BREAKING: PA-Sen: Casey Endorses McGinty

Bob CaseyThe last big name in statewide Democratic politics has gotten off of the sidelines.

This morning, Senator Bob Casey endorsed Katie McGinty.

“I’m grateful to have the chance to endorse Katie McGinty today,” Casey stated in a conference call this morning. “I’m proud to endorse her candidacy.”

McGinty was even more grateful to received the Senator’s support as it represents a clean sweep of major PA Democratic figures.

“I can’t think of someone I would be more honored to stand with,” McGinty said.

The Senator was asked why he had waited longer than others to make a choice in this campaign.

“This race, like a lot of races, is one where people are just starting to pay attention,” he responded. “I wanted to make this decision during the time frame when people are first starting to figure out how they’re going to vote.

Sen. Casey went on to acknowledge that he called both of McGinty’s opponents, former Congressman Joe Sestak and Braddock Mayor John Fetterman, last night to give them a heads up about today’s announcement. Finally, he asserted that this move was not in spite of anyone else but rather an affirmation of McGinty.

“You make the decision based on the record of the individual, what the candidate stands for and what they would do if elected. This is a 100% verification of Katie and her record.”

36 Responses

  1. DD will never forgive Sestak for not hiring him or buying his crappy voter file software (or something like that). He doesn’t know Sestak though he claims to be able to read his mind. Sestak will win and he’ll be a great Senator. Head and shoulders above Casey the hack.

    David, do yourself (and all of us… and your keyboard) a favor: take a good long break. You don’t convince anyone. Buddy, you’re just wasting time.

    Peace!

  2. Well, David, getting back to my original point, I completely demolished your claim that “That race needed a big name that could capture the center: Casey.” You always manage to state things as if they are facts and then ignore it when facts are presented that prove you wrong.
    As for Sestak not being a progressive, I would certainly agree that he is far from as progressive as I would like him to be, but I have stated repeatedly that my main motivation for voting for him is to vote against the corrupt Democratic machine that would rather lose with their hand-picked hacks than win with someone they cannot control. I know many other Democrats who are less than thrilled with Sestak’s politics, but who still plan to vote for him as a vote against the machine — much as so many people in 2006 voted more against Santorum than for Casey. I also would never vote for someone with the environmental record McGinty brings to the table.
    As I said before I also will never vote for Hillary Clinton even if she is the nominee. She is a neo-liberal hack as far as I am concerned, and pleas from some that I hold my nose and vote for her if she is the nominee fall on deaf ears. My vote will be a vote for Jill Stein or a write-in for Bernie Sander should Bernie fail to get the nomination. I won’t be voting for Ms. Hartman here in PA 16 either. Her long career working for Freedom House is disqualifying as far as I am concerned. Freedom House has long been at the forefront of the CIA’s efforts to destabilize governments we have targeted for regime change.

  3. Lee-

    You are absolutely correct. Sestak threw away the 2010 race by refusing to cooperate.

    Jerry-

    Sestak IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE, though he plays one for audiences and has fooled many into believing he is.

    They don’t like him because he won’t cooperate in running a campaign. He pissed away his opportunity in 2010 by being a petulant little prick and refusing all outside help. The party doesn’t trust him to work on a coordinated campaign to beat Toomey.

    Joe’s not some maverick with superior values. Quite the opposite. He’s just an insane loner running to fuel his ego with a new title next to his name. And he doesn’t even live in PA.

  4. I decided to do a little research regarding DD’s opinion that only Casey could have defeated Santorum in 2006. The last Quinnipiac poll prior to the election taken in Late September was quite revealing:

    9/18-24, 2006
    Casey: 54%
    Santorum: 40
    (Casey ended up winning by 11 points).

    Only 40% of Casey voters were voting for Casey. 55% were voting against Santorum. That doesn’t speak well of how the voters regarded Casey.

    Santorum was viewed favorably by only 35% of likely voters. Casey was only marginally better at 39%, but Casey’s unfavorable rating was only 18% versus 40% unfavorable for Santorum.

    50% of those polled did not believe Santorum deserved to be reelected.

    The outcome of that election clearly driven by the unpopularity of Rick Santorum, not strong support for Casey.

    Going back to April before the primary 93% of voters did not know enough about Chuck Pennacchio to have an opinion about him, but 32% still said they would vote for him against Santorum.

    I think this data reinforces my previously-stated conviction that a salami sandwich would have defeated Santorum in 2006.

    As far as Lee’s comments, I don’t know why Sestak did that, and I have issues of my own with Joe, including his strong opposition to single-payer health care and his consistent embrace of Obamacare despite its many flaws. On the other hand, I think the dictatorial manner in which the Democratic Leadership consistently seeks to disenfranchise progressives is reason enough for me to support and vote for Sestak. Bernie Sanders is quite right when he says we need a political revolution in this country, and we should start by taking back the Democratic Party from the bought-and-paid-for hacks who have taken it over.

  5. A lot of truths and untruths being thrown around today about the Senate Candidates. One truth posted today is true. I was a Specter political staffer. After Sestak defeated Specter many former Specter Staffers and Democratic Donors reached out to Sestak to help him in the General Election to defeat Toomey. All attempts to help Sstak where turned away. I still don’t know the real reason. Vanity, Arrogance, Revenge, Incompetance, or Stupidity all enter in. Sestak went on to lose by 2% to Toomey. I believe had he accepted the help he would have defeated Toomey. Joe Sestak’s Pride defeated him. I will never support him for an elected office. We have enough politicians who think they are more important than the people they represent in Washington now without adding to it.

  6. David,
    I don’t have time to go back and pull up the polls, but by 2006 Rick “man on dog” Santorum had probably the worst numbers and the highest unfavorable ratings of anyone in the Senate. He was literally unelectable. You may recall how Casey dodged the media and the public and refused to take public stands on almost every issue. They called it his “rose garden” campaign strategy. He no doubt recalled how he blew a 30+ point lead to Rendell when the latter challenged Casey’s bid for Governor.
    Casey ran a truly awful campaign, and he still beat Santorum, though his lead in the polls trended down all through the campaign. Hafer, Hoeffel, or Pennacchio would also have beaten Santorum — by wider margins in my opinion — and we would have ended up with a far more progressive Senator.
    Rick Santorum was a formidable candidate for a long time, but his bluster and religious fanaticism led to a total meltdown, and by 2006 he was absolutely unelectable, even with Casey running against him.
    You act as if a Senator or candidate Sestak who thumbs his nose at the Democratic Establishment would be a bad thing. For me it would be a decidedly good thing. Most of my friends are politically active progressive Democrats, and virtually every one of them plans to vote for Sestak. The fact that he is at odds with the Democratic Establishment is one of the main reasons. I know some people who are on the fence, but I do not know a single person who currently plans to vote for McGinty. You were at Progressive Summit. You know that Sestak won the straw poll there by a wide margin. I am not positive, but I think McGinty finished third behind Fetterman. At least we know that she won’t be completely shut out. She’ll have your vote.

  7. Jerry Policoff

    Sestak is a terrible human being as well as a bad candidate.

    If Sestak prevails in the primary, he will take it as justification to piss all over the party and (again) refuse to work with them in the Fall. He’ll ignore sound advice, if it comes from those he “defeated”. If he loses, he’ll pack up his bags and be gone before November.

    Toomey wants to run against an empty blowhard like Sestak. And, we will be seeing an endless loop of Sestak running over two different sets of kids at the same parade.

    McGinty, if she prevails, will work with the party and be able to raise money. The women voting for Hillary will give her an extra boost against Toomey.

    As for Chuck beating Santorum, you couldn’t be more wrong. Casey had name recognition and his own pro-life position neutralized Santorum on that issue, allowing the one-issue prolifers to consider a democrat. That race needed a big name that could capture the center: Casey.

  8. So Pennsylvania’s invisible Senator wants Dingbat McGinty to be his new colleague. Bless his heart.

  9. Sorry, but a salami sandwich would have beaten Santorum in 2006. Chuck would have been a much sronger candidate but for the fact that the media blacked out the fact that he was even running. If Casey was such a strong candidate why did Chuck Schumer have to coerce Hafer and Hoeffel out of the contest before Casey even agreed to run. Casey is a loyal right-leaning tool of a corrupt Democratic machine, and suggesting that he is a loyal supporter of Obama scores no points with me since I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 (and I believe Chuck dud as well). The Dems love Casey for the same reason they love people like McGinty. He usually does what he is told to do. On the other hand, he and Toomey have a mutual admiration society, and they have co-introduced many bills. They are practically joined at the hip, which says so much about Casey.
    David, you have an odd tendency to constantly suggest that McGinty and others you like are strong candidates when all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Similarly you ignore evidence that Sestak and others you do not like are weak candidates despite evidence to the contrary. I guess ignoring the evidence means never having to say you’re sorry.
    Given all the endorsements and all the special interest cash McGinty has collected she should have left Sestak in the dust long ago, but she is such a weak candidate that Sestak looks better every day.
    As for Casey, if the Republicans ever put up a strong candidate against him he will be toast.

  10. Jerry
    “hatred for Casey” ? Typo?

    Casey is a decent human being. I don’t always agree with him, but he’s been a reliable Dem vote for Obama in the Senate.

    There is NO doubt in my mind that Sestak would side with the Republicans more than Casey, if elected to the Senate.

    I liked Chuck Pennachio too, and voted for him in the primary to send a message to Casey about progressive strength. However, Chuck would likely have lost to Santorum, and Casey was the best candidate to kick his ass out of PA.

    As for your November write-in for Sestak, if he loses the primary…. Sestak will have sold his PA house long before November.

  11. DD, I also agree that your hatred for Casey amounts to an obsession.
    Casey is subservient to the same corrupt machine that produced McGinty, so of course he supports her. This is the same machine that cleared the field for Casey in 2006. I did not vote for him then nor in 2012 (I wrote in Chuck Pennacchio both times). I won’t vote for him in 2018 either if he runs again. If McGinty somehow wins the primary (fat chance) I will write in Sestak in November even though I passionately disagree with his slavish devotion to all-things-Obamacare.

  12. DD…your hate for Sestak is showing. Despite all these endorsements by the establishment, he still wins on April 26 and in November.

  13. Observant-

    I think Casey been around the state and politics long enough to know what a complete dick Sestak would be to work with. I would not be shocked if Toomey was easier for him to work with.

    We already know that Sestak is far less popular than he was in 2010, and Toomey has arguably gained popularity through his incumbency (and not being a bomb-thrower to “appear” moderate). Toomey’s position on SCOTUS is probably the most damaging to him. He will probably break ranks on the GOP, because his current excuse is completely ludicrous.

    Sestak remains a piss-poor debater. He’s survived the primary debates so far because neither Fetterman nor McGinty will call him out as a liar and a hypocrite. They should watch the video Morganelli taking apart Shapiro if they need lessons.

  14. I genuinely like Senator Casey, but he is wrong here. The best opportunity for Casey to get a Democratic partner is Joe Sestak. I never thought it would be, but it appears our Senior Senator has been cooped by Schumer, Rendell and Reid. It is unbelievable that Senator Casey is being led by that crew when you consider Rendell’s work for generations against the Casey family and how Schumer and Crew would have sold Casey down the river for Arlen in a heartbeat.

  15. Sestak is too independent to be elected Senator. Katie McGinty is not. She best qualified to run against Toomey and will beat him with little trouble at all.

  16. Fetterman has aired 2 or 3 single spot ads during debates. He has not made a real buy. I assume that the hope was that a couple well placed spots would start a snowball effect for him. The fact that he has gotten far less media attention in the last few weeks says to me that he’s done.

    And 35% winning does not mean 60% undecided, it means a three way split where everyone gains equally in the polls. That’s hard to do if you can’t get your message out. I predict 45-40-10-5.

  17. Chester, I’ve seen a couple TV adds from Fetterman. I think you’re fotgetting that 35% of the vote could win this primary.

  18. I hope Katie isn’t running as a pro-environmentalist. That would be disingenuous given her tenure as DEP Secretary.

  19. None of the 3 candidates are very strong in my opinion. So why did Josh Shapiro decided to run for AG, for which he isn’t qualified, instead of this Senate seat?

  20. DD – he can’t “explain” anything. He is the same pathetic RETARD troll who goes by “SpongeBob,” “Unsanctioned R,” “Jerry M” … and when he is feeling feminine: “Brandy.”

  21. Observer-

    Explain why you think I have a daughter or STFU.

    This is the stupidest attack on me, and just makes no sense.

  22. Who. Cares.

    Silent Bob should go back into hibernation. Winter isn’t over yet.

    Diano: file a claim with DOL for your daughter, or STFU.

  23. Chester, you’re wrong about Fetterman. McGinty dropped 11 points in the last poll while Fetterman was the only one who gained. McGinty and Fetterman are effectively tied in a poll that is skewed against Fetterman because it was a land line only poll.

  24. Montco PA Dem-

    The irony is that the Republicans wanting to help Toomey by promoting Sestak don’t realize that Sestak is really a Republican.

  25. Chester, I’d just add “Sestak hiding a pile of dark SuperPAC money…that is most likely from Republicans.” They know that McGinty will be a much tougher opponent in November and they’re doing everything they can to help the weaker candidate, Joe Sestak.

  26. John Fetterman has no campaign money or support from any meaningful elected officials or organizations. If 60% of the Democratic electorate stays undecided and doesn’t vote for a US Senate candidate, maybe he still has a campaign. Something tells me that is unlikely to happen and big Johnny won’t move much more. This is now a two person race. McGinty probably would have been wrapping it up now that she is on TV, if not for Sestak apparently hiding a mountain of dark SuperPAC money.

  27. The response from Sestak (emails to his donor solicitation list) is hysterical:

    “I have had no politician’s endorsement in this campaign. With Bob Casey’s endorsement of my primary opponent today, it completes an all-inclusive rejection by Washington DC’s and Pennsylvania’s Democratic politicians of what I believe in, and stand for.”

    This is interesting. Because, it sounds like Joe is claiming he has principles that the should not be rejected. But, what are Joe’s principles:
    1) Lying about his past support of gay marriage, when he stated in 2006: “Marriage is between a man and a woman”.

    2) Lying about where he lives (really in VA with his wife and daughter, not in PA)

    3) Lying about why he was relieved of duty (claims it was due to budget recommendations, but in reality “poor command climate” for long-standing pattern of abuse toward his subordinates).

    4) Lying about opposing the Iraq War. Sestak FULLY supported the war while in the military, and then voted twice in 2007 to continue funding it, without any preconditions or accountability

    5) Lying about the PA Dems not supporting him after the 2010 primary, when in fact he rejected their help/support and the support of former Specter campaign staffers. Sestak also refused to pay state committee workers minimum wage, for non-volunteer jobs.

    6) Paid his own congressional staff less than minimum wage.

    7) During the “job-gate” mess he created, he failed to correct reporters who asked if he had been offered jobs like Secretary of Navy, allowing the implication of a job offer. Sestak was not eligible for such a job at the time, given that he had not been out of the service long enough. Sestak refused to even offer that correction to tap down the story, instead preferring to politically punish Obama for supporting Specter.

    8) Consistently bad-mouthing all the other candidates on the Dem ticket and party workers as being lazy and worthless. According to one campaign staffer, he accepted a check from remaining balance of state house candidate that lost, and then when she walked away, told the staffer she was a loser. Seems like he felt he deserved her money more than she did.

Comments are closed.

Email:
  • Reader Poll: Have You Requested a Mail-In Ballot?


    • Yes. I enjoy mail-in voting. (50%)
    • No. I am going to the poll. (50%)

    Total Voters: 121

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen