Talk Elections

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/11107377.htm

Wake up Republicans: Santorum IS in trouble.

santorum would be in trouble if the democrats ran a normal candidate (i.e one who lives in the 21st century and doesnt spew populism from 1896)

santorum will win.  brtd, you and i both know that  many suburbanites, despite what they say, are just as bigoted as country bumpkins.  im sure many in se pa secretly love santorum's homophobia as much as they disdain casey's silly economic ideas.

The way I understand it, the Republicans have already woken up, and are certainly not taken a Santorum win for granted.

The options they have are: just fight as hard as they can and hope for the best; or pull Santorum out.  The latter option means that the Republicans can write-off a win at all, but they still get to keep Santorum as a popular figure with national name-recognition.  A possible bid to take on Ed Rendell has already been floated on this forum.

Just becuase you don't like populism doesn't mean it doesn't play well in Pennsylvania.

Yes, there are lots of suburbanites like that, but they're the ones that voted for Bush. Wasn't enough for Bush to win Pennsylvania.

You are quite right, but I don't think that Casey has an edge either.

No other candidate could beat Santorum (period).

Casey only wins if Santorum fails to sperate Casey from his father (period).

Santorum would win in a campaign that was dependent only on issues (period).

Casey is ahead right now because he is a Casey (period).

And, also, Santorum v Casey is going to be a national race in its scope.  Only two people in PA have any expirience running a national campaign:
Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter.

um.  john kerry is a hell of a lot different than casey.  if the dems ran a john kerry type candidate against santorum, he/she would probably win.

casey is pretty over-hyped.  he isnt going to win.  period.

then shouldn't Bush have won Pennsylvania?

I agree.  Plus, a year and a half is a heck of a long time in politics.  I'm not calling this one for either Santorum or Casey yet, but it'll definitely be a nail-biter for both sides concerned, and one to watch for everybody else.

Casey is not Kerry.

He seems like he'd be a much better candidate because of his father and more in touch with socially conservative democrats. How was Kerry a better candidate than Casey?

Um, every PA Republican on this board understands that Casey is a good candidate. But, Casey is still at the same point he was in the last poll, and will continue to be in this position until the campaign begins for real. 

Because Kerry could win suburban voters (that's right, the people you hate) in Philadelphia and Teresa brought in a strong cooalition of support from the Pittsburgh area (which, even still, was weaker than the support Gore got, but stronger than he would have recieved without her).

Honestly, the more I think about this, the more I think Santorum will pull it out.

I hate to break it to you, but 1896 is where we are right now, courtesy of the GOP.

This race leans Casey. Most Republicans, even PA Republicans, have admitted this. What is your point?

If Santorum loses that PA's business. My favorite Senator, Charles Grassley, is in no trouble in Iowa.

HARKIN OUT IN '08.

Retirement or do you plan on him losing?

If they liked Kerry, how the hell could they like Santorum? Are you saying Kerry was a stronger candidate than Casey is?

Economics.  Those SE PA, suburban voters are libertarians.  Some may not vote for Mr. Populist over Santorum, who supports conservative economic ideas.

Apart from name, yes.

I want him to lose, but he won't.

Granted Casey may not appeal to them, but Santorum's off the wall social conservatism will be an even worse fit for those in SE PA.  The Philly burbs may not exactly like Casey, but their will be a very strong ABS vote in that region which Casey will greatly benefit from

I'm sick and tired of people saying things like "off the wall social conservatism".  Santorum is very normal, save the comment he made about homosexuals, and if you people honestly think that that is going to be any issue at all in this campaign, you don't know jack about this state.

Santorum is pretty damn Conservative especially on social issues, it was more than just homosexuals also the whole individual rights stuff.  Anyway the point I'm making is that Santorum is simply not liked in SE PA.  Their will be a very strong ABS vote in that portion of the state.  It really doesn't matter all that much who the Dem candidate is in that area, SE PA is not voting for Santorum period and even though Casey's views don't fit all that well with the region he will win it because he is not Santorum

Casey leading at this point isn't suprising. Election is a long way away yet and a f*** up is possible.

Re: Kerry... Kerry was a weaker candidate in PA than Casey but the backlash towards his social views and general attitude in certain parts of PA was minimised by the Heinz machine cranking out votes in Pittsburgh proper and the inner suburbs of Pittsburgh.

I don't know about the ABS vote.

Sure, it might exist...heck I might be one of em...but it may not translate into votes for casey...

especially if there are strong Libertarian/Green candidates out there...

Thing is, Casey is essentially fighting Santorum on Casey's home turf...Socially Conservative Democrats...The conservative/uber partisan republicans will stay with rick...the partisan dems with casey, the liberals may (stress may) back a green while liberal moderate republicans (unless arlen can sway)...will likely stay at home...or vote Libertarian [some will vote casey...but I doubt they will in decisive numbers].

Casey has a lead...he should...that name is quite valuable...for it to be only 7 right now...before Santorum has moderated his image or thrown mudballs at Casey is something that should be observed carefully...as the battle will be waged on democratic turf.

Good analysis unfortunately for me.  I know what the numbers say, but do you think us Dems would be better with a pro-choice, social liberal to rile up the base and invite out of state cash or bring back the conservative, pro-life Dems including those former Dems who are now GOP solely because of abortion?   

And turncoat Barb Hafer= BAD CHOICE! 

Here's teh thing. If it was something like Casey 42 Santorum 35, you could argue Santorum wasn't in too much trouble. But Casey's almost at 50 this early. Santorum has a lot of ground to cover, he's going to need almost all the undecideds (since they break against the incumbent usually not easily) and going to sway a few Casey voters back. Anything can happen in a campaign, but having your opponent at almost 50 this early is not good.

Here's another thing.  Why can't us Democrats field a good pro-choice socially liberal, economically left-center candidate?  Out of Philadelphia and suburbs, we should have someone articulate and intelligent enough as a Democrat who can look very good against Rick Santorum.  The name Lois Murphy keeps popping up in my mind as such a candidate.  She did incredibly well in such a horribly gerrymandered conservative district.  I went to bed thinking she won PA 6!  Jim Gerlach is a horrendous candidate though.  I think we can win PA elections with putting forth an effort solely in eastern PA and trying not to lose too much in SW Penn or Erie County.

The way I see it, the Casey name almost makes him the incumbent.

Lets put it this way...I think more people recognize Casey than Santorum...hell a very well educated, fairly liberal friend of mine confused Santorum with Specter...he certainly knows who Casey is.


Look at how Democrats have won and lost this state in the last 20 or so years....

Carter=fairly populist...lost in 80
Mondale=populist lost in 84
Dukakis=came close to winning in 88, lost
Wofford won a special election...but I chalk that up to no one wanting 3 different senators in a short time span

Clinton-Gore-Kerry-won 92-04

You guys haven't won a senate seat here (in a regular election) in God knows how long...

when you guys run libertarian like centrists (socially liberal, moderate on fiscal issues, Clinton, Rendell) you win...when you run liberals...you come close, or win (Kerry, Gore).

When you run populists you generally lose.

Now think of it this way

Conservative Democrats (likely the catholic target group) have a choice...a Republican (albeit conservative on fiscal issues) who has a lot of clout and is pro life...vs a Democrat who is prolife and is likely to be a backbencher [to borrow the UK term] and marginalized like his father was nationally (casey should run for governor, he can't be marginalized there)...

If you're voting on social issues, let alone abortion...who's the better choice?

In other words run a liberal or someone with a economically centrist stance that's socially liberal?  I see your point.  they win the Southeast overwhelmingly and can knock off the whiny conserative Democrats that pout over abortion.

If you guys didn't have your heads up your collective asses...you would have run Casey against Specter, Hoffel against Santorum.


ah well.

No. He has more name recognition than a normal challenger, but almost incumbent he's not.


Interesting that you've not included '76 as well, eh?


PA was actually one of his *better* states that election. Try again.


One of his better states U.S wide actually. Relatively speaking it was an impressive showing.


Bubba did not run as a libertarian-like centrist

1) 1976: I chalk Carter's win up more to Ford's poor debate showing and his pardon of Nixon. Carter only won the state by 2-3 points.

2) So what if Pennsylvania was one of Mondale's "better" states...any state with a very large urban center would have been a "better" state. Walter still lost by 7-8 points. Reagan won in Pa because he carried the area necessary to win Pennsylvania...the SE (not including Philly...not that philly's not important...but its really the burbs around it). Maybe the 1984 election really isn't important to this discussion...as the 1976 one wasn't.

3) As for Bubba...maybe in 1992 he didn't run as a libertarian...but he wasn't a populist either. By 1996 he had become republican lite.

The point remains...despite the fact there are tons of populists in PA...particularly in the NE and SW...populists generally don't do as well as liberals/libertarians in this state.

And here's why...most of the votes are in the libertarian, or liberal Southeast.

Is this going to turn into one of those absurdly parochial "debates" that people with oblong avatars (with a little strange thing in the top left corner) like to indulge themselves in?

By God I hope not.

Though (just to continue things a bit) I find the 2002 Democratic Gubernatoral Primary Map to be telling.

And what is wrong with my quirky oblong avatar? Don't knock Erie (not that I care too much...but Soult might have something to say)

I suspect it's too late now... *looks worried*


It's interesting, but some of the statewide results from last year are interesting as well.
PA's ticket splitting habits make for interesting maps at times :)

Yeah.

I voted for Casey.

Go figure...a libertarian, voting for a populist...for state treasurer.

Casey, if elected, will be marginalized, just like his father was at the convention. That move pissed of a lot of conservative democrats...and a bunch of republicans who generally liked his late father...including myself (and my family).

Thats why he should just wait for a chance to run for governor.

Lois Murphy would be laughed at out west. Her economic views might help but socially she'd be a joke.

I actually would have voted for Casey, too. Jean Pepper was the definition of a joke.

Specter would have won it and Hoeffel vs. Santorum would have meant a Santorum win, too.

See. I don't know about that.

Please, Specter would have crushed Casey.  A four term US Senator against an Auditor General!?  What in the Hell does the Auditor General do anyway (I know, but that is what the Average Joe would ask).

All of Philadelphia would have voted Specter.

The city would have went Casey but the burbs would have went crazy for Specter.

Hopefully Santorum will can still win, he's a good senator and I would be more than happy to have him as my senator.

Trade for Stabenow or Levin?  GLADLY!

How we trade one of them for Coleman and the other for Santorum? That'd make me, Flyers, and you all very happy.

No thanks.  :)

I'm sure they return the sentiment right back at all of you liberal nuts, Flyers. :P

Keep dreaming of an alliance with the libertarian Republicans, since there's never going to be enough liberals to win by themselves. ;)

alright, compromise, Coleman for Specter.

Fine with me!

you know, interestingly if Casey wins Pennsylvania will have a pro-life Democrat and pro-choice Republican for its Senate delegation. I wonder if any other state has had that combo before.

It appears more people are thinking about this race rationally, or, in other words, how I've seen it from day 1.

According to the same poll Lynn Swann is only down 6 to Rendell, and considering his name rec and or favorability is probably not that stellar in the Philly area, that's pretty good. Or the poll is pretty bad, which I think it is.

A lot of money is going to be spent on this Senate race but turnout will obviously be far short of 2004 (by virtue of being an off-election). The bottom line is that Santorum has produced in every race... he's like Louisville. No respect, but at the end of the day they beat Georgia Tech all the same.

Now, this is going to be ugly. Like I said when Casey declared, if you think Santorum is just going to skip around with a parasol singing like Mary Poppins you're delusional-- he is going to take it right to Casey, and his resources are essentially unlimited.

Santorum has already been working on repositioning himself. I wouldn't be surprised if pictures of him next to Hillary Clinton a couple weeks ago emerged on ads in the Philly 'burbs. In the burbs, he'll ram Casey's populism down voters' throats, and in rural areas he'll assault Casey's social credentials. Santorum will be endorsed by the NRA because he's the incumbent, and Casey has not staked out ground on gay marriage so far as I am aware.

Your name only gets you so far, and Casey has never taken anything even remotely close to being in the same galaxy as what Santorum will unleash. Until he has proven he can take it, it's ridiculous to say he has some kind of "lead." His "lead" is like the lead UConn had in Vegas... looks great on paper, until reality crashes the party.

I love the non-PA residents chiming in to tell us all about PA.  :)

This will be a tough race.  It will be the featured election of 2006.  Both parties are going to spend spend spend.  Both candidates are going to be VERY well known.

But at the end of the day Casey will win for these reasons:

1) He's a moderate Dem against an extreme Repub.  PA is a state of moderates.

2) Santorum has a record which the Dems can attack.

3) Casey is an extremely personable guy whereas Santorum can be a real dick (yes, I have met both).

Yet you fail to acknowledge that Santorum has a good amount of support among Pennsylvanians as a whole and even some Democrats like the guy.

By the way, Klink was more of a moderate Dem, too, in a state "full of moderates." Why couldn't he win? Sure money was an issue but if he was more in line with the people, why didn't he pull it out?

Also, you bring up non-PA residents telling us about PA (I guess you're talking specifically about AuH2O). I hope you realize there are plenty on your side doing it was well.

Oh, Santorum definitely has support in PA.  That's one reason why this is going to be such a tough race.  I won't deny that.

Klink was a moderate but he wasn't as defined of a moderate as Casey.  The Republicans painted Klink as a super-liberal.  AND this was 5 years ago, when Santorum's rep as an extremist wasn't built yet.  And lastly on this point, money was a definite issue for Klink.

My "non-PA residents" comment was intended to be a shot at ALL non-PA residents from both sides of the fence.  I find it amusing when someone (regardless of which side they are on) claims to know all about how the residents there will behave.  I certainly don't have any special insight into what motivates votes in New Mexico and I wouldn't want to pretend I did.

Like many others, you seem to refuse to change your opinion on Santorum's stances. I don't see him as an extremist, you do. If he was that extreme, his approval ratings wouldn't be so good.

Well, there are what, 12 million people in PA? I doubt Wakie knows them all, or even a very significant portion of eligible voters. The sample he does know, as with most people in most places, is unlikely to be very representative for self-selecting reasons.

So in reality living in PA gives you only a slight benefit in terms of analysis, except for some people within the parties perhaps (if they have access to real polls, not the garbage publicized so far about this race).

In the 2000 race, fewer people voted for Senate (as is normal), yet Santorum got more total votes than Al Gore. Most voters do not follow politics as closely as members of this forum, and even in the case they do, are unlikely to consider Santorum "extreme," for a couple reasons:

1) He's not
2) His opposition to gay marriage is very clearly in line with the electorate. Pursuing that opposition effectively is thus not politically damaging.

As a pure candidate, Santorum actually has a lot of advantages, between incumbency, speaking, and probably money. In any reasonable formula Santorum comes out ahead. Casey's family fame is a wildcard but he has not been TOUCHED while Santorum has been under fire for years.

In the past couple years, Santorum has voted for some moderate gun control measures and also against accelerating the repeal of the estate tax (one of few Republicans to do so). He will position himself as a pragmatist on social and economic issues. Casey, I guess, could try to attack his position on gay marriage, since that is the only area where his rhetoric has been particularly sharp.

Casey could also campaign wearing a Patriots' hat, but neither idea is particularly brilliant. It shakes down like this:

Better fit for PA electorate:

Economic: Santorum

Social:
-Gay Marriage: Santorum
-Gun Control: Santorum (NRA endorsement is big)
-Abortion: draw

Clout: Santorum

So, basically, Casey has one advantage: his name; for some, because they loved his dad, for others, because his name is not Santorum.

note: if I was Santorum, I would hit Casey on judges. If Casey goes with Democrats in filibustering judges, pro-life judges won't be confirmed, thus negating Casey's value as a pro-lifer and keeping that vote with Santorum.
 

He favors Civil unions and is against FMA.

That counts as neutrality. I mean that's basically Bush's position.

Santorum has more cred on the issue.

If I was Santorum I would hit Casey on his lack of interest in the U.S. Senate.  In reality Casey does NOT want the job.   He wants to be governor and everyone knows that.  He has already stated that he will not commit to serve a full term if elected.  That alone should make PA voters second guess voting for him.  I have a feeling alot of Democrats are going to be upset with the result of this race.  Im not holding my breath for a Casey victory, thats for sure.

I would bring that up, too, but you have to be very careful.

I already mentioned that some time ago.  I think that the way Casey launched into this has hurt his credability.

He didn't run in '04 because, he said, he didn't want the job.  Now he turns around and runs, thus abandoning a job that he was voted and entrusted with by PA voters, including myself, and runs for a possition that he thinks will be a better stepping stone to the governorship, which everyone knows is what he really wants.

Awwwwwwww, You take credit for everything!  ;)

Some Dems are actually more optimistic about RI, though I think they're jumping the gun there as well.

::)

Am I wrong?

I haven't predicted any races on EITHER SIDE.

Anyone who is is jumping the gun, I mean, in RI Dems haven't even had the primary yet.

Of course genius Al probably can tell us what will happen, he did so well in 2004...

I've never claimed to be a genius and never will


I only made a couple of serious predictions towards the end (and only Presidential. Didn't have time to do Congressional stuff, which is why I set the contest thingy up). My shock map was accurate (there were no shocks) and my final (and pretty much only serious) official prediction wasn't all that bad. I did a gut prediction and on reflection should have entered that instead (only got Wisconsin wrong) but that's life for you.

But I've never attacked anyone else for getting a prediction wrong and it'd be nice if everyone was polite like that.

The Democrats shouldn't get too excited about this poll.  Casey was leading the Governor's race in 2001, but once the candidates actually started running ads, Rendell pulled away .  Of course, Casey is certainly a better candidate than Ron Klink, and Santorum has become a more polarizing figure since 2000.

You view Santorum as a polarizing figure but he has some of the best approval ratings in the state and the lowest disapproval ratings. When you will guys understand that?

I got my Santorum 2006 contribution stuff today.  Have to get some early money together and have my parents send it in.  (Stupid regulations :P)

Whatever his approval ratings are, I think it's hard to argue that Santorum isn't now more polarizing than he was five years ago.  When he ran for reelection in 2000, Santorum was just one of six or seven generic Republican Senators who won in 1994 that the Dems were trying to knock-off.  Since then, he has become a national symbol for the anti-gay movement.  What was Santorum's disapproval rating in 2000?  And even if he is just as popular in PA now as he was then, Santorum is polarizing on a national scale, such that his race will attract a lot more money and attention than it did then.

So you voted for him for treasurer too.

Don't you feel a little disappointed?


I think everyone knows my feelings about Rick. That aside, I've seen him speak in person. He's quite eloquent and intelligent. I found him to be rather impressive actually.

For Casey to only be up 7 right now, when all people know are Rick's negatives...well...those who are behind Casey right now (who knows, I might join them, or not...maybe I'll support Rick when its done)...better feel a little uncomfortable.

To specify this a little more, if you look through Quinnipiac's polling history in Pennsylvania, you will see that Santorum's disapproval rating hovers around 30%, and has since his anti-gay marriage comments.  Prior to these comments, his disapproval was consistantly 20-22%.   Hence, he is clearly more polarizing now than he was when he last ran. 

Ok, you can throw all the money you want at the Democratic opponent but Pennsylvanians haven't cared what a few Democrats on the national level have to think about Santorum for awhile now.

Then you believed that Specter was vulnerable and more polarizing and Rendell will be vulnerable and is also polarizing?

He's one of my favorite Democrats and I would have voted for him, too. However, it's pretty disappointing that he's running for an office he really has no interest in at all and decided to do this after only one month in his new job.

Ok, this is the message I posted that you were responding to:

The Democrats shouldn't get too excited about this poll.  Casey was leading the Governor's race in 2001, but once the candidates actually started running ads, Rendell pulled away .  Of course, Casey is certainly a better candidate than Ron Klink, and Santorum has become a more polarizing figure since 2000.

Note I never said Santorum was "vulnerable".  I don't know where you are getting that from...In fact, the point of my message was that he's less vulnerable than many Dems are currently arguing.    I do think Santorum is  more vulnerable than Rendell, but that's because the Dems currently have a better challenger than the Republicans, not because of approval ratings.

I also didn't say he was "polarizing".  I said he was "more polarizing" than he was in 2000.  You replied that he wasn't polarizing b/c of his disapproval ratings, and I responded that his disapproval ratings are higher now than they were in the past.   Thus, by your definitions, not mine, Santorum v.2005 is more polarizing.  Not more polarizing than Rendell or Specter (who is polarizing in a different way), but more polarizing than Santorum v.2000.  I don't know whether a 30% disapproval makes you "polarizing" (as opposed to "not polarizing"), but it seems likely that someone with 30% disapproval is "more polarizing" than someone with 20% disapproval (as Santorum had before his gay marriage comments).

Well why not because of approval ratings? Swann would be a strong candidate (especially out west) and Rendell is not doing as great as many think.

And maybe he'll win the election by the same 7 points.

Casey Sr. did not support Clinton's Presidency in 1992. Therefore, there was no point in letting him speak.
Casey Jr. is a bit more socially liberal.
He will not be marginalized the way his father was.

Hey, now, he's from Virginia. He might know some about Virginia's 3rd Senator.

How do you know if Swann would be a good candidate?  Have you ever seen him in a debate or even a prepared policy speech? 

Even his sports background is a mixed blessing....the majority of Pennsylvanians aren't Steeler fans, and about half those Steeler fans aren't even old enough to remember when Swann was playing for them (almost thirty years ago).

More importantly, Swann doesn't do anything target the suburban Philly voters than Republicans need to win back in order to win that race.  Rendell did pretty badly in western Pennsylvania in 2002, but the southeast more than made up for it.

If the Pennsylvania GOP wants to beat Rendell in 2006, they should run Mark Schweiker.  I'm not really sure who else would get it done, although I'm not as up on PA politics as some on this board. :)

It's certainly possible.  The race hinges now really on money. Santorum is budgeting 20 million for the campaign, and hopes to raise 4.5 million through the end of this year. Casey won't have the money that Hoeffel had this year.  First, because Hoeffel had Rendell going around the state raising money for him, and second because Hoeffel got the big out of state abortion dollars that Casey won't get.

The fact that Swann can wrap up the west is good enough for me. He's a legend out there.

Rendell did not do badly in the west. He didn't win it like he won SE PA but it was still a comfortable win in most areas. Swann eliminates that. The west won't just go along with 2002's Mr. Popular in 2006.

As for Schweiker, I wouldn't mind him as the GOP nominee at all. If he jumped into the race, I'd probably go with him over Swann. He could make it very interesting especially since he is from this area (He's from out in Bucks county and would likely take that heavy Rendell county with him if he ran.)

I have a feeling they aren't done going after Chris Heinz. The Pro Choice groups made a big fuss about Casey and then it quited down all of the sudden. Maybe something's going on...or atleast that's what I'm hoping for...

That happens, Casey gets pissed and drops out.  PA Dems are left with Hoeffel Jr. from the west and end up losing badly.

Casey won't drop out. He won't do that to the national leaders. If Heinz runs, though, I can see a Heinz win. The General election would be a good one for Santorum. No 10 point but a pretty comfortable one.

He would if they try to get Heinz to run.  Casey wants an open primary so he can raise money.  He knows Santorum is going to have from now until November 06 to raise money.  Casey wants the same.  He has nothing to lose by dropping out and waiting until 2010.

I think it would be too risky. The national Dems would be throwing a fit. I'm sure they've spoken with Heinz, telling him not to run but if the Pro Choice groups can offer him a nice deal, he might just take it.

Heinz may actually not do that bad & has a chance to  beat Santorum (Casey has a much better chance obviously)  Heinz will do better in Western PA than another Dem more on the liberal side like hafer would because he is from that area &  he will beat Santorum up pretty bad in SE PA.  Santorum probably would still beat Heinz, but it won't be as easy as some people think

Heinz could win but Santorum would finish him off in the debates. Chris Heinz is overrated.

Heinz would win Allegheny, Washington, Erie, Fayette, and Greene, only Allegheny and Erie convincingly.  I can easily see him losing badly in the Northeast and in the Lehigh Valley, plus the Southeast would be his by large margins.  Overall 53-46 Santorum.

You called? ;D

Show me where I made any such claim, please. I'm not sure if it was in this thread or one of the other PA Senate threads, but I do believe I asked what you all thought about PA (how many voters on either side could switch) and never claimed that I knew how PA voters would act...?

I don't think he was referring to you in particular, just throwing a random state out.

I haven't seen Heinz debate so I can't comment on his debate skills.  Santorum is a pretty good speaker I will give him that, however its a possibility he could have another "slip of the tounge" and that would hurt him.  Overall I still give the edge to Santorum (2-3 points), but a Santorum Heinz race in my opinon would be the closest of the big 3 candidates named (Heinz, Casey & Hafer)

Well, NM doesn't get mentioned much so it tended to catch my eye. :)

Yes and no.  I do have the benefit of living in PA and every day being faced with the issues a PA resident faces.  I have the advantage of dealing with other PA residents every day (whether that is at work, at the supermarket, going to a movie theater, etc.).  Is it somewhat self-selecting?  Sure.  But it still gives a much better insight than you have in Virginia.  I don't recall, were you one of the many conservatives who was online here screaming that Bush would carry PA by a double-digit margin?


Santorum definitely picked up many Gore voters in 2000 because (A) Klink was painted as a an extreme left-winger (even though he wasn't), (B) Santorum had A LOT more money to get his name out than Klink did, and (C) there was a greater general focus on the Presidential race.


1) He is
2) His belief that there is no fundamental right to privacy and his statements to that effect reinforce that he's an extremist.


Casey isn't as battle-tested as Santorum.  That is true.  But he also doesn't bear the scars that Santorum does.  Seriously ... what are you going to hit him with?  And Santorum already has the Penn Hills-Home Schooling scandal sitting on him.


Not towing the party line on one or two votes isn't going to win things for Santorum.  You are right that Casey will have to do a great job of defining himself though before the GOP defines him.


WRONG.  Santorum is decidedly anti-labor and PA is very much a pro-labor state.  Casey is much closer in line with PA's economics.


On social issues its a lot closer than you think it is.  And that NRA endorsement helps in the middle of the state but not so much in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia.


Out of state, definitely Santorum.  In state, slightly Santorum.  Casey's name opens A LOT of doors for him.


You are also forgetting another key.  He's a moderate.  PA loves moderates.


That's an easy-dodge issue.  The judges being filibustered aren't being filibustered for their pro-life positions.  They are being filibustered for at least 1 of these 3 reasons:

1) Their anti-civil rights positions
2) Their general lack of experience
3) Their general corruption

I can say this ... early on I was big on the idea of Chris Heinz running.  And he still may make a run at a seat in the House (and in 6 years for what will certainly be an empty seat when Specter retires).  But I can tell you with 99.999% certainty that Chris Heinz IS NOT going to run.  He is in tightly with the party leadership.  They handpicked Casey.  They don't want ANYONE to oppose him in the primary.  If Heinz were to do that he'd be shooting himself in the foot for getting their support in the future AND he'd likely lose.

This wasn't a shot at you.  I picked a state at random.  It could have been California or Virginia or Utah or Montana.

Make that "Casey +1"....


By David M. Brown
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, March 22, 2005

A strong challenge to U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's 2006 re-election bid is taking shape as a new Pittsburgh Tribune-Review poll shows the incumbent Republican running neck-and-neck with Democratic state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr.  The statewide Keystone Poll shows Casey, who has announced he will oppose Santorum, edging the two-term incumbent senator by 44 percent to 43 percent -- a statistical dead heat -- among 459 registered voters, with 13 percent undecided. The survey released Monday has a margin for error of 4.6 percentage points.

"These candidates start out relatively even," said Keystone Poll Director G. Terry Madonna. "This is the marquee Senate race in the country next year, and it's going to be an old-fashioned barn-burner."

"Everybody expects it to be hard-fought and very competitive," he said

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_315859.html

Wouldn't that be +1?

This poll, by the way, seems much more in line with reality than the previous two.

Yeah, WTF was I thinking?

Anyway, here is what a PA resident I spoke with today had to say about this poll....

"You're right, Terry Madonna is one of the best, if not the best, pollsters in the state. He had Kerry winning PA very close to the actual margin." - member at another forum.

I trust this poll much more than any of the recent polls put out by the DSCC.

Ever think it may be a Richard Mellon-Scaife bias CONSIDERING HE OWNS THE FREAKIN' PAPER AND IS RABIDLY REPUBLICAN!!!  Consider the source before you make such comments.

Franklin and Marshall College conducted the poll.  I spoke with a PA Democrat at DU today and he had this to say...

"Franklin and Marshall College has an excellent repuation in the state of PA."

"Terry Madonna is one of the best, if not the best, pollsters in the state. He had Kerry winning PA very close to the actual margin."

Hehe.. WHOOPS!  I seen Pitt Tribune-Review and that bastard Mellon Scaife came up. 

I don't think the poll has a pro-GOP bias, since it also shows Rendell leading Swann by 30% (59-29).

Hmmm. Interesting. I could believe it.

I won't trust a poll from the DSCC and I won't trust a poll with a tiny sample.

Election is too far away to read anything inta polls. Chill all of you 8)

Whoa .... as a Steelers fan I love Swann for what he did on the field.  But by no means do I think being a great WR qualifies him to be Gov.

Yes, acctually.  He made several speeches all accross western PA for Bush in 04.  He was quite polished and could speak to working class audiences just as well as he could wealthy donors.


I wouls say that about 40% of PAers are Steelers fans, or, at leasty, follow the team as equally as they follow, say, the Eagles.  The only area where his backround might hurt him is Erie, where about 1/3 of the fans are Browns fans.

Even though this wouldn't and shouldn't put him over tha top, it still gives him needed name recongnition, which none of the other GOP candidates have.


This argument acctually helps the case for Swann.  He is polling 42-46% and has not even reached out to the eastern half of the state yet.  Only room to grow there.


This would have worked in 2002, definatly, but Schweiker has lost big name status.  Also, I think he means it when he says he is out of politics for good.  If he really wanted to be elected governor, 2002 was the time, he could have easily won.

40% of Pennsylvanians are not Steelers fans.  Perhaps 40% of football fans in Pennsylvania are Steelers fans, but only maybe one-third of Americans are footballs fans (a bare majority of men plus a small minority of women).   And half of those Steeler fans are too young to be fans of the Lynn Swann era Steelers.  So only about 5% of PA voters could really be described as "1970's Pittsburgh Steeler fans."

And in the latest Franklin & Marshall poll, Swann is polling at 29%, not 42-46%.

Obviously, you have never been to Western Pennsylvania during the football season if you think that only "a bare majority of men and a small minority of women" are Steelers fans.  Its like a religion here.  It is like being a Mormon is Utah.  If you aren't, your in the minority.  What is more is that the average Steelers fan identifies with the team.  Whereas most other fans would say:

"The Jets are having a bad year".

we say

"We are having a bad year".

You cannot imagine how many times I have been yelled at by non-Steelers fans for saying "we" when I talk about the team.

Almost everyone I know, men and women, are crazed fans during the season.

I hope you don't think that's the amount he would get in an actual race. Once he gets more active his numbers will go up.

Santorum flip flops on death penalty now

He's reconsidering his position and it's not a flip flop because it wouldn't help him in any way in an election.

thats complete bs. yes it is a flip flop.

The last Keystone Poll on the 2004 Presidential Race had Kerry up 51%-46%.

The actual totals were Kerry 51%-48%.

Don't get me wrong, I trust SurveyUSA, but typically only right before elections.  Quinnipiac was also decent in 2004, but about as good the Keystone poll.

My gut tells me that if the election were held today, Casey would probably win by 2-4%. 

However, considering we are over a year and half from the election, I wouldn't necessarily read too much into that.

I think both campaigns can probably count on about 43-45% of the vote respectively.  However, it will be whoever reaches that remaining 10-14% or so as to who will win.

One thing's for sure, this will certainly be a very close race, imo.

A flip flop is done mainly for political purposes and a changing of his position on the death penalty wouldn't help him with any voters here.

If Casey is +7 in PA, this is the end of Santorum and Republicans should be worried.  If Rossi is +3 in WA, Cantwell should be feeling good because Rossi will lose that early race momentum.

This double-standard doesn't make sense to me at all...

Cool. 8) Although Utah can't be that hard to predict...

A Tribune Review (a radical facist newspaper around here) poll shows Casey ahead by 1%.

Really? Why doesn't this surprise me?

This means nothing, Grassley led Art Small by 82% in most polls in September 2004 and only won 60%. :)

I remember Gerlach being up 59-20 on a poll taken during the summer and he won by only 6,000 votes

Gerlach should have easily won that race. I still can't believe Murphy came within two points of beating him. How embarassing. Now he has to watch out in 2006.

Yeah, Art Small. His campaign was a joke.

He was a good guy who knew he would lose. The Grassley-Small Debates were a riot! :)

Don't give me that bullsh**t.  I read the Trib because their editorial and oppinion pages acctually cover both sides, as opposed to the Post-Gazette which has its editorial page on the front page and a propaganda page where the editorial and opinion sections should be.

Grassley won 70% not 60%...you call yourself an Iowan!

They never report anything in Iowa. I saw the numbers only once. :p