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.
