Bob Casey

[memphis]

Hindsight is 20/20.

The Democrats played it safe.  I genuinely think that was the right thing to do at the time.  Even if a more liberal candidate could have won in the end, the Democrats didn't know that when Casey was nominated.  It may have been the right decision, but it would have been a foolish one to make.

^^^^^^

Also, a guaranteed victory was a much needed break for the Dems financially as they didn't need to put as much money in the race as they would have for a liberal candidate. Also, a 20 point victory makes for a prettier map.

[memphis]

Though not closely related, I needed to find a place to put this - Casey aiming to be a bipartisan Senator - http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_482485.html

Yeah, and Bush promised to be "a uniter, not a divider." Talk is cheap. I'll believe it when I see it.

[memphis]

I agree with Flyers on this.  Hoeffel would have defeated santorum, and close to the 8-10 range Flyers predicted.  It obviously would have been closer, but the difference between hoeffel and Casey is not going to make up an 18 point margin, nor it will make up 14 points. 

Doing some math for a minute outside of the Philly metro area (Phill, montco, Delaware, Chester & Bucks) Casey won by 8.8%.  Assuming that with Hoffel on the ticket the Metro Philly area puts up similar #'s as it did with Casey, Santorum would have needed to win the rest of the state by 17 points in order to make for his loses in SEPA..  In 2004 Bush won the rest of the state by just higher than half that 9%.  So in order to beat Hoffel, Santorum would have had to almost DOUBLE the margin outside of SEPA that Bush had 2 years earlier.  Umm no.

Hoeffel still would have won PA,  but the DSCC would have had to give Hoeffel more money because it would have been more competitive. As evidenced by vote totals, we needed every penny in VA, MT, and MO. I'd rather have a Democratic majority with a moderate Dem in PA than a Republican majority with a liberal Dem from PA.