Ed Rendell: Vote Democratic Or, You Might Die

The Governor of Pennsylvania engaged in some rather extreme hyperbole yesterday:

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) characterized the midterm elections as a life-and-death struggle in a speech Sunday afternoon. “The choice is clear, you’ve got to go to the polls,” Rendell said during a warm-up address at a large rally in Philadelphia ahead of appearances by President Obama and Vice President Biden.

“What’s the best way to prevent [Republicans] from tearing down the president? It’s a four-letter word,” the governor said. “Vote like your life depends on it — because, you know, it just might.”

Now, I realize that this is politics, in Philadelphia no less, and that hyperbole is part of the game, but this strikes me as just a little nutty.

Trust me, your life does not depend on the outcome of the 2010 mid-term elections so, you know, calm down a little.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2010, US Politics, , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug Mataconis held a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020. He passed far too young in July 2021.


  1. Brummagem Joe says:

    Extreme hyperbole on a political platform, surely not. And I’m not even sure Rendell is that far off the mark. If the Repubicans repealed HCR that would mean insurance companies could re-start denying coverage for those with pre existing conditions or restore lifetime caps. There are plenty of documented cases where such actions have proved fatal. So if you are someone with serious medical problems putting the Republicans back in power could have life threatening consequences. No?

  2. John P says:

    And they wonder why we don’t vote. If it isn’t the Republican Gubernatorial Candidate banging on about gay pride and family values while screwing around on his wife it is this guy trying to scare voters. And all of that went down just this week…Apparently it is working as Joe has rationalized.

    Here’s the problem though – we (voters) are pissed because this all falls under the category of intellectual dishonesty.

    And while I hate the fact that the statement above can’t stand on its own merit I mean exactly this – we debate in the realm of Chaos with all of its relative arguments but live in the moment of reality. Either not voting or voting against the Democratic power will not directly threaten anyone’s life.

    To argue that is will you have to do a better job of articulating both sides of the issue than Joe. Frankly Joe, what you’ve laid out is a little banal. Because in arguing in the hypothetical without solid statistical proof you open the door wide open to expose the fallacies of a costly Democratic healthcare plan. On one hand people may not be covered and on the other our country may go bankrupt.

    Both are specious arguments as they pertain to the realm of what Rendell is stating.

    I can’t believe I just spent five minutes explaining this to adults.

  3. Brummagem Joe says:

    John P says:
    Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 10:29
    “Apparently it is working as Joe has rationalized.”

    Since I provided an absolutely clearcut link between cause and effect I don’t quite see how it’s rationalisation. Perhaps you’d like to explain.

  4. John P says:

    I see nothing in your link that is clear cut since you did not provide data that proves either that pre-HCR people were being unduly denied coverage directly resulting in their avoidable death or that since the bill was signed into law that those who would have otherwise perished now still walk among us.

    You simply posited that it did happen, was a problem, and would again be a problem if votes weren’t thrown towards the Democratic party.

    My contention is that if you are going to go down that road the claim could be made with equal certainty (which is uncertainty) that voting for the Republican will save lives and improve quality of life in the long run as the plan in not economically viable. See, no data or statistics needed and I’ve made an equally ridiculous counterpoint.

    The stances are both unable to be defended or defeated so that you can be sure to be both right and totally unproductive at the same time.