Rothenberg Initial 2016 Senate ratings

[IceSpear]

Blunt and Coats are not safe if it turns out to be a good D year.

[IceSpear]

Hagan lost to Thom Tillis. How would she win against someone much less hated than Mr. Tillis?

Political climate can neutralize and often overpower candidate quality. In fact, Tillis winning is proof of that.

I wouldn't call it a toss up though, at least not right now. All else being equal, Burr will have the advantage. But even in a modestly good year for Dems, he'd be in trouble.

[IceSpear]

Blunt and Coats are not safe if it turns out to be a good D year.

I was thinking that too, but there'd need to be a strong candidate and I don't know if the Ds have any.

What about Kander and Zweifel in Missouri? Bayh and Ellsworth in Indiana?

[IceSpear]

Pennsylvania tilting R in a presidential year with generic R Toomey? Right.

Santorum (R): wins by only two points in massive GOP wave. Up for re-election in a Presidential. Won the state by more than Gore (D) did at the same time. And no, the Dem wasn't some horribly weak candidate. This has been disproven enough times.

He actually was though. He was a terrible fundraiser and got vastly outspent. He performed absolutely terribly in Eastern PA (he even lost Delco for god's sake!) and didn't exactly have an impressing showing in his home turf of Western PA either. I mean, good lord, the guy didn't run a single television ad in the Philadelphia media market! That's something you expect from a some dude perennial candidate, not a member of the House that was supposed to be in a competitive race. Klink was absolutely awful.

[IceSpear]

Pennsylvania tilting R in a presidential year with generic R Toomey? Right.

Santorum (R): wins by only two points in massive GOP wave. Up for re-election in a Presidential. Won the state by more than Gore (D) did at the same time. And no, the Dem wasn't some horribly weak candidate. This has been disproven enough times.

He actually was though. He was a terrible fundraiser and got vastly outspent. He performed absolutely terribly in Eastern PA (he even lost Delco for god's sake!) and didn't exactly have an impressing showing in his home turf of Western PA either. I mean, good lord, the guy didn't run a single television ad in the Philadelphia media market! That's something you expect from a some dude perennial candidate, not a member of the House that was supposed to be in a competitive race. Klink was absolutely awful.

He didn't perform terribly in the east and a Dem losing Delco in those days wasn't uncommon. Remember how different the SE counties were back then. Many moderate and liberal Republicans still generally stuck with the GOP (yes, even for Santorum). 

He had a very good performance out west especially when you consider the incumbent Senator was from out there as well. Klink won most of the counties around Pittsburgh.

And I never, ever heard that Klink didn't run a single ad in the Philly market. I'm genuinely intrigued by that statement. I only vaguely remember the other/non-Presidential ads from that you. I distinctly recall a particular Santorum ad. But I find it hard to believe that Klink didn't run anything down here.

Yes, it was definitely different back in 2000, but it was in the process of changing. Gore carried Delco and Montco by double digits. Klink underperformed so badly because of two reasons: one, the aforementioned lack of advertising in the Philadelphia media market. Many people from the SE probably had no idea who he was. He had absolutely no presence in the region, since he won the primary against Schwartz/Foley by dominating in Western PA. Secondly, because he gave the quintessential "socially liberal/fiscally conservative moderate" in the suburbs no reason to vote for him, since he was a SoCon. Dems were too busy trying to lock down Western PA, to their detriment. And remember that this was before Santorum was known as being a bomb thrower. Everyone always knew he was very conservative, but it wasn't until the "man on dog" interview in 2003 that he became known as "that guy obsessed with gay people". So in a race between two SoCons, of course the socially liberal/fiscally conservative people were going to stick with Santorum.

Here's my source:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And regardless, whatever one thinks of Klink, it can't be denied Sestak is a much stronger candidate.

[IceSpear]

And remember that this was before Santorum was known as being a bomb thrower. Everyone always knew he was very conservative, but it wasn't until the "man on dog" interview in 2003 that he became known as "that guy obsessed with gay people".

Does this not demonstrate Phil's point that Toomey has a better chance at reelection than he is given credit for?

Given credit for by who? Nobody is saying that Toomey is doomed or is even an underdog. People calling the race "lean R" like Charlie Cook are most certainly overrating him though (I could understand "tilt R" at this early stage, however).

And you can't just quote one part of my post and ignore the rest. Yes, that fact contributes to why Toomey is a better candidate than Santorum. I never denied this. But the main topic over the past few posts has been about how the Democrats will also have a much stronger candidate.

[IceSpear]

And remember that this was before Santorum was known as being a bomb thrower. Everyone always knew he was very conservative, but it wasn't until the "man on dog" interview in 2003 that he became known as "that guy obsessed with gay people".

Does this not demonstrate Phil's point that Toomey has a better chance at reelection than he is given credit for?

Given credit for by who? Nobody is saying that Toomey is doomed or is even an underdog. People calling the race "lean R" like Charlie Cook are most certainly overrating him though (I could understand "tilt R" at this early stage, however).

And you can't just quote one part of my post and ignore the rest. Yes, that fact contributes to why Toomey is a better candidate than Santorum. I never denied this. But the main topic over the past few posts has been about how the Democrats will also have a much stronger candidate.

Right, I've never argued that Sestak would be anywhere near Klink territory. But my point is that Toomey is no Santorum who, while not making infamous comments in 2000, was still targeted by Dems and polarizing.

And don't be foolish, my friend: plenty of people say the Dem/Sestak will be favored because "Toomey only won by two in a GOP wave midterm." I'm demonstrating why it's still possible for him to win by a reasonably comfortable margin. Sure, his opponent won't be Klink-esque but he's personally better positioned than even pre-super controversial Santorum.

And your point about Klink not running a single ad here might not be totally accurate since it mentions he wasn't on air three weeks out, not that he never went on at all. Don't get me wrong, that's still horrible but it isn't exactly what you presented.

Well then we both agree on that point.

I'm sure some people say Sestak will win easily for that overly simplistic reason, but some people say anything. The initial poster that sparked this debate expressed skepticism of the tilt R rating, which is fair, since the race could certainly be considered a toss up too. At least on the forum, I don't ever recall anyone rating the race as "lean D/likely D" or whatever. Although it wouldn't particularly surprise me if a certain android did.

Here's confirmation he never ran a single ad there.

[IceSpear]

Interesting fact about Klink's lack of ads in the SE. I'll take your word for it since I won't be scanning the entire "Pennsylvania Elections" book.

You sure the DSCC didn't invest anything at all? (They'd be very foolish to have within the final weeks but nothing at all earlier that Fall would be shocking. I don't think they conceded the race that early.)

According to this the DSCC aired ads there but pulled out towards the end. Most polls actually showed Santorum ahead by double digits, so the fact that it ended up relatively "close" was probably a surprise to many people.