In Romney's defense, he was running against a Kennedy in Massachusetts.
In Santorum's defense, he was running against a Casey in Pennsylvania.
Can we not compare those two? One is much more recognizable than the other.
The Casey's are about as recognizable in PA to the Kennedy's. And Santorum lost in 2006, a viciously anti-GOP incumbent year (especially in PA). Romney lost in 1994 which was a good year even in MA and managed to throw away a lead in his Senate race.
You people are truly out of your mind if you think Santorum would have lost by nearly as much as he did against Casey against anyone else. Casey ran up margins of victory out west and in the central part of the state that no other Democrat could touch. Same in several Northeast counties. And don't give me the nonsense about a non-Casey doing better in the Southeast. Social liberals held their nose and voted for Casey; they didn't abstain. Casey and Rendell ran up almost identical vote totals in the SE.
