I, along with countless others, closely followed a recent U.S. Senate election in Pennsylvania.
The stakes in this election were extremely high. The outcome was expected to help decide if Republican Senators or Democratic Senators would have a majority in and control of the Senate for at least the next two years.
In this election, voters had a clear choice between two candidates with sharply differing views on President Biden’s performance record over the past four years.
Both candidates raised and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising to share their differing views with voters. As a result, voters had numerous opportunities to reach informed decisions on which candidate’s views resonated best with their own views.
Prior to the election, conventional wisdom was incumbent Democratic Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. would win reelection.
Senator Casey’s father, Robert P. Casey Sr., was a popular and still widely revered former governor of Pennsylvania. Casey Jr. was elected to the U.S. senate three times after being elected once for state Treasurer and twice for state Auditor General.
Consistent with many other expected election outcomes this year, conventional wisdom was proven to be wrong.
It was wrong, in part because Donald Trump’s better than expected support in Pennsylvania generated votes (aka coattails) that helped Dave Mcormick, Casey’s Republican opponent. At the same time, Kamala Harris’ lower than expected support in Pennsylvania did not generate enough votes (aka coattails) to help Casey.
In any event, the outcome of the election was incredibly close.
Before the results were certified, McCormick had 48.8 % of the vote and Casey had 48.6% of the vote. The close results triggered a state law mandating an automatic government-funded recount since the margin of difference was less than 0.5%. The law also allows the projected “losing” candidate to decline a recount. Not surprisingly, Casey chose not to do so.
While the recount was underway lawyers for both campaigns engaged in aggressive attempts to seek a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling to determine if state law allowed incorrectly dated, undated, incorrectly signed, or unsigned provisional ballots to be counted.
A majority of the seven-member court ruled in a 4-3 vote that state law was clear that these provisional ballots could not be counted This majority opinion included two Democratic justices voting no and two Republican justices voting no.
Following the Supreme Court ruling but before a recount was finished, Casey conceded.
In his concession speech, Casey thanked the people of Pennsylvania for the privilege of serving them and for placing their trust in him. He said it has been the honor of his lifetime.
In his speech, Casey never expressed bitterness or anger over the election outcome, nor did he assign blame for his loss. He did not complain about an aggressive and ultimately successful effort by attorneys with the McCormick campaign to secure the court ruling prohibiting the counting of certain provisional ballots. Casey also noted that he followed a long-standing protocol in politics by calling McCormick to congratulate him on his win.
In response to Casey’s concession call, McCormick released a statement that included the following — “Senator Bob Casey dedicated his career to bettering our Commonwealth. Dina and I want to extend our sincere gratitude to Senator Casey, Teresa, and their family for their decades of service, hard work, and sacrifice.”
In McCormick’s statement, there was no gloating or disparaging remarks about his opponent. He did not complain about an aggressive, extended and ultimately unsuccessful effort by attorneys with the Casey campaign to secure a court ruling allowing the counting of certain provisional ballots.
Some may say both candidates’ post-election remarks were carefully scripted by campaign staff and were insincere at best and at worse masked the candidate’s true feelings.
Maybe so, but I disagree. I believe both candidates’ remarks were sincere and from the heart.
Their remarks reflected the character of two opposing candidates who ran issue-based campaigns, focused on telling voters about significant differences of their positions on critical issues of the day.
When the election results were finally confirmed almost two weeks after election day, both candidates accepted a court ruling (the rule of law), accepted the election results, and displayed respect for each other.
I suggest their actions reflect a small, but long overdue missing commitment to civil discourse in today’s contentious and increasingly polarized world.
The actions of soon-to-be former Senator Casey and now Senator-elect McCormick are a model for civil discourse in the political arena.
Going forward, that model should be embraced by every candidate and the supporters of every candidate in every election at every level in America.
David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.
Brad Hunt says
We’ll, David, if you had watched Mr. Casey’s advertising campaigns over the years, you would have seen he’s your typical nasty lying politician and not someone to put on a pedestal. Even his not conceding and costing taxpayers a fair chunk of change was his way of saying what he’s lambasted Republicans for over the years – that he didn’t trust the election process either.
Matt LaMotte says
Sadly, Mr. Hunt has chosen to create a tempest in a teapot. As a coach, one thing I’ve learned over the years is “When you lose. Don’t lose the lesson.” Think about that for a minute…