Casey +7

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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?

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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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. 

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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. 

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

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).

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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. 

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

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.

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.

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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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%.