I am still reeling from the events of this weekend in the 1st state senate race. (Click here for background.) Anne says she is still in this race to win, but her staff and volunteers who quit say that she has changed her campaign strategy to focus on Center City wards only to help John Dougherty, and to secure a 2nd place win for herself.

I am not sure what the truth is, and Anne has not called me back yet, but apparently she was shown a poll by Larry Ceisler that puts her in 2nd place, and she has said that her decision to change strategy is about using resources as effectively as possible to move up, and win 1st place. This poll has not been publicly released, nor has any poll been released that shows Farnese in 2nd either.

Even without polling, or knowing the whole story about Anne's staff quitting, Farnese still has a huge money advantage over Anne, and for anyone who has ever worked an election you'll know that without a serious volunteer army, (in a district like like you'd easily need 2,000-5,000 voter IDs + 250 or more Eday volunteers) it is hard to win without money to pay field staff. That means Anne could be in serious trouble and is unable to win even 2nd place.

Accept that possibility as a reality for a minute. An important question for Dicker supporters and undecideds then becomes:

Is there a difference to you between Dougherty and Farnese?

I have heard every possible answer in on and offline conversations with folks, from Dougherty is the one who can amass power in Harrisburg the quickest, and do good things for the city, to Dougherty is corrupt and will be indicted, or that Dougherty does not have any progressive credentials to draw upon from his labor leader resume. Farnese on the other hand has been around groups like PFC and Liberty City, and done real work to support them, and developed a progressive platform, say some, whereas others think he is beholden to Vince Fumo, and still more think he needs to demonstrate more of an understanding and commitment to liberal ideals.

A real conversation about the issues are important, and some sense of metrics should be used to get to produce a real analysis of the two.

• At the end of the day, if elected, which of these two has the most in common with the ideals of the progressive community?
• What are the issues the state senate is likely to consider in 2009, and what lead will the Guv or new leadership in the House provide?
• Which of the two would best lead the fight for progressive legislation?
• Which would be the most effective in actually passing it, and why?
• And what do we expect realistically from a newly elected city-elected state senator?

For as much talk as there has been about this race, there's been little real substantive talk about the issues. Who is up for a conversation about them?

(warning: spin will be heavily moderated, so keep your comments on track! There are other forums in which to talk about the political intrigue, I will heavily moderate this particular post to guarantee that folks are only talking about policy issues by candidate.)