Pennsylvania, a classic swing state, has been getting lots of attention from candidates in the last few presidential elections. President Bush visited the state more than any other prior to his two election victories, although, in each case, he narrowly missed adding the state's electoral votes to his total.

But that attention pretty much was confined to the fall. In the winter and spring nominating seasons, the state hasn't had much influence on either party's nominating choice for a generation.

Now, Pennsylvania is toying with proposals to join the land rush of states moving their primaries forward in an effort to have a greater voice in the nominating process. Right now, the state primary is in May in non-presidential years but shifts to April every four years, a move that hasn't managed to give the state much influence.

A state commission formed by the Rendell administration urged a shift in the primary date to March. This week, Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro Cortes, the state's chief elections official, told a legislative panel that the administration would support moving the state forward as far as Feb. 5.

As Mr. Cortes told the panel, that raises a lot of logistical questions about the Pennsylvania process. Should nominees for state and local offices be chosen on the same date? If not, it would cost a lot of money, nearly $20 million by one estimate. But if the overall primary moves to Feb. 5, that would, in turn, push dates for circulating nominating petitions back to the Christmas season. Party endorsement meetings would, presumably have to take place shortly after New Year's.

Turnout is another issue. Some officials fear that a winter primary would run the risk of being complicated by snow storms or cold weather.

And there is a real question on whether a move to Feb. 5 would serve the state's goal of expanding its influence. Election reforms have often been exercises in the law of unintended consequences. Witness the rise of the 527 committees under the McCain-Feingold law, which was designed to curb the influence of money, or the anarchy of the nominating calendar itself.

More than 20 states have already moved or are considering moving their primary dates to Feb. 5, raising the distinct possibility that both major party nominees will be know on Feb. 6. If Pennsylvania does not join those states, it may lose any chance of having a say in the process. On the other hand, so many states will be casting their ballots that day that the amount of attention candidates can pay to any one of them is likely to be severely diluted.

Which raises another possibility. An election reform commission originally recommended that the state consider moving the primary to early March. If, as many expect, the Feb. 5 mega-primary ends the real competition, a March date would simply bring earlier irrelevance to Pennsylvania.

But given the novelty of next year's election calendar, there is also speculation that a split result on Feb. 5 would make the next round of primaries even more important, with March assuming the role of kingmaker month. In money and prestige, whichever way the state goes will be an expensive gamble.

OK class, let's turn our attention again to the general election. Pennsylvania has voted for the Democratic candidate in each of the last four presidential elections, although the last two elections in particular produced narrow decisions. With that history and the carnage among Republican congressional candidates in the state last year, many Democrats are heralding a shift in political hue from purple to blue. Terry Madonna, the Franklin and Marshall analyst and polling expert, warns that the 2008 election could belie that analysis.

" . . . the Democrats' exuberance may be premature,'' he argues.

"Recent polls counsel caution for Democrats and offer optimism for Republicans. The last Franklin & Marshall College Keystone Poll, for example, reports that either of the leading GOP candidates - Rudy Giuliani or John McCain - would beat either of the leading Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, if the election was held today. Giuliani's support looms the most impressive; he would beat Clinton by 17 points and Obama by 20 points.

"The surge for Giuliani fits Pennsylvania's tradition of electing moderates and centrists, a tradition stronger now than at any time within the recent past.''

The most prominent of the Republican losses in the state last year was the landslide repudiation of former Sen. Rick Santorum in his re-election bid against now Sen. Bob Casey. Mr. Santorum is still a voice in national politics from his new perch at a Washington think tank. On the Post-Gazette's op-ed page, he takes on another Pennsylvanian, Rep. Jack Murtha, criticizing the Democrat's effort to rein in the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war.

It is, Mr. Santorum contends, "sad indeed to see this once-great defender of our national security offering proposals that are consistent with the urgings of our enemy, the Islamic fascists.''

The Washington Post's editorial board isn't a fan of Murtha's strategy either. In an editorial this week, it said of the Pelosi/Murtha plan for a $100 billion spending bill for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan:

"The House bill lists benchmarks for Iraqi political progress and requires that President Bush certify by July 1 that progress is being made toward them. By October, Bush would have to certify that the benchmarks all had been reached. This is something of a trick, akin to the inflexible troop readiness requirements that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) wanted to impose to "stop the surge." Everyone knows that the long list of requirements -- including constitutional changes, local elections and the completion of complex legislation -- couldn't be finished in six months. In that case a troop withdrawal would have to begin immediately. If there was no "progress" by July, it would have to begin then and be completed by the end of the year."

In the General Assembly, no legislator has been more avid on the issue of gun control than Rep. Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia. Mr. Evans, one of five candidates for mayor in the May 15 Democratic primary in Philadelphia, has also made gun control a central issue in that campaign.

He released a poll today of 600 voters who said they're likely to vote in 2008, a poll showing a high level of public support for controversial issues such as banning the sale of assault weapons in Pennsylvania and limiting handgun purchases to one per month.

"Pennsylvania voters overwhelmingly support tougher laws to control the availability of guns and reduce gun crime,'' Mr. Evans said. "This is an issue that's not unique to urban Pennsylvania. It affects suburban and rural areas also.''

The poll showed that 77 percent of respondents supported a statewide ban on assault weapons. Even Republicans favored such a ban -- 71 percent -- and especially GOP women, at 84 percent. Republicans aren't historically known as gun control advocates. Democrats favored the ban, 84 percent to 16 percent, and independents favored it by 73 percent.

As to the one gun a month idea, 71 percent of respondents favored the idea, including 61 percent of the people who said they are gun owners. Supporters of the idea note that it would still allow a person to buy 12 guns a year.

Also, 70 percent of those responding didn't think that cracking down on illegal guns would hurt the rights of law-abiding gun owners -- an argument often made by opponents of gun control.

So why has it been so difficult for the Legislature to enact tougher gun laws? Because many members of the General Assembly are from rural areas, where constituents own guns and like gun-related sports, such as hunting and target shooting. Many Pennsylvanians cite the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as guaranteeing their right to bear arms.

The poll cost $23,000 and was done by Lake Research Partners for the House Appropriations Committee, which Mr. Evans chairs. It dealt with other issues also, such as taxes, transportation and education.

Koch stirs the pot

Pittsburgh Councilman Jeff Koch won his office in a special election exactly one year ago. Faced with a Democratic primary challenge this year, he gave himself an anniversary present. Two, actually.

Mr. Koch took a second stab at his first big legislative initiative, an effort to slow the flow of new bars to Carson Street. And he announced an effort to reuse the Neville Ice Arena, which sits right in the middle of the South Side Flats base of his foe, Bruce Kraus.

His original bill limiting the concentration of bars was rejected by the City Planning Commission, because neighborhoods that are trying to attract new establishments protested. The new version would apply only to neighborhood business districts that are more than 7,100 feet long, of which Carson Street is the city's only example.

It would bar new liquor licensees from opening within 150 feet of any more than two existing licensees. It will get a Planning Commission vote before returning to council for the required two votes there, which means it may still be in procedural limbo at the time of the May 15 primary.

On Friday, the city of Pittsburgh expects to send out a request for proposals to reopen the Neville Ice Arena, which has been dormant for five years.

"I want to keep it youth-oriented," Mr. Koch said today. "I would like to make it multi-purpose, ice and then [a manager would] be able to cover it up for volleyball or whatever else."

The city would lease or license the arena to a private operator, as it has in the past.

Politically, the result is that Mr. Koch can tell the vote-rich Flats that he has at least started to address some of that neighborhood's concerns. Whether it's enough to dent Kraus' popularity in the South Side, which provided most of his support in a second-place finish a year ago, won't be clear until election day.

Photos finished

Score one for the blogs. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's campaign took five photos off of its Web site after local political blogs, and then later mainstream media outlets, noticed distinct similarities to photos on the city's site.

"The fundamental issue was, were any of our pictures sourced from the city Web site," said Ravenstahl campaign manager Damon Andrews. He spoke with city officials, who cautioned him about a handful of pictures on the campaign site that closely resembled shots on the city site. This afternoon, the campaign took down the five photos that seemed to be a close match.

Mr. Andrews said that when he joined the campaign, he asked friends of the mayor to e-mail over their favorite photos, and got around 500 electronic images. He said he should have inquired as to their original sources. He said the campaign is now reviewing those it chose to post on the Web site to make sure they aren't city property or copyrighted by other entities, like newspapers.

The issue resonated in the blogosphere because Mr. Ravenstahl hasn't been shy about putting his image on donated billboards, city-paid post cards advertising various programs and services, and the city's Web site. Some bloggers even invited readers to submit complaints about the Web site photos to the State Ethics Commission.

Pitt's Chris Briem's blog, Nullspace, is a consistently insightful source of data and commentary on issues in the region. In one of his latest entries, he offers a catalog of some of the maps he's generated, depicting the geographic realities political and policy data. Check it out.