupidity).

    I withdraw/amend my claim that you thought there were “enough” good signatures to make the threshold.
    However, I still maintain that there were not enough good signatures and the judge was simply wrong in granting the ones he did. Also, some signatures that you argued would pass, did happen to fail, so you really don’t know the difference between good/bad signatures.

    So, as I said originally, you lucked out with a lenient judge, despite not having a enough good signatures. A more strict/competent judge would have thrown more out. Does that clarify for you.

    Election night you will see that Magellan was wrong to skew the poll, and because 2010 was not only the wrong model to use, but they modeled it without regard to the registration changes in the past 4 years.

  12. jjcnpa says:

    You should mention the 104th district. Gene Stilp (D) came within 300 votes of beating Sue Helm (R) in the Republican heavy year of 2010. Many smell an upset of Sue Helm who isn’t the most compelling politician to say the least

  13. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    You wrote that you had documented your claim, but you admit you knew the entry probably didn’t appear [“2) I answered every one of your hyperlinks, showing each of them to be non-voterID fraud, and in some cases, that you completely misrepresented the article. Mine is the most recent comment on the thread you linked to (and the comment is flagged as “waiting moderation” due to all the hyperlinks I used to debunk you). So, it’s you who hasn’t responded. But, don’t bother as the thread is on page 3 or 4 by now.”].

    Indeed, the most recent posting was from “Unsanctioned R” [the URL regarding Racism]; thus it seems you should have followed my example of breaking-up citations prior to posting.

    Also, you cited “lawlessness we’ve experienced under Corbett.” Would you care to compare/contrast the state/federal behavior in this regard?

    In addition, you evince “moral equivalency” when you claim “If you want to condemn Holder, then you have to condemn every A.G. as well as FBI, CIA and NSA directors for the past 50 years.” Yet, none was censored for stonewalling Congress, and none of them conducted a gun-running scheme [lying about its chronology and character]; thus, documentation is again needed.

    Finally, the propensity to engage in name-calling [my being stupid, Bob being racist] is tiresome; quoting Sgt. Friday, “Just the facts!”

  14. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    You have failed to reply to the distilled points attacking your credibility and, thus, it remains in tatters; updating them is unsettling:

    First, it’s great to note that you’re alive, for you have been too evasive, for far too long.

    {The assertion stands; also, if you wish to ignore anything that isn’t on the front-page, you may find that a given topic will remain on the front-page under a particular topic for as long as a week.}

    Second, please reply at the other website for documentation of assertions condemning AH-Holder related specifically to Fast & Furious and the James Rosen Affidavit.
    Htt
    p://ww
    w.politicspa.co
    m/pa-gov-yougov-poll-wolf-50-corbett-41/60976/comment-page-1/#comment-911735

    {I’m still waiting; inasmuch as you phantom-posting never appeared, perhaps you’ll want simply to break-up the URL’s and allow me to reconstruct your claims.}

    Third, you have failed to ID any evidence that either “Bob” or myself demonstrated a racist motivation for attacking AG-Holder; therefore, please rescind the charge [that is oh-so-typical of Dems such as yourself].

    {Whatever you may have “felt” was self-conjured; as someone else noted yesterday, Dennis Prager would condemn your broad-brush “racism” accusation, justifiably.}

    Fourth, you cannot claim [for it ain’t so] that I’d claimed all of Guzzardi’s petitions were 100% squeaky clean [“You thought ALL of them were good based on your ‘vetting’.”]; my claim [then and now] was that a sufficient number in each of the four challenged counties were OK and, thus, Guzzardi had exceeded that threshold. Thus, your conclusion [“So that shows that you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to petitions”] should actually be perceived as self-referential.

    {Again, cite a reference or withdraw the claim.}

    Fifth, Guzzardi was documented to have been a “serious” candidate, articulating myriad viewpoints that were more conservative and fiscally-tight than Corbett had been pursuing; this was documented seriatim, so you cannot “seriously” reject his credibility, despite the tendency of elitists to be dismissive.

    {Guzzardi’s effort was admittedly unorthodox, but even some recent bloggers have lamented his not having emerged victorious; regardless, although you may have a penchant for functioning as a mindreader, such an aloof posture does not justify dissing what Guzzardi attempted to communicate.}

    Sixth, you claim Magellan “skewed” the data, whereas it claims the outcome is more reflective of what will transpire in a fortnight; thus, it is justifiable to claim that its interpretation thereof could reflect a “trend,” particularly when one recalls the initial splay was greater than 20%.

    {Subsequent polling has hovered around 10% and certainly hasn’t returned to 20+%; thus, this trend was validated, over your objections.}

    Seventh, what you missed when attacking Bob [“A vote for Wolf is a vote for Obama”] by claiming he doesn’t “seem to understand the difference between state and federal elections,” is the fact that socialist policies overlap between Wolf/BHO.

    {It is surprising that you cannot recognize the homology of federal/state policies, particularly as manifest during the past half-decadel}

    Eighth, therefore, you continue to “combine willful-ignorance and moral-equivalency to cover-up your excess,” now both on the prior page and this one.

    {That repeated profession of ignorance regarding AG-Holder’s [mis-] conduct is reflective of your reaction to having been cornered; you kept suggesting he had plausible deniability and claiming I’d failed to demonstrate otherwise [but all you had to do to validate my claim was to perform a two-step Google search].}

    http://www.politicspa.com/pa-gov-keystone-reportmagellan-strategies-poll-wolf-49-1-corbett-42-2/61139/#comments

  15. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    You have failed to reply to the distilled points attacking your credibility and, thus, it remains in tatters; updating them is unsettling:

    First, it’s great to note that you’re alive, for you have been too evasive, for far too long.

    {The assertion stands; also, if you wish to ignore anything that isn’t on the front-page, you may find that a given topic will remain on the front-page under a particular topic for as long as a week.}

    Second, please reply at the other website for documentation of assertions condemning AH-Holder related specifically to Fast & Furious and the James Rosen Affidavit.
    Htt
    p://ww
    w.politicspa.co
    m/pa-gov-yougov-poll-wolf-50-corbett-41/60976/comment-page-1/#comment-911735

    {I’m still waiting; inasmuch as you phantom-posting never appeared, perhaps you’ll want simply to break-up the URL’s and allow me to reconstruct your claims.}

    Third, you have failed to ID any evidence that either “Bob” or myself demonstrated a racist motivation for attacking AG-Holder; therefore, please rescind the charge [that is oh-so-typical of Dems such as yourself].

    {Whatever you may have “felt” was self-conjured; as someone else noted yesterday, Dennis Prager would condemn your broad-brush “racism” accusation, justifiably.}

    Fourth, you cannot claim [for it ain’t so] that I’d claimed all of Guzzardi’s petitions were 100% squeaky clean [“You thought ALL of them were good based on your ‘vetting’.”]; my claim [then and now] was that a sufficient number in each of the four challenged counties were OK and, thus, Guzzardi had exceeded that threshold. Thus, your conclusion [“So that shows that you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to petitions”] should actually be perceived as self-referential.

    {Again, cite a reference or withdraw the claim.}

    Fifth, Guzzardi was documented to have been a “serious” candidate, articulating myriad viewpoints that were more conservative and fiscally-tight than Corbett had been pursuing; this was documented seriatim, so you cannot “seriously” reject his credibility, despite the tendency of elitists to be dismissive.

    {Guzzardi’s effort was admittedly unorthodox, but even some recent bloggers have lamented his not having emerged victorious; regardless, although you may have a penchant for functioning as a mindreader, such an aloof posture does not justify dissing what Guzzardi attempted to communicate.}

    Sixth, you claim Magellan “skewed” the data, whereas it claims the outcome is more reflective of what will transpire in a fortnight; thus, it is justifiable to claim that its interpretation thereof could reflect a “trend,” particularly when one recalls the initial splay was greater than 20%.

    {Subsequent polling has hovered around 10% and certainly hasn’t returned to 20+%; thus, this trend was validated, over your objections.}

    Seventh, what you missed when attacking Bob [“A vote for Wolf is a vote for Obama”] by claiming he doesn’t “seem to understand the difference between state and federal elections,” is the fact that socialist policies overlap between Wolf/BHO.

    {It is surprising that you cannot recognize the homology of federal/state policies, particularly as manifest during the past half-decadel}

    Eighth, therefore, you continue to “combine willful-ignorance and moral-equivalency to cover-up your excess,” now both on the prior page and this one.

    {That repeated profession of ignorance regarding AG-Holder’s [mis-]conduct is reflective of your reaction to having been cornered; you kept suggesting he had plausible deniability and claiming I’d failed to demonstrate otherwise [but all you had to do to validate my claim was to perform a two-step Google search].}

    http://www.politicspa.com/pa-gov-keystone-reportmagellan-strategies-poll-wolf-49-1-corbett-42-2/61139/#comments

  16. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    You are truly deceitful.

    Consider your complete comment about the James Rosen Affidavit: “Signed by FBI agent Reginald B. Reyes and approved by a judge, Alan Kay. This part of the general and routine pattern of abuse of the Patriot Act and espionage laws that has been going on since the Bush administration. The NSA has been sucking up all this stuff anyway. In this case, at least a judge was in the loop and could have denied the warrant. No one was bribed. No money changed hands. Again, not corruption.”

    http://www.politicspa.com/pa-gov-yougov-poll-wolf-50-corbett-41/60976/#comments

    Then note what you just wrote: “When the f*ck did I ever claim Rosen was a flight risk, or agreed with that assessment as valid? I made it quite clear that these types of privacy intrusions were a pervasive problem since the Bush administration, which also spied on reporters with wiretaps and listened in on their conversations. Holder probably signed off on nearly everything his underlings put in front of him, trusting their representations. In the Rosen case, Holder “signed off” without generating an actual signature, so “signed off” is just slang. He probably just okayed it as part of a stack on his desk without reading it.”

    Finally, note what AG-Holder admitted: “”I think that I could have been a little more careful looking at the language that was contained in the filing that we made with the court — that he was labeled as a co-conspirator,” Holder said, while claiming they did that “as a result of the statute.” Essentially, he signed-off on a false-assertion to acquire the e-mails, a ploy that you Dems love: “The end justifies the means.” Not only did that Affidavit claim FALSELY there was evidence that Rosen broke the law, “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.” The affidavit went so far as to invoke the Espionage Act — pertaining to the unauthorized gathering and transmitting of defense information. It also labeled him a flight-risk. Holder said that application could have been done “differently” and “better.”

    Therefore [merely referring to this one issue]:

    1. You claim Bush-’43 spied on reporters; please provide citation.

    2. You claim Holder trusted what was placed before him [“The sign-off is a mere formality”], and you praise the involvement of a judge; in both instances, rubber-stamps were applied, with the latter obviously having been provided because of trust in the office of the AG. Did AG-Holder fire the guy who provided him the Affidavit?

    3. You claim he probably didn’t read the document, but he explicitly noted otherwise in his quasi-apology; you again go to greater lengths to defend your guy than he could reasonably go himself.

    4. Corruption need not entail $-exchange, for cannot you recognize the possibility of abuse-of-power?

  17. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    1) You continue to post off-topic.
    2) I answered every one of your hyperlinks, showing each of them to be non-voterID fraud, and in some cases, that you completely misrepresented the article. Mine is the most recent comment on the thread you linked to (and the comment is flagged as “waiting moderation” due to all the hyperlinks I used to debunk you). So, it’s you who hasn’t responded. But, don’t bother as the thread is on page 3 or 4 by now.

    3) I have no errors to rectify. I can’t help it if you are unable to understand the facts, and misinterpret them as errors due to your own mental deficiencies.

    4) As for sport, once I’ve made my points to educate the other blog readers, I don’t need to continue, even if you want to beat a dead horse on a dead thread. If there are no other readers, it stops being a sport. I’ve given up trying to educate you, because, as the saying goes, you just can’t fix “stupid”.

    5) It’s really very rude of you to keep cross-posting off topic in other threads, especially falsely complaining that I didn’t respond to your latest diatribe, when the link plainly shows that I did make the last response.

    6) When the f*ck did I ever claim Rosen was a flight risk, or agreed with that assessment as valid? I made it quite clear that these types of privacy intrusions were a pervasive problem since the Bush administration, which also spied on reporters with wiretaps and listened in on their conversations. Holder probably signed off on nearly everything his underlings put in front of him, trusting their representations. In the Rosen case, Holder “signed off” without generating an actual signature, so “signed off” is just slang. He probably just okayed it as part of a stack on his desk without reading it.

    To be clear, NONE of the spying on reporters from any administration should be tolerated, and Congress needs to outlaw the practice with stiff penalties. or the Judiciary needs to rule it unconstitutional. Of course, congress won’t because law enforcement always makes up some bullsh*t scenario how a wiretap could uncover a plot.

    If you want to condemn Holder, then you have to condemn every A.G. as well as FBI, CIA and NSA directors for the past 50 years. The problem is systemic and it’s petty/childish to go after just Holder instead of the policy that permitted it, or the actual people who signed the documents and made representations that proved false.

    Holder has NO direct knowledge of anything but what he eats and how often he takes a crap. Every other piece of information he gets comes from his staff, and he does no independent verification of it. He can make decisions on how to proceed or on policy, but relies upon others for all “facts” and legal opinions. I’m sure most legal opinions came down to: if we can get a judge to sign it, then it’s legal by definition, so submit to a judge and see what happens.

    I don’t consider Holder responsible for false assertions by his underlings, even if he “signed off” on the paperwork. Nor, do I expect him to remember when, where and what he signed after 5 minutes have passed.

    7) If you continue to post off-topic like this, the site moderators should delete your posts. Feel free to m@sturbate in the dead threads with all the posts you want.

  18. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    Also, in military terminology, you have outstretched your supply-line regarding your defense of AG-Holder; “HIS ONE ‘DO OVER’: Holder regrets subpoena to Fox News reporter.”

    Your [reflex] defense of his having signed-off on the warrant [claiming inter-alia that James Rosen was a flight-risk] smears still more egg within the nostrils upon your face.

  19. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    You can run, but you cannot hide; as anticipated, after you were confronted elsewhere, you persisted in discussing Voter-ID rather than attempting to rectify your prior gross-errors.

    Furthermore, after your lengthy subjective attack on advocates of Voter-ID were “answered” by a series of hyperlinks that contradicted your claims–objectively–you failed to reply.

    Thus, you have again demonstrated why you merely consider posting on this site to be “sport,” pursued to satisfy your desire for entertainment; this also explains why no one should take you seriously.

    http://www.politicspa.com/breaking-justice-seamus-mccaffery-resigns-from-pa-supreme-court/61344/#comments

  20. David Diano says:

    Frank-
    Greg has an excellent voting record on environment, gun control, womens’ rights, gay rights, etc.

  21. Frank says:

    166th Vitali v Armstrong will be watched closely. I think IF Vitali is re-elected again he will be elected by his closest election in his political career. Vitali, has been in there too long and Dave can tell me anything great he’s done? I’ve voted for Greg in the past but this time I can’t. Do to some of his crazy votes!

  22. David Diano says:

    Militant-
    The 166th is not going to be an upset. The Dem turnout there is better than the Rep, and Vitali is popular even with the R’s because he walks/door-knocks the entire district to meet the voters.

    In the 163rd, Rongione got the Delco Times endorsement. Not easy, considering how they almost always back the Republican.

  23. DelcoVoter says:

    HD-165: Rep. William Adolph (R) vs. Charles Hadley(D) – Delaware Counties

    Local businessman Charles Hadley entered the race late but has managed to make it a close race with House Appropriations chairman Rep. Willaim Adolph. This is the first competitive race in the district since Adolph won 24 years ago. The 165th has trended more Democratic since then and Adolph voted with Corbett 99% of the time in a district Wolf has polled strongly in. This is a good chance for Democrats to flip a seat. About a quarter of the district is new so it is hard to predict but it will be close.

  24. Militant Republican Moderate says:

    The surprise of the night may be in the 166th where Sarah Armstrong(R)could upset Greg Vitali(D). Sarah has run an excellent campaign and voters may be catching on that they want someone who cares about their issues not the rights of criminals and the wishes of the Sierra Club.

Comments are closed.