ShareThis Page

Tom Corbett's long re-election climb

| Saturday, July 13, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

According to a recent Harper Poll, 24 percent of likely voters believe that Gov. Tom Corbett deserves re-election and 56 percent believe he does not. By any standard, that is an uphill climb.

Pete DeCoursey, veteran Harrisburg political soothsayer and Capitolwire bureau chief, reported that when Sen. Arlen Specter had numbers slightly better than this in 2009, he became a Democrat, concluding that the Republican primary was hopeless.

Corbett has remained fiscally conservative even as his favorability poll numbers have steadily declined. It seems that a majority of voters like the notion of not raising taxes and cutting spending. But the result of all that stinginess is not so popular. Wait until the faces of average Pennsylvanians are tied to the governor's actual spending cuts.

This re-election campaign would have been dicey even without those low poll numbers. Expect ads featuring chronically ill citizens who cannot get health care without Medicaid expansion. A bridge collapse or any public works failure will be blamed on the administration's failure to pass a transportation bill.

Health-care and service workers will tell their stories about the effects of inadequate public transit funding. And public schoolteachers and schoolchildren will have their say.

For a couple of years, when talking about the governor's race, Democrats repeated the adage, “Well, we can't beat somebody with nobody.” But now they have a lineup of somebodies, energized by recent polls.

Allyson Schwartz, the congresswoman for Montgomery County and Northeast Philadelphia, has a statewide following as a progressive leader. She is a health-care advocate and ran a Planned Parenthood clinic before public life.

This cuts both ways, and some Republican leaders say she is the Democrat they are hoping for if they are to have a shot. The veteran pol also has a voting record of more than 20 years that will make for ample political hay.

Still, it is a deep bench. Kathleen McGinty, a former environmental adviser to the Clinton and Rendell administrations, is a social progressive but wants “Pennsylvania to become the blue-collar Silicon Valley” by doing better with our gas reserves.

State Treasurer Rob McCord, Harvard-educated, late to politics after business success, was easily re-elected last year. He promises the view from the outside while enjoying the inside.

Tom Wolf, a York County businessman and former state revenue secretary, is a pro-education, proven jobs creator, who has pledged $10 million of his own money to the primary.

John Hanger, a former Department of Environmental Protection secretary, wants to stop education cuts, enact a reasonable drilling tax, increase drilling oversight and expand Medicaid.

Max Myers, a minister, has begun a populist campaign focused on poverty, employment, education, equal rights and the environment.

Says DeCoursey: “Consultants I talk to don't even know how you win, starting at a 24 percent re-elect.”

But if the governor decides to have a go at it, the path out will require at least all three of these things — an opponent whom he can demonize, a pitiful turnout in Philly (which can happen in a non-presidential or non-mayoral year) and the usually reliable loyalty of Western Pennsylvania voters.

Joseph Sabino Mistick, a lawyer, law professor and political analyst, lives in Squirrel Hill (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.