Dunbar gets 2nd term in Harrisburg
State Rep. George Dunbar (right) and his wife, Sandy, celebrate victory over challenger Raymond “Bud” Geissler Jr. in North Huntingdon on Tuesday, November 6, 2012.
Photo by Guy Wathen | Tribune-Review
Incumbent state Rep. George Dunbar held onto his seat to represent the 56th District, besting Democratic challenger Raymond “Bud” Geissler, a political newcomer.
With all but 1 precinct reporting, Dunbar, a Penn Township Republican, got 57.5 percent of the votes. Geissler, of Irwin, pulled in 42.5 percent.
“It's always very humbling when the voters come out for you and support you like this,” Dunbar said Tuesday night.
Dunbar, who won the seat in 2010, vowed to continue fighting for fiscal reform in Harrisburg, advocating for what he calls “outcome-based budgeting,” a process that looks at what the government is trying to accomplish when it spends money.
“(I'm) really looking forward to being more of a vocal force for the issues that are important in my district,” he said.
Geissler ran on a message of restoring funding for public education. He said he probably would call Dunbar Tuesday night and offer his congratulations.
“I wish him the best of luck, and I appreciated the opportunity to run against him,” Geissler said.
To Geissler, watching his young children see their father's name on the ballot was “one of the greatest moments of my life.”
The district comprises Irwin, North Irwin, Penn Borough, Jeannette and large portions of Penn and North Huntingdon townships.
Rossilynne Skena is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-836-6646 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.