How did Santorum win Pennsylvania in 2000 but not Bush?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:54:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  How did Santorum win Pennsylvania in 2000 but not Bush?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How did Santorum win Pennsylvania in 2000 but not Bush?  (Read 8973 times)
Siloch
Rookie
**
Posts: 156
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 24, 2014, 04:53:58 PM »

Not only did he win the state comfortably he carried all the counties around Philadelphia. These counties used to be GOP territory but moved away because the GOP became to conservative yet they voted for Santorum? This wasn't a usual low turnout midterm either this was an election year and Santorum still won.

Santorum is more conservative than Bush, that's an odd result.

Logged
Siloch
Rookie
**
Posts: 156
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2014, 04:56:08 PM »

This has already been done and I just saw it my bad haha.... sorry Tongue
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2014, 04:59:09 PM »

Not economically speaking he isn't,and perhaps the Democrats fielded a weak challenger.

But seriously fiscal liberalism and social liberalism do not always mix, and Santorum is only conservative where social issues are concerned, he is a moderate on economics.

And given that he lost to Bob Casey, who is only slightly more to the left... you can see that in a state part Philly,part Pittsburgh, and part Dixie that he fit well with the climate.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2014, 06:45:24 PM »

Ron Klink actually would have been a good fit for PA, considering he was conservative on most social issues and liberal economically. However, this was before Santorum went off the deep end. He was a conservative, yes, but Pennsylvanians will only dump an incumbent if they prove absolutely intolerable. In 2000, Rick Santorum hadn't reached that point yet. Ron Klink lacked money and presence as well.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2014, 04:23:21 PM »

Probably nothing more than incumbency.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2014, 06:43:42 PM »

Cynic is right. The Philly Burbs would still vote for a Republican down ballot and PA had long had two Republican Senators even as it leaned Democrat. Republicans held onto open seats in 1958 (a big Dem Wave) and 1976 (Carter won the state). Specter also did fine in 1992.

Santorum was indeed far more COnservative then Scott, Heinz or Specter, but he had strong appeal out west to Democrats and without having yet become controversial he was well positioned to win reelection even as the state went Democratic.

And also as Doc Cynic said, you had an underfunded Democrat that never really caught fire. Also Republicans did quite a lot to emphasize the fact that Klink was pro-life in the SE part of the state, thus removing the one issue that could give Santorum a headache in that region.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2014, 10:45:56 PM »

Probably nothing more than incumbency.

That's really too simplistic. Santorum had that advantage, yes, but Klink was underfunded and couldn't mobilize support. He was well known here in the west and a good fit. He used to work as a newscaster on KDKA. But what is that to people in Philadelphia? He had no name recognition and no money to push at the Republicans who poured money into Santorum's campaign. All Santorum had to do was do well enough here and hold the suburbs and he did that. Incumbency is a part of it, not the whole picture.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2015, 09:18:57 PM »

Ron Klink actually would have been a good fit for PA, considering he was conservative on most social issues and liberal economically. However, this was before Santorum went off the deep end. He was a conservative, yes, but Pennsylvanians will only dump an incumbent if they prove absolutely intolerable. In 2000, Rick Santorum hadn't reached that point yet. Ron Klink lacked money and presence as well.

Part of the problem for Klink was that the Feminist Left pretty much disowned Klink.  Santorum was vulnerable in 2000, but the Feminist Left wouldn't go along.  As the Senate Democrats lost ground in 2002 and 2004, even the most out-there Gender Feminists came to their senses and recognized that they needed to get behind the strongest possible candidate, period, which, in 2006, was the pro-life Bob Casey. 

One reason the Democrats do not have a hammerlock on the electorate today is that they made the social issues (abortion, LGBT issues, gender feminism) a litmus test for Democrats.  The end result is that we have abortion on demand, the most exotic demands of hard-core feminists and gays being prioritized, often with little opposition, while Blue States elect GOP Governors that enact Right-To-Work laws.  This criminally stupid strategy was foisted on the Democrats by the Clintons, and now the Democratic Party can elect an occasional President, but cannot hope to control the House of Representatives. 
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2015, 10:02:59 PM »

Ron Klink actually would have been a good fit for PA, considering he was conservative on most social issues and liberal economically. However, this was before Santorum went off the deep end. He was a conservative, yes, but Pennsylvanians will only dump an incumbent if they prove absolutely intolerable. In 2000, Rick Santorum hadn't reached that point yet. Ron Klink lacked money and presence as well.

Part of the problem for Klink was that the Feminist Left pretty much disowned Klink.  Santorum was vulnerable in 2000, but the Feminist Left wouldn't go along.  As the Senate Democrats lost ground in 2002 and 2004, even the most out-there Gender Feminists came to their senses and recognized that they needed to get behind the strongest possible candidate, period, which, in 2006, was the pro-life Bob Casey. 

One reason the Democrats do not have a hammerlock on the electorate today is that they made the social issues (abortion, LGBT issues, gender feminism) a litmus test for Democrats.  The end result is that we have abortion on demand, the most exotic demands of hard-core feminists and gays being prioritized, often with little opposition, while Blue States elect GOP Governors that enact Right-To-Work laws.  This criminally stupid strategy was foisted on the Democrats by the Clintons, and now the Democratic Party can elect an occasional President, but cannot hope to control the House of Representatives. 

You mean win the last 5 of 6 elections by Popular Vote don't ya'? Why that's exactly the same number the GOP won from '68-'92.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2015, 10:04:53 PM »

Santorum is more conservative than Bush, that's an odd result.

Because mythical swing voters don't vote for the candidate who is closest to their mythical moderate position on all the issues.
Logged
Nutmeg
thepolitic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,914
United States Minor Outlying Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2015, 10:12:05 PM »

the most exotic demands of hard-core feminists and gays being prioritized

Equality before the law: how exotic!
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2015, 04:53:29 PM »

Ron Klink actually would have been a good fit for PA, considering he was conservative on most social issues and liberal economically. However, this was before Santorum went off the deep end. He was a conservative, yes, but Pennsylvanians will only dump an incumbent if they prove absolutely intolerable. In 2000, Rick Santorum hadn't reached that point yet. Ron Klink lacked money and presence as well.

Part of the problem for Klink was that the Feminist Left pretty much disowned Klink.  Santorum was vulnerable in 2000, but the Feminist Left wouldn't go along.  As the Senate Democrats lost ground in 2002 and 2004, even the most out-there Gender Feminists came to their senses and recognized that they needed to get behind the strongest possible candidate, period, which, in 2006, was the pro-life Bob Casey. 

One reason the Democrats do not have a hammerlock on the electorate today is that they made the social issues (abortion, LGBT issues, gender feminism) a litmus test for Democrats.  The end result is that we have abortion on demand, the most exotic demands of hard-core feminists and gays being prioritized, often with little opposition, while Blue States elect GOP Governors that enact Right-To-Work laws.  This criminally stupid strategy was foisted on the Democrats by the Clintons, and now the Democratic Party can elect an occasional President, but cannot hope to control the House of Representatives. 

You mean win the last 5 of 6 elections by Popular Vote don't ya'? Why that's exactly the same number the GOP won from '68-'92.

So in 2016 the Republicans nominate a moderate outsider loved by the base who wins them their version of this:
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2016, 10:51:48 AM »

Politics isn't everything. Perhaps Santorum's constituents felt he was a hard working Senator who served them well (a sentiment that was also expressed about the late Sen. Jesse Helms).
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2016, 08:13:15 AM »

Split-ticket voting.  Contrary to popular myth, coattail effects are very rare because not everyone votes a straight party ticket.

I suspect a lot of it had to do with Santorum's strong so-con stances--it helped him win a lot of blue collar union votes around Pittsburgh and other regions.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2016, 08:53:36 AM »

Klink was an underfunded low energy loser that ran literally no ads in the Philadelphia media market. Seriously, not a single ad. Look it up if you don't believe me. I think that answers the question well enough, but here are some other factors:

- Santorum was always known as very conservative, but in 2000 he was not widely seen as having gone off the deep end yet.

- This was back when PA Democrats were still chasing their tail trying to win Western PA rather than focusing on their growing base in the East. Klink is the epitome of this failed strategy. The people insisting Santorum had "appeal to Western PA Democrats" are completely off base here. Klink actually performed fairly well in Western PA, it was where he was from. But he performed absolutely abysmally in the East. He lost Delaware County for god's sake.

- Klink was pro-life, which was supposedly a good idea to appeal to the "populists" in the West, but in reality it just sent the socially liberal swing voters in the Philly suburbs right into the arms of Santorum.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2016, 04:07:55 AM »

Split-ticket voting.  Contrary to popular myth, coattail effects are very rare because not everyone votes a straight party ticket.

I suspect a lot of it had to do with Santorum's strong so-con stances--it helped him win a lot of blue collar union votes around Pittsburgh and other regions.

lol no, not at all. He won because social liberals around Philadelphia did not vote for Ron Klink.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2016, 04:44:45 AM »

Split-ticket voting.  Contrary to popular myth, coattail effects are very rare because not everyone votes a straight party ticket.

I suspect a lot of it had to do with Santorum's strong so-con stances--it helped him win a lot of blue collar union votes around Pittsburgh and other regions.

lol no, not at all. He won because social liberals around Philadelphia did not vote for Ron Klink.

Pretty much. Though not just due to Klink being a SoCon, also because most of them didn't even know who he was (since he ran no ads there!!!)

Just look at the 96 -> 00 swing map in PA, for the presidential race:



Yes, despite the nation going from +9 Clinton to a tie in the popular vote, the Philadelphia area STILL swung to Gore. Despite this, the incompetent PA Dems forced underfunded loser Klink in, and he proceeded to lose these areas by double digits by being a SoCon just like Santorum and not running a single ad there. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

As bad as the Sestak/McGinty fiasco was, nothing can top the incompetence of PA Dems in 2000.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2016, 08:06:10 PM »

Split-ticket voting.  Contrary to popular myth, coattail effects are very rare because not everyone votes a straight party ticket.

I suspect a lot of it had to do with Santorum's strong so-con stances--it helped him win a lot of blue collar union votes around Pittsburgh and other regions.

lol no, not at all. He won because social liberals around Philadelphia did not vote for Ron Klink.

Pretty much. Though not just due to Klink being a SoCon, also because most of them didn't even know who he was (since he ran no ads there!!!)

Just look at the 96 -> 00 swing map in PA, for the presidential race:



Yes, despite the nation going from +9 Clinton to a tie in the popular vote, the Philadelphia area STILL swung to Gore. Despite this, the incompetent PA Dems forced underfunded loser Klink in, and he proceeded to lose these areas by double digits by being a SoCon just like Santorum and not running a single ad there. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

As bad as the Sestak/McGinty fiasco was, nothing can top the incompetence of PA Dems in 2000.

Klink was a good candidate, if he better campaigned in and around Philadelphia, he would have easily won though. But maybe I'm biased as Klink is one of my most ideal candidates.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2016, 08:33:58 PM »

Split-ticket voting.  Contrary to popular myth, coattail effects are very rare because not everyone votes a straight party ticket.

I suspect a lot of it had to do with Santorum's strong so-con stances--it helped him win a lot of blue collar union votes around Pittsburgh and other regions.

lol no, not at all. He won because social liberals around Philadelphia did not vote for Ron Klink.

Pretty much. Though not just due to Klink being a SoCon, also because most of them didn't even know who he was (since he ran no ads there!!!)

Just look at the 96 -> 00 swing map in PA, for the presidential race:



Yes, despite the nation going from +9 Clinton to a tie in the popular vote, the Philadelphia area STILL swung to Gore. Despite this, the incompetent PA Dems forced underfunded loser Klink in, and he proceeded to lose these areas by double digits by being a SoCon just like Santorum and not running a single ad there. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

As bad as the Sestak/McGinty fiasco was, nothing can top the incompetence of PA Dems in 2000.

The thing was also, I doubt that a democrat would have won the senate race without a populist, as Santorum did have appeal into rural blue-collar communities, and with losing the west bar Pittsburgh, they couldn't have won the senate race. This continued until about 2008, when the east-controlled social liberals could win, mostly because of Obama, and the destruction of the white-working class vote for Obama out West. I view PA dems needing working class constituents, and having a wide variety of views of abortion, being pro-life as a good thing. Bob Casey Jr. won because of this, winning voters out west, while capturing many voters in Philadelphia and around it dissatisfied with Santorum and Bush.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2016, 07:45:53 PM »

The difference between Casey and Klink is that Casey is competent (in 2006, at least. In 2012 his campaign was Klink-esque.)

It's true Casey being somewhat conservative on social issues helped him crush Santorum into a fine powder in 2006, but that was overkill. A generic D might have beat Santorum by "only" 5-10 points instead of nearly 20, but the end result would still be the same. Casey lost nearly all of this support in 2012, and was dragged over the finish line by Obama voters in the East. Same thing with Warner in 2014.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 30, 2019, 02:07:49 AM »

Very interesting thread in hindsight. Nobody seemed to notice that Klink lost Erie and Luzerne counties, nor were the sharp swings toward Santorum in central PA commented on. Shows how dominant Hillaryism as a form of electoral analysis was on Atlas.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.