Pennsylvania 2000

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I just noticed that in the presidential race, Gore won the state 50.60%-46.43%. However, Pennsylvania reelected Rick Santorum to the Senate 52.41%-45.51%.

This surprised me because I thought, if anything, it ought to have been the other way around; I can see how someone could vote for both Bush and Ron Klink (Santorum's opponent, who I think was a conservative Democrat), but not how someone could vote for both Gore and Santorum. And if every Santorum voter also voted for Bush (which, again, is what could have been expected), the latter wouldn't even need to worry about Florida (the election would have been 269-268 Bush if PA and FL were swapped, and Bush would have won in the House).

So what kind of person would be a Gore/Santorum voter?

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

So what kind of person would be a Gore/Santorum voter?

Socially conservative union member.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

So what kind of person would be a Gore/Santorum voter?

Perhaps people who thought that Santorum would be the superior senator to Klink, and that Gore would be the superior president to Bush? Not everyone can be classified.

That's obvious. But why would anyone think that way?

[Joe Republic]

So what kind of person would be a Gore/Santorum voter?

Ew, gross.  Somebody who's into really kinky sex, presumably.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Some people basically just like the incumbent, except when the economy sucks or there's been some scandal.

These are the last people whose votes we should be thinking of in terms of "quadrant"-type complex combinations of preferences on discrete issues.

[Kevin]

PA also has a history of ticket-splitting. This would be quite evident if one were to go and look at past election results in the state.

[Devils30]

Eastern PA was very Republican at the local/congressional level until the 2000s and still is to a lesser extent today.

[Del Tachi]

Presidential and Senate elections draw completely different audiences.

Presidential elections, since they receive more publicity, tend to attract voters who don't keep up with politics very much.  These are the kinds of people that vote only every four years.  Examples of these voters include inner-city minorities, young people, college students, the undereducated, couch potatoes, and those who's first language is not English (the foreign-born).  However, when these people do vote they vote for Democrats.  This explains Gore's victory in the 2000 presidential election in Pennsylvania.

In the Senate it is a completely different matter.  Americans who keep up with Congressional, Senatorial, and gubernatorial elections tend to be much more well-versed in issues regarding politics and public policy.  They tend to be older, either married with children at home or empty-nesters, well-educated, wealtheir, and "Whiter".  They also tend to attend religious services more regularly (at least in 2000 PA).   When these people turn out to vote, they do not vote as Democratic as the less politically-involved.  This explains Santorum's narrow Senate victory in 2000.

Presidential and Senatorial elections have two completely different demographics.

Also, the presence of 3rd party candidates could have something to do with it...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This is why I could never understand why "swing" voters vote the way they do, and how they would vote for one person to one office, and then a completely different person with totally opposing views to another.

Inner-city blacks in Philly and Pittsburgh don't pay attention to Senate elections!  They just turned out to vote for Gore and Gore only...

That's definitely a possibility.

[Guderian]

So what kind of person would be a Gore/Santorum voter?

Socially conservative union member.

Thread end.

[minionofmidas]

Somebody do a comparison map of Santorum vs Bush and post it here, please.

[RI]

Somebody do a comparison map of Santorum vs Bush and post it here, please.

Darker blue is where Santorum ran most ahead of Bush. Red is where Klink ran ahead of Gore. Scale is in 1% increments.

Clearly Klink didn't play well in suburban Philly (his social conservatism I believe was part of the cause) and Eastern PA.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He was an obscure congresscritter from the Pittsburgh suburbs running against an incumbent who was still basically uncontroversial. Doesn't that answer everything?

[King]

Gay marriage was not an issue in 2000 so Santorum had no opportunity to declare himself a bigot yet.  He's a perfect GOP candidate for Pennsylvania otherwise.

[nclib]

So what kind of person would be a Gore/Santorum voter?

Socially conservative union member.

Thread end.

Not disagreeing, but the irony is that such voters nationwide tend to go GOP at the top of the ticket and Dem downballot.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

While socially conservative union members may be a part of the answer in places like the Lehigh Valley, Berks and the Luzern/Lackawanna area. Certainly the most important factor would be Socially Moderate Republicans in the SE voting Gore/Santorum. I beleive it has been posted on here somewhere about how Santorum's campaign or some other group made a strong effort to educate and inform those voters just how pro-life Klink was.

On the comparison map, look at all the dark blues in the Montco, Delaware, Bucks and Chester.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most people from the east of the state had probably never heard of Klink before and wouldn't have known much more by election day. Downballot race ffs.

[IceSpear]

I was about to make this thread, luckily I saw this one.

Some ticket splitters are easy to picture. Romney/Manchin. Obama/Collins. But...Gore/Santorum? Really?

The "socially conservative union member" thing doesn't make much sense when you consider the fact that the areas in which Santorum outperformed Bush were mostly eastern PA suburban counties which have a socially liberal slant (which is why the current incarnation of the GOP has alienated them). Not to mention that Ron Klink himself was a conservative Democrat. This was back when Bush was running as a "compassionate conservative" whereas Santorum was a proud bigot. If anything you'd expect Santorum to do better in Western PA and Bush in Eastern PA. Definitely a strange result.

[barfbag]

Ridge would've carried PA.

[sg0508]

Ridge would've carried PA.

I think you overrate that effect.  Bush was leading the ticket.  People vote for President.