How did Santorum win Pennsylvania in 2000 but not Bush?

[Intell]

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.

[Intell]

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.

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.

[Intell]

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.

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.