Pennsylvania Senate 2004: Could Casey have beaten Specter?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If most Pennsylvanians feel the same way, why did they vote for Kerry?

those are two separate races. cant compare a senate race with a presidential race.

santorum was reelected in 2000, while gore carried the state. (by a bigger margin than kerry)

BRTD is just being his usual dumb self. He asks that question over and over even though I've given him the answer before - PA is a partisan state when it comes to Presidential races so you really can't compare it.

I was just responding to WalterMitty's claim that all Pennsylvanians agree with Santorum on social issues.

Of course that still doesn't explain what makes him the second most unpopular Senator in the country and the most unpopular until Burns fell behind. You haven't explained what caused this if he was so popular before, and Walter hasn't explained why this is if his views are so popular.

[Keystone Phil]

I was just responding to WalterMitty's claim that all Pennsylvanians agree with Santorum on social issues.

They do and the national Dems were smart enough to realize that. That's why they went with Casey. Why do you think the Casey name is popular? Casey Dems can win more easily statewide.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I honestly think a lot of it has to do with the hits he has taken with Casey as an opponent. He hasn't done anything outrageous since Casey has entered the race. It might not be seen as a logical conclusion but I do think that Casey's candidacy has to do with why Santorum's popularity has gone down.

Santorum's views are popular. Compare late 2004 Rick Santorum with mid 2005 Rick Santorum. People knew about his controversial comments back in 2004 and he was popular with low disapproval. 2005 Rick Santorum was suddenly an unpopular guy. His views didn't go any further to the right so you can't use his ideology against him. The reason why he has gone down is because of Casey and, to an extent, his closeness to the President.

[WalterMitty]

I was just responding to WalterMitty's claim that all Pennsylvanians agree with Santorum on social issues.

They do and the national Dems were smart enough to realize that. That's why they went with Casey. Why do you think the Casey name is popular? Casey Dems can win more easily statewide.

wasnt ron klink pro-life too?

[TeePee4Prez]

no, and he wont beat santorum either.

He will win against Santorum, not because of who he is & what he does, but because of who Santorum is & what he has done.

what has santorum done that is so bad?

sure, he has made some nutty remarks about abortion, gays and boston.  but let's not kid ourselves, most pennsylvanians feel the same way.  in fact, little casey probably feels the same way (especially about abortion)

Except Santorum is now the single most unpopular senator in the country.

If most Pennsylvanians feel the same way, why did they vote for Kerry?

those are two separate races. cant compare a senate race with a presidential race.

santorum was reelected in 2000, while gore carried the state. (by a bigger margin than kerry)

Santorum was reelected because liberal Dems split the primary with Allyson Schwartz in 2nd and Ron Klink was a populist dud who wasn't worth sh**t yet came in 1st because of the liberal split.  That's why Santorum won.

[TeePee4Prez]

I was just responding to WalterMitty's claim that all Pennsylvanians agree with Santorum on social issues.

They do and the national Dems were smart enough to realize that. That's why they went with Casey. Why do you think the Casey name is popular? Casey Dems can win more easily statewide.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I honestly think a lot of it has to do with the hits he has taken with Casey as an opponent. He hasn't done anything outrageous since Casey has entered the race. It might not be seen as a logical conclusion but I do think that Casey's candidacy has to do with why Santorum's popularity has gone down.

Santorum's views are popular. Compare late 2004 Rick Santorum with mid 2005 Rick Santorum. People knew about his controversial comments back in 2004 and he was popular with low disapproval. 2005 Rick Santorum was suddenly an unpopular guy. His views didn't go any further to the right so you can't use his ideology against him. The reason why he has gone down is because of Casey and, to an extent, his closeness to the President.

I don't think so.  Why was Rendell even more popular then?  The reason Santorum had at least ok approval ratings is because of the money he brought home, not his views.  It also took some time for his controversial views to sink in to the average Pennsylvanian.  Not everyone follows politics like we do.  Some people read the paper to find out Sports or Brangelina and might on occassion glance at Santorum.  It was only until recently Santorum started receiving front page coverage.

[Smash255]

I was just responding to WalterMitty's claim that all Pennsylvanians agree with Santorum on social issues.

They do and the national Dems were smart enough to realize that. That's why they went with Casey. Why do you think the Casey name is popular? Casey Dems can win more easily statewide.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I honestly think a lot of it has to do with the hits he has taken with Casey as an opponent. He hasn't done anything outrageous since Casey has entered the race. It might not be seen as a logical conclusion but I do think that Casey's candidacy has to do with why Santorum's popularity has gone down.

Santorum's views are popular. Compare late 2004 Rick Santorum with mid 2005 Rick Santorum. People knew about his controversial comments back in 2004 and he was popular with low disapproval. 2005 Rick Santorum was suddenly an unpopular guy. His views didn't go any further to the right so you can't use his ideology against him. The reason why he has gone down is because of Casey and, to an extent, his closeness to the President.

The opponent really doesn't impact wheter someone is likes or not, that person's actions is what determines that.

I will use an example from my state in the Govenor's Primary.  I am a big fan of Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi.  He has done a remarkable job of turing the county around and out of the mess the Gullota adminstration left the county.  i supported Suozzi in 01, though since I was away at college at the time I was registered to vote at my University & not in Nassau.  I voted for him last year  and donated to his re-election campaign (even though I knew he was a shoe-in for re-election).  the guy has done a remarkable job, I have a lot of admiration for what he has done, and I think he would make a great Govenor, against anyone else I would go for Suozzi.  Yet I am going to vote for Spitzer in the Primary.  By being in a Primary race against Spitzer it changes who I am going to vote for, but it doesn't change the fact that I really like Suozzi.

When you look at Santorum's #'s while they started to trend downward last year, but it it has really acceleated of late.  That has more to do with how close he is towards Bush than his opponent.

Also you have him making his dumb comments from time to time.  at first when he makes them someone may view those comments as just one individual comment, but as you get closer to an election (no matter who the opponent is) anyy controversial comments will get looked at more.  So instead of some of the things he has said and/ or done over the past few years being looked at indivdually they are now looked as a whole.  Keep in mind many people only pay attention near election times, so while they may have seen the reports and news stories on some of the dumb crap that Santorum has said/ done over the years, they may have not paid much attention to it, that or as I said looked at those things as just one stupid comment here one stupid comment there.  but now they lok at the whole picture and they may say to themeselves wow this guy really is a kook, he has really said a bunch of insane stuff.  Also while may say he isn't really any more conservative than he was 2 years ago, and I will say I pretty much agree with you on that point.  He might appear more conservative now than he was a couple years ago.  Again the point about people looking at things individually back then, and now looking at everything as a whole and they really do realize how far ro the right Santorum really is. 
Those are he things that have brought his approvals down, not who his opponent is.

[Keystone Phil]

Santorum was reelected because liberal Dems split the primary with Allyson Schwartz in 2nd and Ron Klink was a populist dud who wasn't worth sh**t yet came in 1st because of the liberal split.  That's why Santorum won.

Do you really think people paid that close of attention to that primary? Do you think that in a Presidential election year people stayed home because of who won the Senate primary? Do you think they voted for Santorum over Klink just because a liberal wasn't nominated? Sure, people could have skipped the office but that doesn't make up for the large Santorum margin of victory. People liked him so just accept it.

[Smash255]

Santorum was reelected because liberal Dems split the primary with Allyson Schwartz in 2nd and Ron Klink was a populist dud who wasn't worth sh**t yet came in 1st because of the liberal split.  That's why Santorum won.

Do you really think people paid that close of attention to that primary? Do you think that in a Presidential election year people stayed home because of who won the Senate primary? Do you think they voted for Santorum over Klink just because a liberal wasn't nominated? Sure, people could have skipped the office but that doesn't make up for the large Santorum margin of victory. People liked him so just accept it.

In his last bid Santorum was viewed as your average Republican, a right of center, but not far right Republican.  Now he is viewed as a far right Republican.  That has played a major role in his decline.

[Keystone Phil]

Santorum was reelected because liberal Dems split the primary with Allyson Schwartz in 2nd and Ron Klink was a populist dud who wasn't worth sh**t yet came in 1st because of the liberal split.  That's why Santorum won.

Do you really think people paid that close of attention to that primary? Do you think that in a Presidential election year people stayed home because of who won the Senate primary? Do you think they voted for Santorum over Klink just because a liberal wasn't nominated? Sure, people could have skipped the office but that doesn't make up for the large Santorum margin of victory. People liked him so just accept it.

In his last bid Santorum was viewed as your average Republican, a right of center, but not far right Republican.  Now he is viewed as a far right Republican.  That has played a major role in his decline.

Ok but we're not talking about right now. All I was saying is Flyers' reasoning is off, in my opinion.

[Smash255]

Santorum was reelected because liberal Dems split the primary with Allyson Schwartz in 2nd and Ron Klink was a populist dud who wasn't worth sh**t yet came in 1st because of the liberal split.  That's why Santorum won.

Do you really think people paid that close of attention to that primary? Do you think that in a Presidential election year people stayed home because of who won the Senate primary? Do you think they voted for Santorum over Klink just because a liberal wasn't nominated? Sure, people could have skipped the office but that doesn't make up for the large Santorum margin of victory. People liked him so just accept it.

In his last bid Santorum was viewed as your average Republican, a right of center, but not far right Republican.  Now he is viewed as a far right Republican.  That has played a major role in his decline.

Ok but we're not talking about right now. All I was saying is Flyers' reasoning is off, in my opinion.

His reasoning might be off a bit, but I think what he might be trying to get at is some people may have voted against Klink because of how angry they were with the Primary situation and may not have particular been fond of Klink.  Thats what I was getting at with my Santorum not being viewed as the far right candidate he is seen as now back then.  because of the resentment you may have seen more of a split ticket voting between Gore/ Santorum than you otherwise would have especially in suburban Philly where both Gore & Santorum did quite well. 

So while Flyers may be on something to a point, i don't think it would have impacted the result of the race.  Santorum wasn't viewed as being as far right back then and Klink was just a brutal canddiate

[Keystone Phil]

His reasoning might be off a bit, but I think what he might be trying to get at is some people may have voted against Klink because of how angry they were with the Primary situation and may not have particular been fond of Klink.  Thats what I was getting at with my Santorum not being viewed as the far right candidate he is seen as now back then.  because of the resentment you may have seen more of a split ticket voting between Gore/ Santorum than you otherwise would have especially in suburban Philly where both Gore & Santorum did quite well.

Liberals are going to vote for Santorum over Klink just because of the primary? You are delusional. If they're that serious about liberalism, they'd never vote for Santorum, regardless of whether he was a "far right winger" or just a conservative. People don't vote for someone of a totally opposite ideology just because of a failed primary candidate, fool. 

[Smash255]

His reasoning might be off a bit, but I think what he might be trying to get at is some people may have voted against Klink because of how angry they were with the Primary situation and may not have particular been fond of Klink.  Thats what I was getting at with my Santorum not being viewed as the far right candidate he is seen as now back then.  because of the resentment you may have seen more of a split ticket voting between Gore/ Santorum than you otherwise would have especially in suburban Philly where both Gore & Santorum did quite well.

Liberals are going to vote for Santorum over Klink just because of the primary? You are delusional. If they're that serious about liberalism, they'd never vote for Santorum, regardless of whether he was a "far right winger" or just a conservative. People don't vote for someone of a totally opposite ideology just because of a failed primary candidate, fool. 

Where in my post did I say liberals??  The point I was simply making was that their were probably some voters especially in suburban Philly that really did not like Klink, would have voted for Schwartz, but voted for Santorum who they basically viewed as the lesser of two evils..  Klink just really rubbed some people the wrong way.  This in part explains my dad's vote in the 04 Presidential race.  he is an independent, but leans liberal on most issues, voted for Gore in 2000, but Bush in 04, didn't really like Bush, would have voted for most other Democrats over Bush, but even though he was closer in idealogy to Kerry than Bush something abou Kerry really rubbed him the wrong way and he voted for Bush.  Which is now a vote he regrets.  thats what I was trying to get at.  that their were probably voters in 2000 who may have not thought much about Santorum or had mixed feelings on him, woukld have voted for most other Democrats over Santorum, but something about Klink just rubbed them the wrong way and they voted for Santorum, but at the time didn't realize how far to the right Santroum really is and regrets that vote. 

[TeePee4Prez]

His reasoning might be off a bit, but I think what he might be trying to get at is some people may have voted against Klink because of how angry they were with the Primary situation and may not have particular been fond of Klink.  Thats what I was getting at with my Santorum not being viewed as the far right candidate he is seen as now back then.  because of the resentment you may have seen more of a split ticket voting between Gore/ Santorum than you otherwise would have especially in suburban Philly where both Gore & Santorum did quite well.

Liberals are going to vote for Santorum over Klink just because of the primary? You are delusional. If they're that serious about liberalism, they'd never vote for Santorum, regardless of whether he was a "far right winger" or just a conservative. People don't vote for someone of a totally opposite ideology just because of a failed primary candidate, fool. 

Where in my post did I say liberals??  The point I was simply making was that their were probably some voters especially in suburban Philly that really did not like Klink, would have voted for Schwartz, but voted for Santorum who they basically viewed as the lesser of two evils..  Klink just really rubbed some people the wrong way.  This in part explains my dad's vote in the 04 Presidential race.  he is an independent, but leans liberal on most issues, voted for Gore in 2000, but Bush in 04, didn't really like Bush, would have voted for most other Democrats over Bush, but even though he was closer in idealogy to Kerry than Bush something abou Kerry really rubbed him the wrong way and he voted for Bush.  Which is now a vote he regrets.  thats what I was trying to get at.  that their were probably voters in 2000 who may have not thought much about Santorum or had mixed feelings on him, woukld have voted for most other Democrats over Santorum, but something about Klink just rubbed them the wrong way and they voted for Santorum, but at the time didn't realize how far to the right Santroum really is and regrets that vote. 

BINGO!!!!  Ron Klink had a virtually dead Southeastern PA campaign and basically conceded the Philly suburbs to Santorum while focusing on the populist West.  Had Allyson Schwartz been the nominee, that would not have been the case and she would have beaten Santorum in Montgomery and Delaware counties, a very good shot in Bucks, and reduced Santorum's incredible margin in Chester.  At the same time she would have taken some minor spills in western PA, but the Southeast would have made up for it.  Ron Klink also had sh**t for fundraising.  Again, that would not have been the case with Schwartz.

And Smash is right, Santorum was viewed as a right of center Republican with a massive fundraising advantage over Klink.  He was seen in a better light back then because people saw a dashing, young Senator with 6 kids and his views weren't an issue.  He also focused more on common sense issues such as welfare reform and responsible fatherhood, which even to moderate liberals such as myself, are good talking points.  I even have to admit, he is one good orator.  Since that election, the crap out of his mouth has hurt him and his approvals started to tank after the DN and Inquirer pummeled him.  I don't know if that will still be the case now that Religious Reich Wing lackey Brian Tierney took over.       

[Keystone Phil]

Since that election, the crap out of his mouth has hurt him and his approvals started to tank after the DN and Inquirer pummeled him.

They went after him after the gay comments and his approval rating stayed the same. There were many times when you'd have people believe that he was hated statewide when his ratings were better than Specter's and Rendell's.

[TeePee4Prez]

Since that election, the crap out of his mouth has hurt him and his approvals started to tank after the DN and Inquirer pummeled him.

They went after him after the gay comments and his approval rating stayed the same. There were many times when you'd have people believe that he was hated statewide when his ratings were better than Specter's and Rendell's.

If you think Santorum is well liked in PA, you're delusional.  Overall, this is a left-of-center state and you know full well his views fit Utah or Alabama better.

[Keystone Phil]

If you think Santorum is well liked in PA, you're delusional.  Overall, this is a left-of-center state and you know full well his views fit Utah or Alabama better.

He most certainly was well liked in this state when you were saying he was hated (2004). This is not a left of center state either. If it was, you'd win statewide offices easier. I won't even bother bringing up other races because you'll cry, as always, about "Johnnymandering."

[TeePee4Prez]

If you think Santorum is well liked in PA, you're delusional.  Overall, this is a left-of-center state and you know full well his views fit Utah or Alabama better.

He most certainly was well liked in this state when you were saying he was hated (2004). This is not a left of center state either. If it was, you'd win statewide offices easier. I won't even bother bringing up other races because you'll cry, as always, about "Johnnymandering."

Then why are a lot of State House and Senate seats that are vulnerable and open Dem favored?  We have the 152nd and 170th, which is a hop skip and jump from our houses, both likely to flip to the Dems.  You also have the 6th Congressional, which was custom made for Jim Gerlach, almost a certain flip.  The 8th Congressional is very likely even against a popular incumbent and now even the 7th against a very entrenched incumbent. 

You also have to look closely at the stats on each district.  The Democratic districts are much more Democratic than the Republicans are Republican and that's why you see a lot of vulnerabilities statewide in your party due to a national shift. 

[bullmoose88]

If you think Santorum is well liked in PA, you're delusional.  Overall, this is a left-of-center state and you know full well his views fit Utah or Alabama better.

He most certainly was well liked in this state when you were saying he was hated (2004). This is not a left of center state either. If it was, you'd win statewide offices easier. I won't even bother bringing up other races because you'll cry, as always, about "Johnnymandering."

Then why are a lot of State House and Senate seats that are vulnerable and open Dem favored?  We have the 152nd and 170th, which is a hop skip and jump from our houses, both likely to flip to the Dems.  You also have the 6th Congressional, which was custom made for Jim Gerlach, almost a certain flip.  The 8th Congressional is very likely even against a popular incumbent and now even the 7th against a very entrenched incumbent. 

You also have to look closely at the stats on each district.  The Democratic districts are much more Democratic than the Republicans are Republican and that's why you see a lot of vulnerabilities statewide in your party due to a national shift. 

If the dems are going to retake control in PA, now is the time. Lots of anti-bush, anti-hard right sentiment.

Come 2008 and a possible shift at the top of the national ticket (say with a McCain/Guliani other centrist), the GOP could and might refashion itself into a SE PA suburb winner.

[Keystone Phil]

Then why are a lot of State House and Senate seats that are vulnerable and open Dem favored?  We have the 152nd and 170th, which is a hop skip and jump from our houses, both likely to flip to the Dems.  You also have the 6th Congressional, which was custom made for Jim Gerlach, almost a certain flip.  The 8th Congressional is very likely even against a popular incumbent and now even the 7th against a very entrenched incumbent.

That's SE PA, not the whole state. If you have to look to gains around here as a sign that PA is "center left" then you are really pathetic.

[Smash255]

Then why are a lot of State House and Senate seats that are vulnerable and open Dem favored?  We have the 152nd and 170th, which is a hop skip and jump from our houses, both likely to flip to the Dems.  You also have the 6th Congressional, which was custom made for Jim Gerlach, almost a certain flip.  The 8th Congressional is very likely even against a popular incumbent and now even the 7th against a very entrenched incumbent.

That's SE PA, not the whole state. If you have to look to gains around here as a sign that PA is "center left" then you are really pathetic.

Taking the entire state into consideration I would say PA as a whole is slightly left of center.  The hard left shift in the Philly burbs pushed it as a hole from dead center to slightly left of center.  I don't know if I would say center-left, but it is slightly left of center.

[Keystone Phil]

Taking the entire state into consideration I would say PA as a whole is slightly left of center.  The hard left shift in the Philly burbs pushed it as a hole from dead center to slightly left of center.  I don't know if I would say center-left, but it is slightly left of center.

Hack,

SE PA is not "hard left." Secondly, without SE PA, this state is not "dead center." If anything, PA is slightly right of center. You're so delusional.

[TeePee4Prez]

Taking the entire state into consideration I would say PA as a whole is slightly left of center.  The hard left shift in the Philly burbs pushed it as a hole from dead center to slightly left of center.  I don't know if I would say center-left, but it is slightly left of center.

Hack,

SE PA is not "hard left." Secondly, without SE PA, this state is not "dead center." If anything, PA is slightly right of center. You're so delusional.

Southeast Penn is not hard left, but the suburbs did take a turn left over the past 20 years.  I meant to say left of center.  Bit of a semantic gaffe on my part.  Even Cook and Sabato say we're left of center, probably about -2 econ, 0 social.  The Southeast leftward shift is also countered by the Pittsburgh area's rightward shift with economic liberals and union people leaving the area and the new basis of their economy being finance, technology, and medical.

[Keystone Phil]

Taking the entire state into consideration I would say PA as a whole is slightly left of center.  The hard left shift in the Philly burbs pushed it as a hole from dead center to slightly left of center.  I don't know if I would say center-left, but it is slightly left of center.

Hack,

SE PA is not "hard left." Secondly, without SE PA, this state is not "dead center." If anything, PA is slightly right of center. You're so delusional.

Southeast Penn is not hard left, but the suburbs did take a turn left over the past 20 years.  I meant to say left of center.  Bit of a semantic gaffe on my part.  Even Cook and Sabato say we're left of center, probably about -2 econ, 0 social.  The Southeast leftward shift is also countered by the Pittsburgh area's rightward shift with economic liberals and union people leaving the area and the new basis of their economy being finance, technology, and medical.

The SE is not nearly populated enough to give the whole state a dead center social rating. I guess we just won't agree on this point.

[TeePee4Prez]

Taking the entire state into consideration I would say PA as a whole is slightly left of center.  The hard left shift in the Philly burbs pushed it as a hole from dead center to slightly left of center.  I don't know if I would say center-left, but it is slightly left of center.

Hack,

SE PA is not "hard left." Secondly, without SE PA, this state is not "dead center." If anything, PA is slightly right of center. You're so delusional.

Southeast Penn is not hard left, but the suburbs did take a turn left over the past 20 years.  I meant to say left of center.  Bit of a semantic gaffe on my part.  Even Cook and Sabato say we're left of center, probably about -2 econ, 0 social.  The Southeast leftward shift is also countered by the Pittsburgh area's rightward shift with economic liberals and union people leaving the area and the new basis of their economy being finance, technology, and medical.

The SE is not nearly populated enough to give the whole state a dead center social rating. I guess we just won't agree on this point.

The center part of the state is just not as conservative as everyone thinks save South Central PA.  Kerry did much better in the "T" than the non-black areas of Mississippi and Alabama.  I also don't think Northeastern PA is socially conservative at all, but it's not Berkeley either.  I would say a dead center social rating is warranted for PA considering the fact it's more pro-choice than the national average, a smidge more pro-gun, and slightly left on gay marriage/civil unions.  I would even go as far as a -0.5 social PC score which is a razor thin margin left of center. 

[Keystone Phil]

The center part of the state is just not as conservative as everyone thinks save South Central PA.  Kerry did much better in the "T" than the non-black areas of Mississippi and Alabama.  I also don't think Northeastern PA is socially conservative at all, but it's not Berkeley either.  I would say a dead center social rating is warranted for PA considering the fact it's more pro-choice than the national average, a smidge more pro-gun, and slightly left on gay marriage/civil unions.  I would even go as far as a -0.5 social PC score which is a razor thin margin left of center. 

The NE isn't socially conservative at all? Are you kidding? We're slightly left on gay issues? You are crazy!