Casey +7

[AuH2O]

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.

[AuH2O]

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.
 

[AuH2O]

and Casey has not staked out ground on gay marriage so far as I am aware.

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.

[AuH2O]

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

[AuH2O]

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...

[AuH2O]

Wouldn't that be +1?

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