Pennsylvania exit polls

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I just found these interesting. This is the 2006 Senate race by income:

TOTAL Santorum  Casey, Jr. 
Under $15,000 (5%) 24% 76%
$15-30,000 (13%) 44% 56%
$30-50,000 (20%) 38% 62%
$50-75,000 (21%) 47% 53%
$75-100,000 (15%) 38% 62%
$100-150,000 (14%) 45% 55%
$150-200,000 (6%) 40% 60%
$200,000 or More (6%) 41% 59%

Casey won every single income bracket. That's not suprising for someone who won by as wide a margin as he did. But let's look at the 2004 exit poll:

TOTAL 2004 2000 2004
 
Under $15,000 (9%) 40% n/a 60%
 
$15-30,000 (16%) 39% n/a 60%
 
$30-50,000 (26%) 51% n/a 48%
 
$50-75,000 (22%) 52% n/a 48%
 
$75-100,000 (12%) 47% n/a 52%
 
$100-150,000 (9%) 48% n/a 51%
 
$150-200,000 (3%) 65% n/a 35%
 
$200,000 or More (3%) 78% n/a 22%

Apparentely, Casey's biggest improvement wasn't among working class, socially conservative populists. It was among affluent people who no doubt were economic conservatives.

Why did these people vote for Casey, when they didn't really agree with him on anything? Because Santorum appeared so much worse, even though he was much closer to them on economics than Casey was on social issues.

The message here? Perhaps extreme social conservatism is something the GOP ought to start moving away from a bit. Apparentely when running against someone like Santorum, who the Democrat is is irrelevant, many people simply aren't going to vote for such a person, period.

[Jake]

I'd look at the MoE for the final two brackets.

[Verily]

You'd have to have a sample size of about 10 people for the MoE to overcome a disparity of 78-22 v 41-59.

[Keystone Phil]

[Deano963]

Apparentely when running against someone like Santorum, who the Democrat is is irrelevant, many people simply aren't going to vote for such a person, period.

Well.......DUH!

The Democrats could have run pretty much anybody against Santorum this year and beat him handily. Bottom line is that Santorum was just a very, very weak candidate. His negatives were simply too high. He would not have been able to beat even a third tier Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania this year.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Apparentely when running against someone like Santorum, who the Democrat is is irrelevant, many people simply aren't going to vote for such a person, period.

Well.......DUH!

The Democrats could have run pretty much anybody against Santorum this year and beat him handily. Bottom line is that Santorum was just a very, very weak candidate. His negatives were simply too high. He would not have been able to beat even a third tier Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania this year.

This should be obviously, but many Republicans here still don't seem to buy that. The fact that Santorum is not a mainstream politician still seems lost to many even after his 18 point defeat.

[Keystone Phil]

Apparentely when running against someone like Santorum, who the Democrat is is irrelevant, many people simply aren't going to vote for such a person, period.

Well.......DUH!

The Democrats could have run pretty much anybody against Santorum this year and beat him handily. Bottom line is that Santorum was just a very, very weak candidate. His negatives were simply too high. He would not have been able to beat even a third tier Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania this year.

This should be obviously, but many Republicans here still don't seem to buy that. The fact that Santorum is not a mainstream politician still seems lost to many even after his 18 point defeat.

Nominate anyone but Casey and I would have guarenteed that no one could have beaten him by more than ten points.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That's still a wide margin. And such a person would've still gotten the same numbers with the high income brackets.

[Eraserhead]

Apparentely when running against someone like Santorum, who the Democrat is is irrelevant, many people simply aren't going to vote for such a person, period.

Well.......DUH!

The Democrats could have run pretty much anybody against Santorum this year and beat him handily. Bottom line is that Santorum was just a very, very weak candidate. His negatives were simply too high. He would not have been able to beat even a third tier Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania this year.

This should be obviously, but many Republicans here still don't seem to buy that. The fact that Santorum is not a mainstream politician still seems lost to many even after his 18 point defeat.

Nominate anyone but Casey and I would have guarenteed that no one could have beaten him by more than ten points.

That isn't exactly saying much for the guy.

[Keystone Phil]

That isn't exactly saying much for the guy.

I wasn't saying Santorum would lose though. I just believe that there is no way someone like Barbara Hafer or Joe Hoeffel or really anyone else could beat him by more than ten points.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Map I made:

[HardRCafé]

Why did these people vote for Casey, when they didn't really agree with him on anything? Because Santorum appeared so much worse, even though he was much closer to them on economics than Casey was on social issues.

Why is all you do here answer your own questions?

[Gabu]

Map I made:

Interesting that Casey didn't underpoll Kerry anywhere in the entire state.  I figured he might at least have an off-chance to do so in the southeast.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Map I made:

Interesting that Casey didn't underpoll Kerry anywhere in the entire state.  I figured he might at least have an off-chance to do so in the southeast.

The fact that he did not proves my point.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Map I made:

Interesting that Casey didn't underpoll Kerry anywhere in the entire state.  I figured he might at least have an off-chance to do so in the southeast.

The fact that he did not proves my point.

No, not really.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Map I made:

Interesting that Casey didn't underpoll Kerry anywhere in the entire state.  I figured he might at least have an off-chance to do so in the southeast.

The fact that he did not proves my point.

No, not really.

Why did those areas vote heavily for Casey when they didn't agree with his populist politics at all

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think it's probably fair to say that you can't see the wood for the trees here.

[Smash255]

Map I made:

Interesting that Casey didn't underpoll Kerry anywhere in the entire state.  I figured he might at least have an off-chance to do so in the southeast.

Have you seen how bad Bush & Santorum's #'s in the SE are???  Casey isn't the best fit for the SE not by a long shot.  A sock puppet could have kicked the crap outta Santorum there, his #'s in the SE are brutal & Bush's are even worse.