which is a bigger liability

[freepcrusher]

- Romney's 17 point loss in a U.S. senate race in one of the best GOP years in recent memory (albeit against an incumbent senator)

OR

- Santorum's loss by an equal margin as an incumbent, BUT in one of the worst GOP years in recent memory.

of course, most of the people in the primaries don't care about this and the people pointing this out were never going to vote for those two guys anyways.

[TomC]

Unfortunately Santorum's but only because it is more recent.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Romney lost in Massachusetts, Santorum lost in a swing state.

[Oakvale]

Just a correction, Santorum actually lost by 23 points, not 17, so it makes sense that that defeat would be more of a liability.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Santorum's loss.  It's not like he was ever a terrible fit for Pennsylvania, and he was rejected big time in 2006.  He got wrecked in every part of the state that ISN'T a desolate hellhole.  

In Romney's defense, he was running against a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

[RI]

In Romney's defense, he was running against a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

In Santorum's defense, he was running against a Casey in Pennsylvania.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In Romney's defense, he was running against a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

In Santorum's defense, he was running against a Casey in Pennsylvania.

For an incumbent Senator that could defend against a single- or perhaps a lowish double-digit loss, but Santorum lost by 29 points.

[RI]

Ok, obviously a Kennedy is going to win big in Massachusetts. Romney would have probably lost by 25 in a neutral year. But the Casey family is pretty darn big in PA. His father was a hero for many social conservatives in the state as well as the working class. The biggest victory for the pro-life movement since Roe v. Wade was Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It doesn't excuse a lot of things, but being against a Casey probably shot Santorum down an extra 5-10 points in an already poor year for Republicans.

In Romney's defense, he was running against a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

In Santorum's defense, he was running against a Casey in Pennsylvania.

For an incumbent Senator that could defend against a single- or perhaps a lowish double-digit loss, but Santorum lost by 29 points.

Nathan, that meme's beneath you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ok, obviously a Kennedy is going to win big in Massachusetts. Romney would have probably lost by 25 in a neutral year. But the Casey family is pretty darn big in PA. His father was a hero for many social conservatives in the state as well as the working class. The biggest victory for the pro-life movement since Roe v. Wade was Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It doesn't excuse a lot of things, but being against a Casey probably shot Santorum down an extra 5-10 points in an already poor year for Republicans.

In Romney's defense, he was running against a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

In Santorum's defense, he was running against a Casey in Pennsylvania.

For an incumbent Senator that could defend against a single- or perhaps a lowish double-digit loss, but Santorum lost by 29 points.

Nathan, that meme's beneath you.

You'd be surprised.

In all seriousness, I entirely understand the clout of the Casey name and how badly it hurt Santorum; the 17-point loss, while damaging on paper (and hence probably damaging in reality to be quite honest, since most voters are not from Pennsylvania), really isn't markedly more horrible than one would expect considering the situation that Santorum was going into. And he had a good deal more integrity in that particular election cycle than did Romney, who oblated his Lieutenant Governor.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just a correction, Santorum actually lost by 23 points, not 17, so it makes sense that that defeat would be more of a liability.

17.36 according to Wikipedia

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

Just a correction, Santorum actually lost by 23 points, not 17, so it makes sense that that defeat would be more of a liability.

17.36 according to Wikipedia

Same on the Atlas's PA 2006 Senate results.

[Oakvale]

Someone needs to edit that wiki page quickly, that information must have been wrong for months.

[Napoleon]

Santorum made himself into a national punchline, so.......

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Vermin Supreme]

Santorum

[Torie]

Mittens won a race since he lost one, and Rick hasn't. That's the difference.

[nkpatel1279]

Nobody expected Romney to defeat Kennedy in 1994 who is a giant in the US Senate and MA politics. Regarding Santorum, he would have lost to Casey in a neutral environment but by a narrow/high single digit margin but defeated a generic Democratic challenger.

[Politico]

In Romney's defense, he was running against a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

In Santorum's defense, he was running against a Casey in Pennsylvania.

Ted Kennedy was, for better or worse, a national icon. Bob Casey is just the bald son of a famous Governor. Nobody outside of Pennsylvania knows him.

Furthermore, Romney's '94 campaign was almost solely funded by his own pocket. Santorum was the darling of K Street, and even those bucks couldn't keep him from joining George McGovern among the ranks of incumbent Senators who lost by nearly twenty points.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In Romney's defense, he was running against a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

In Santorum's defense, he was running against a Casey in Pennsylvania.

Ted Kennedy was, for better or worse, a national icon. Bob Casey is just the bald son of a famous Governor. Nobody outside of Pennsylvania knows him.

Nobody outside of Pennsylvania voted in the election in question.

[RI]

Sounds like Politico has a hair fetish or something.

[Napoleon]

In Romney's defense, he was running against a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

In Santorum's defense, he was running against a Casey in Pennsylvania.

Ted Kennedy was, for better or worse, a national icon. Bob Casey is just the bald son of a famous Governor. Nobody outside of Pennsylvania knows him.

Nobody outside of Pennsylvania voted in the election in question.

He still lost to a bald guy by 26 points.

[Keystone Phil]

Mittens won a race since he lost one, and Rick hasn't. That's the difference.

Rick has won four elections (two of which were statewide). Mitt has won one. That's the difference.

[BM]

I really doubt the Caseys are comparable to the Kennedys in Pennsylvania. I'm sure they're beloved but Kennedy is a national brand name and Ted ran for president. And there actually was a President Kennedy. More people are aware of national politicians than the political "heroes" confined to their own states.

And of course stating the obvious again, Massachusetts is a much more Democratic state. There's no comparison.

[mondale84]

And of course stating the obvious again, Massachusetts is a much more Democratic state. There's no comparison.

^
This. Santorum still lost by 35 points to a BALD guy...