#PA13: A Debate We’ll Never Forget (Part 1)

Yesterday evening, a candidates’ forum was held at PSU Abington for all four candidates running to fill Allyson Schwartz’s 13th Congressional seat. The always adept interviewer, Dave Davies of WHYY, served as moderator for the evening, and the auditorium was packed, in the knowledge that Former Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies would be in attendance for the first time during the entire campaign.

Questions ranged from education, social security, women’s rights, healthcare policy, economic issues, foreign policy, immigration, gun policy, and the recent SCOTUS decision: McCutcheon v FEC. As Davies noted in the beginning, he held the amazingly entertaining right to pause throughout the forum to ask a specially prepared set of questions to individual candidates, based on their perceived weakness(es) in recent news coverage.

Although there were many memorable exchanges, Davies pushed the envelope during this section, to see if candidates had what it takes to hold this position. By spreading this section throughout the evening, candidates did not have the chance to brace themselves for the toughest questions of the night, so audience members received real answers to these questions, a rare feat in political discourse.

In this first section, as a knowledgeable education advocate I can say with likely agreement from anyone who watched the footage that this was a close tie between Senator Leach and Dr. Valerie Arkoosh, maybe with Senator Leach edging out his competition slightly by listing what he has already done for state public education policy. Leach cited his personal fight against charter school and school voucher legislation that would have defunded traditional public schools, had it passed. Students First and other organizations plastered literature in his district during the 2012 senatorial election, but he endured their vehemence to stop this legislation. Leach also cited his prime sponsorship of the most progressive college student loan bill in the country, modeled to decrease student debt drastically.

Arkoosh indicated to me as an education advocate that she clearly had a breadth of knowledge on the subject, citing the impact of sequestration cuts on teachers, the disaster that has been our obsession over standardized tests, our lack of quality early childhood education programs, and the high interest rates that plate college students. The one tip I would give her for the rest of the campaign is to study up on issues facing ELL students and special education students, not only in their funding but also in terms of standardized testing mandates, and how that impacts local school districts. Whoever wins this race needs to understand these things and become an expert.

I braced myself for State Representative Brendan Boyle’s answers to education questions, as he and I certainly don’t see eye to eye. He chose a smooth maneuver, choosing to discuss higher education and early childhood education, rather than discuss the K through 12 charter school and voucher policies his campaign is funded to support in the State House. Maybe it fooled some audience members, but it didn’t fool me. If I were him, I’d come up with a good answer of why people shouldn’t be angry for him because of some of his votes to defund public schools for unproven, non-public programs. The ramifications of federal education policies on our Commonwealth are serious, and I worry about his positions.

The audience braced themselves for Marjorie Margolies’ first debate answer. Her voice throughout the evening was almost inaudible, giving out completely from sentence to sentence. Unfortunately for the audience, her answers lacked as much substance as her physical voice lacked volume; she started every answer with “I agree with ___ on _____.” Then she referred to her note cards for the rest, only giving bullet point answers rather than concise responses indicating her knowledge on subjects. She said she was opposed to privatization, supports universal pre-K, and wants to make college more affordable, but had nothing else to say, yielding the rest of her time.

Daylin Leach’s Surprise Question – Bipartisanship
Dave Davies pushed Leach for an answer as to why the “liberal lion” would have the skill set to be bipartisan in Congress when the moment called for it. Leach cited a slew of bills he has already proposed or passed, including one for ovarian and breast cancer screenings, a bill that provides incentives for corporations to be good citizens, the ban of shackling of pregnant prisoners during labor, and his medical marijuana bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Folmer. He also paused to say that though bipartisanship is important, sometimes political leaders need to pick opportunities to fight: on the right to vote, LGBT rights, reproductive rights, to name a few.

Social Security
Boyle answered first, stating that a lift on the FICA tax cap would bring forth enough revenue to take Social Security to the year 2100 as a federal program. I’d be interested to know where he got that information (not because I don’t believe it, just to know). If it is accurate, it indicates how entrenched our Congress is and how loyal they are to special interests and the rich over programs that are critical to a sustainable economic future.

Leach took a targeted swipe at Margolies, saying that he did not think her position of asking the rich to voluntarily contribute more to the Social Security Fund was a realistic proposition. He agreed with Boyle that the FICA tax cap needed to be lifted, and then he added his agreement with Elizabeth Warren’s model of providing an early lump sum payment. This would allow new retirees to pay off any larger bills and then settle into a lifestyle that fits the budget of their regular benefit payments.

Margolies shocked the audience by disagreeing with Margolies of Christmas Past; she said she does not agree with raising the retirement age or having a benefit cap, and she would raise the FICA tax cap to $500k.

Arkoosh came out strongest on this issue despite basically agreeing with the other three candidates, toting her endorsement from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicaire.

Brendan Boyle’s Surprise Question – Abortion Rights (and Act 122)
Davies made his surprise question of Boyle about reproductive rights, discussing Act 122, the law I’ve written about heavily over the past few weeks at Keystone Politics. Legislative supporters of Act 122 allege that it makes women safer, especially in the wake of all the horrors we know happened at Kermit Gosnell’s clinic. What the law did in fact do is force the closure of five women’s clinics, making it even harder for women in Central Pennsylvania to gain access to abortion services (or the many other non-termination services provided at these clinics typically).

Boyle said that he fully supports Roe v. Wade and does not want to make criminals out of women, but thanks to a bill he supported, Jennifer Whalen may face fifteen years in prison for helping her 16 year old daughter get the abortion pill, after no clinics could be found in their area. Boyle cited his halfway decent Planned Parenthood score, of 12/14 votes cast in favor of Planned Parenthood positions. I think I speak for many women when I say that I don’t consult Planned Parenthood’s legislative score when I’m looking for a doctor, and any assault on my reproductive rights is just that, whether Planned Parenthood agrees or not. Boyle has yet to explain to anyone how Act 122 makes any woman safer, and if he wants to prevent the horrors of Gosnell, he should fight for abortion insurance coverage within the Pennsylvania ACA exchanges and strengthen buffer zone laws for female patients.
Go to Part 2. >>

Posted in Miscellany

#PAGov: Allyson Schwartz Releases Solid Health Care Ad, But You Still Can’t Trust Her on Health Care

Health care coverage expansion remains a popular political issue for Democrats so it’s great to see Allyson Schwartz running on this issue. Democrats win when we keep the discussion to giving people nice things, and not stupidly focusing on “bending the health care spending curve” and other stuff only the Beltway cares about.

Expand coverage, improve outcomes, cut prices. That is what Democrats do. There’s no reason for Democratic politicians to publicly talk about anything else. Ads like this one that stick to those points are going to be successful Democratic ads.

Now, as it happens we’ve outgrown CHIP because the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion is supposed to cover all those kids whose Medicaid-enrolled parents didn’t used to qualify for children’s health insurance through their jobs.

The fact that Republican politicians are trying to turn protecting CHIP into a Republican political issue tells you that the program has been a success. But there’s really no reason to have multiple public insurers. There’s an ulterior Republican motive to this move, which is that they want to use the public’s status quo bias around CHIP to keep the public insurers fragmented, with weak price negotiation power over hospitals and doctors.

Thomas Fitzgerald notices that this ad is a bit of a change in tone for Schwartz on CHIP, and she’s taking less credit for its passage than she usually does. Personally I see that as a positive sign. The willingness to publicly diminish your own role in the process in order to give others ownership of an issue or project is a hallmark of good political leadership.

But I remain worried about Schwartz’s allergic reaction to some of the health care price control strategies out there, like all-payer rate setting in Maryland, which is actually a proven way to reduce costs unlike many of the cost control theories in the Affordable Care Act. And it’s also a concern that Schwartz hasn’t spoken out forcefully against the “private option” that Tom Corbett wants to pursue instead of Medicaid, which basically would cut Medicaid benefits in order to finance some extra grift for rich health care providers and doctors.

I’ve heard all the arguments for why Schwartz is allergic to the only proven cost control policies, but I still don’t think they make sense, and it’s one of the main reasons why I’ve ruled out voting for her.


Posted in Governor, Miscellany

Happy Tax Confusion Day

I write this blog post every year, but basically the Tax Foundation’s “Tax Freedom Day” promotion is a trick intended to falsely benchmark middle class people’s economic interests to wealthy people’s economic interests.

The crux of the issue is that “average” tax rates are a meaningless concept in a tax system such as ours with tax brackets and a progressive rate structure.

The only reason to focus on the average is to try to fool people into thinking that their taxes are higher than they actually are, because you are a political conservative who wishes middle class people felt more economic affinity with rich people.

Posted in Budget, Economy

#PA13: ABC reports Pres Clinton’s support of “scandal-plagued” in law

On Thursday, President Bill Clinton will make a fundraising stop for Marjorie Margolies, the former congresswoman of PA’s 13th congressional district, current candidate, and mother in law of Chelsea Clinton. ABC referred to Margolies as Chelsea’s “scandal-plagued” mother in law.

Last week, Huffington Post reported on some questionable choices by Margolies during her reign as chairwoman of Women’s Campaign International. Her unusually high salary, as well as her attempts to rent out a mansion using WCI funds to serve as her own personal residence, happened in the wake of her ex-husband’s fraud charges and their resulting bankruptcy.

Tonight, I’ll be live-tweeting from the very first debate in the 13th congressional race upon which Marjorie Margolies plans to attend. So far she has avoided virtually every opportunity to speak publicly as a candidate about issues or the recent headlines. I’ll have a full recap of my thoughts on tonight’s debate sometime tomorrow, for our Keystone Politics readers.

Follow me at @ckennedy124 on Twitter, and I’ll share important details from each of the four candidates’ performances. As a reminder, this is a race between Former Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies, Dr. Valerie Arkoosh, State Representative Brendan Boyle, and State Senator Daylin Leach.

Posted in Miscellany

#LGov: Only Two Candidates Are Truly Pro-Choice

With Mark Critz’s pro-life stance, and the yea votes by State Representative Brandon Neuman and State Senator Michael Stack of SB 732, legislation that closed five women’s clinic since its enactment in 2011, there are only two truly pro-choice candidates left in the lieutenant governor’s race: Mark Smith and Brad Koplinski.

SB 732 is what reproductive choice advocates and medical professionals call a TRAP law, or “targeted regulations of abortion providers”. This legislation saw much more bipartisan support than other legislation in the past because lobbyists capitalized on the national press coverage in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell grand jury report. This was a “low information” legislative discussion; had legislators actually visited women’s health clinics, studied the direct causes for victims to seek Gosnell’s help in the first place, or just listened to the long line of medical professionals who testified that this was a terrible idea that would not help anyone, this law probably would not have passed. At the very least, it would have been forced to pass without the support of democrats who claim overall to be pro-choice.

One victim who went to Gosnell’s house of horrors went there because of the harassment she endured outside of a clinic in Center City, because of Pennsylvania’s lax buffer zone laws. Strengthening protections for patients entering clinics would have been a sensible first step toward reducing the demand of victims for monsters like Kermit Gosnell. Another victim sough Gosnell’s help because she was in her second term of her pregnancy, and therefore, was not afforded the legal right to an abortion, this far along.

Nonsensical regulations on upstanding clinics without any connection to the victims does not serve their memories or quell their fears about future incidences; it only serves to trivialize what they went through and use it to score political points with conservative supporters and lobbyists.

Former Congressman Critz’s pro-life stance has been consistent, and he was not a state legislator who took part in passing this law. However, Senator Stack and Representative Neuman both voted to enact this law, and should therefore be honest with voters and take responsibility for the ramifications that have been subjected on female Pennsylvanians. Senator Stack, in particular, champions his support of women’s rights right on his campaign website, stating “Attacks on women’s health are extreme, harmful, and they happen all too frequently in our legislature. I am pro-choice and have fought against funding cuts to Planned Parenthood, and mandates for trans-vaginal ultrasounds for women considering abortions.” 

That is really awesome, Senator Stack, but what if you are a woman from Central Pennsylvania, who now has no access to reproductive care, thanks to this law?

We know from recent reports that this is not just a talking point of the “reproductive lobby”, as some conservative blogs have stated in response to my discussion of this law. A young woman in Central Pennsylvania, who had every right under the law to terminate her pregnancy, was put in harm’s way because thanks to this law, there were no clinics anywhere near her. Her mother, a nurse, saw no choice but to order the abortion pill online for her daughter, and weeks later, she was rushed to the emergency room due to an incomplete abortion.

Aren’t these the sorts of safety issues that legislators want to prevent, not cause? An incomplete abortion would never happen at any legally standing health clinic, because clinicians and staff have access to medical equipment. They certainly wouldn’t ever let a young woman go weeks with this condition, without any knowledge of the medical complication.

This law was a huge mistake, and it’s time for legislators who helped to get it passed to own up to that.



Posted in Miscellany

#PAGov: The Statistical Reason Tom Wolf Will Likely Be the Democratic Nominee

On the heels of the most recent F&M poll, Tom Wolf has maintained his large lead over all other Democratic challengers, particularly when including leaners:


What’s more, Wolf’s support doesn’t seem very soft. It remains statistically identical when you filter out the people who have a lower likelihood of voting in the primary on May 20th — and 51% of his supporters already say they are “certain” to support him on primary day.

We are a mere six weeks away from the election — and with some important caveats — it makes sense for us to look at a study Nate Silver did, in his book The Signal and the Noise, on statewide polling and the likelihood of success based on the amount of time prior to the election. For our purposes, Mr. Silver finds that the probability of a candidate winning based on a 20+% polling lead one month prior to the election is 99.7%.

Of course, there are a couple things that make this number not 100% accurate in our case: (1) This figure was used based on Senate  – not gubernatorial — election data, and (2) it was compiled from general — rather than primary — election data.

The fact that these numbers were computed using Senate numbers doesn’t strike me as amazingly important due to the fact they’re both statewide races — but significant to mention nonetheless because federal elections are normally more partisan than state races. The more important factor here is that voters are much more likely to switch their support from one candidate to another in a primary than a general, since the candidates’ positions are normally so similar — so the likelihood of success in primaries at this point out for a study like this is likely smaller.

Anecdotally, it’s also hard to see how the other three candidates make enough ground on Mr. Wolf to win the nomination this May. The numbers will undoubtably tighten when McCord’s ads reach more people and the Schwartz campaign starts running theirs as well. But those ads will have to bring down Wolf’s numbers while also bringing up their own, which will be difficult considering that Wolf seemingly doesn’t have many negatives for the other candidates to expose. And even if he did, he likely has enough money to refute them with ads if his campaign feels it’s something they need to respond to.

Remember that probability deals with the likelihood of success or failure. The ‘success’ of a Wolf victory doesn’t care if it’s by 1% or 30% — so any poll-tightening for these predictions doesn’t matter.

It’s probably naive to think that Tom Wolf has a 99.7% chance of winning the PA-Gov Democratic Primary six weeks out — but it’s likely not that far off.

Posted in Elections, Governor Tagged , ,

Political Machines: They’re Really Useful!

Running for a Philly committeeperson seat this year has gotten me extra interested in ward politics, so you know I’ve been loving this 19th Ward fight in Pittsburgh between Pete Wagner and challenger Anthony Coghill.

Chris Potter at PGH City Paper has a typically smart take on the whole thing, but I wanted to riff on this section because I think Chris is missing something important:

I asked Peduto a few months ago whether he had a plan for a committee push. He denied it then, and denied it again in Trib follow-up story. Still, it’s not as if Kelly’s theory is absurd. Years ago, Peduto allies did try stage a (largely unsuccessful) effort to pack the committee with progressives. More recently, Peduto’s allies helped engineer a party endorsement for Deb Gross in a City Council special election last fall. And as I noted in a piece about this year’s committee battles, Peduto allies – namely political field-general Matt Merriman-Preston and go-to election attorney Chuck Pascal – have been visible in petition challenges in all three wards.

But you can see the logical error in Kelly’s quote, right? If Peduto didn’t even bother seeking the endorsement as a challenger, why would he crave it as an incumbent? His allies on council obviously don’t need the party’s backing either: Last spring, Peduto ally Natalia Rudiak won re-election without the party endorsement, in a district that includes Ward 19 itself. (Another staunch ally, Bruce Kraus, has never had the endorsement.) So how important is the endorsement to the progressive coalition, really?

Moreover, the city’s Democratic committee has 32 wards: If you were going to take the committee over, would you only be active in three of them? Even granting Peduto a base in some East End neighborhoods – where his protégé Dan Gilman did earn the party endorsement last year – that seems a pretty passive-aggressive approach.

The city party endorsement wasn’t that important to Peduto or Rudiak or Kraus because the Democratic machine, in its current state, is weak. The people who are participating in it are mostly old and not so power hungry anymore. Lots of the seats are empty. And the party just isn’t unified or energetic enough to credibly deliver wins to endorsed candidates.

What I think Chris is missing though is that the bones of the thing are still strong, even if the muscles are weak.

A unified, organized ward can be a very powerful thing. The committeepeople who are doing their jobs correctly are like the “Political Friends” of the neighborhood. Most people aren’t political junkies and are tuned out of politics for most of the year, right up until Election Day when it’s time to ask the Political Friend who is best. If you are providing this information to a significant number of primary voters in a voting district, then you have a decent amount of political power to swing votes. If all of a ward’s committeepeople are united behind a single candidate, that adds up to a lot of political power.

Fill in all those committeeperson seats with motivated ideologues and busybodies who have the discipline to play as a team and put aside small factional disagreements when it counts, then you will have a political machine whose endorsement is worth seeking. I would guess that the goal isn’t just to take over wards but to make the city party relevant again – with a revamped platform in sync with Bill Peduto’s political agenda.

Chris’s argument gets back on track when he says that the Peduto people are probably just taking sides in fights that would have played out even if they had chosen not to engage, and the high number of empty seats suggests that (unless a sizable write-in campaign push is coming) the Peduto allies are targeting their efforts narrowly rather than making a big citywide play. You could say that’s unambitious, but just thinking about what I’ve seen here in Philly, it’s just kinda hard and time consuming to motivate a large number of real live human beings to run for even tiny political offices. Chris knows Pittsburgh politics better than I do, but targeting three key wards doesn’t actually seem that unambitious to me.

Posted in Elections

#PA13: Leach sounds the alarm for PA campaign finance reform

About a week ago, I publicly asked readers whether the idea of a gift ban, a proposal that has taken on a bipartisan momentum since the revelation of corruption among numerous Philadelphia politicians, was enough to fix our political system. I wondered whether this was the opportunity for legislative allies in Harrisburg to propose seriously the idea of campaign finance reform. I guess either I spoke too soon, or I have far more influence than any 24 year old should have on the public political process!

As ABC27, the Harrisburg affiliate reports, State Senator Daylin Leach (D – 17) is calling for publicly funded elections, something that has been very popular with citizens in New York City and in 25 states other than Pennsylvania.

In a statement released Friday, Leach said, “there is a problem in our system of government when a candidate for office must either know wealthy donors or be one. This system hurts us all when those who pay for ever pricier elections are perceived to be influencing the officials who represent them in office. I would like to give people the chance to run for office based on the broad public support for their ideas, not the breadth of their supporters’ wallets.”

If Leach’s proposal becomes law, there would be a “Clean Election Fund”, open to candidates seeking office in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, the Pennsylvania State Senate,  as a gubernatorial candidate, an auditor general candidate, an attorney general candidate, or treasurer candidate. Each candidate would need to raise a certain number of $5 donations, based on benchmarks for each level of office, and once they met that requirement, they’d receive a certain amount of public financing from the fund. Once this public financing is received, candidates and their respective committees and campaigns would not be able to seek financing for the duration of their campaign.

Leach’s bill is circulating for potential co-sponsors.

Posted in Miscellany

#HD164: A New Keystone Politics Feature

A fellow constituent in Upper Darby forwarded me a campaign email that they found especially devoid of truth, and I’d like to share it with everyone. In it, Representative Margo Davidson claims that one of her two primary challengers, Billy Smith of Lansdowne, is running “one of the most negative campaigns in Pennsylvania history by distorting my record and twisting the truth.” She goes on to say “I have to stand up against the false attacks and I need your help!”


Now, as far as any local Democrats have witnessed, Billy Smith has been out knocking doors, and I certainly haven’t heard any attacks from him. In fact, he tends to talk about what he wants to do if elected, leaving out Representative Davidson’s name all together. I also think claiming anything is the most in Pennsylvania history comes off as a little preposterous, but what campaign email have you received lately that isn’t utterly preposterous?

Now on the other hand, I’ve certainly been writing a fair amount about this race, and I’ve made my feelings about Representative Davidson’s voting record known. I think her campaign is confused…they think that Keystone Politics is an extension of the Billy Smith campaign, and if I’ve made that impression on them, I do apologize. That being said, I think I’ve backed up any of my claims with factual information, including accurate descriptions of legislation, voting records, and quotes from the representative.

With the permission of my editor, Jon Geeting, we’re introducing (preliminarily) a new feature here at Keystone Politics. For more contentious races that our writers have taken an interest in covering, we’re going to allow all the candidates an opportunity to speak for themselves, correct anything they believe we’ve misreported, and also explain any past political decisions that they may have thought were in the best interests of their constituents, but later became unpopular. My hope with this is to put any of the anonymous commenters to rest, and also to bring an even higher level of awareness to key races across Pennsylvania. Continue reading

Posted in Elections, Greater Philadelphia, Miscellany, State House, State Politics

#HD182: Babette Josephs is disappointed. Me too.

My two cents.

I was present at the hearing today that ended in Former Representative Josephs’ removal from the May 2014 ballot. This ongoing story has been a real experience for me, not only as a fairly green addition to the Philadelphia journalistic community, but also just as a politically active person in general. I’ve heard all the lectures from friends, colleagues, and family, saying “don’t be involved in politics unless you have thick skin” and “everybody’s a crook”. (Maybe that last one was a misremembered Nixon quote. I can’t decide.)

You can read about the entire hearing today here. I won’t rehash that now. Chris Brennan of the Philadelphia Daily News, who I was overjoyed to meet today, posted an article about this story, and with it, a quote from Former Representative Josephs:

“I’m disappointed of course,” Josephs said after the hearing, getting one more dig in on Sims. “I think it was important for the state representative there now to understand that this is not about him. It’s not about me. It’s about the people of the 182nd District and the people of Pennsylvania”

Does she mean that it’s about the people whose signatures were forged en masse? Does she mean it should be about the gentleman whose identity was impersonated as a circulator of petitions, meaning that someone not only forged his signature, but signed on an affidavit that he was holding accountable those who also allegedly signed the petition? If that’s what she meant, I completely agree. It’s not about a famous blogger who happened to be one of the forgery victims, and it’s not about settling old scores with political nemeses, no matter how much they may have earned that role in previous elections, which Representative Sims may have. I’m not the arbitrator of that political decision.

It’s about elections being the bedrock of our democratic republic. It’s about those who we elect to represent us actually getting there by legitimate means. We already know our politicians can be bought, that politicians can and have blocked our access to exercise our right to vote….but is it so idealistic, so naive to assume that our right to our own identity is a right that cannot be deferred, infringed, or denied?

Babette Josephs is not the first candidate whose campaign staff and volunteers have resorted to outright forgery to gain access to the ballot, and unfortunately she will most likely not be the last, especially not in Philadelphia. If we lifted up the rug on this issue, I’m pretty sure we’d all be horrified at what we would find, even the most pessimistic among us. Babette Josephs’ campaign is not the horrific example – her 2014 electoral attempt is part of the accepted norm, and that is disgraceful.

On one hand we have folks who want a criminal investigation. I have mixed feelings – there are violent crimes for which we don’t have the resources to prosecute. On the other hand, if we don’t have a system of accountability for those seeking leadership positions in our governmental bodies, making some of the most important decisions any of us could ever imagine…if we don’t have that, what are we all even doing?

Other folks talk about how Representative Josephs is a progressive champion, and she absolutely was. I watched as a young girl in absolute admiration of some of the issues she championed as a state legislator. It made me want to run for office someday, and know that I could. They talk about the fact that she is a little bit older than the average candidate, and she can’t watch over everyone all the time. If that’s the case, she never should have run in the first place, and I say that as a blanket statement for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who cannot hold their own staff accountable to the law.

When her last-minute, haphazard desire to get revenge on her 2012 rival overshadowed her progressive principles, when she decided to align herself with one of the most conservative, dishonest political officials in the state, Representative Margo Davidson, just to beat our Brian Sims, I lost my respect for her. I’ll admit that openly and publicly.

There are two last things I would like to say, and then I will get off of my soap box. I think it’s time for voters to demand a better system here in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. With tenacious leaders like City Commissioner Stephanie Singer, maybe a system can be created that makes the least politically ambitious person able to check online to see if their signature has been forged by any campaign. It would just need to be a simple tagging system. It would also make the signature tabulation process much easier for top tier state races, to ensure that signatures are not being counted toward multiple candidates incidentally. If that’s something people want, I suggest you contact the commissioner and request it. I live in Delaware County.

The last thing I would like to say is this. Objectively looking at some of the things Representative Josephs has claimed about her current record and agenda, I issue her this challenge. Representative, if you really are that progressive champion that so many young girls like me watched on PCN and modeled their own ambitions after, do not continue to support Representative Davidson. She is not a progressive. Heck, she’s barely a Democrat according to most policy standards. I may say that louder than everyone else, but plenty of folks agree.

Or continue to support her, and just admit you’ve had a political change of heart. We’ll all forgive you, but I think everyone’s eager for a little bit more honesty, today especially.

Posted in Elections, Greater Philadelphia, Miscellany, State House, State Politics