If this is true, that Casey's lead has shrunk to 47% to 44%, than Rick Santorum is the GOP's Harry Truman.
Spread the word to one's conservative brethren!
Nah, he'd have to get elected VP, ascend to the presidency, and nuke Iran.
THEN he'd be the GOP's Harry Truman.
Here's hoping that Santorum wins big and that Diana Irey rides his coattails!
Great News, but we aint where we should be yet.
I always expected Rick to close the gap, and I still like his chances. But don't kid yourself. He ain't exactly sittin' pretty.
Despite all of Rick's past problems, he has the power of incumbency, he has the momentum going into the fall, he is within five points of his opponent and his opponent is a putz. Rick will win.
Santorum is known for coming from behind, this wouldn't surprise me.
And every conservative/Republican needs to work their tails off near his area to get him across that line. If not in the area, donate to him.
Yes, I have said outright I want Chafee and DeWine to lose.
Not so Santorum. He deserves re-election. Get it done.
I have been saying for over a year that Casey won't beat Santorum. I'm sticking by my prediction of Santorum winning 52%-47%.
First of all, I'm not so sure that Casey, who like his late father, Governor Bob Casey, is pro-life and pro-gun but very liberal on economics, will be able to raise as much money as he needs in such a competitive Senate race. I don't think the liberals' hatred of Senator Santorum will necessarily result in contributions to Casey; Pennsylvania liberals already hated Santorum when he ran for reelection in 2000, and they still wouldn't give a dime to Congressman Ron Klink because he was pro-life and pro-gun. Casey is not a good campaigner, as his collapse in the 2002 gubernatorial primary against Ed Rendell proved, and with such a large deficit in the area of campaign finance (Santorum already has a huge warchest and can raise pretty much as much as he wants) it will become difficult for Casey to make a "sell" to Pennsylvania voters.
I also think that RINOs (Republicans-in-Name-Only) and Rendellicans (Rendell-voting Republicans) would vote for Santorum over Casey, just like they voted for Santorum over Klink. While RINOs disagree with Santorum on social issues, they agree with him on economic issues, and they disagree with Casey on everything under the sun. In fact, Casey's father never ran well in the Philly suburbs. In his first gubernatorial bid in 1986 (against William Scranton III), Casey, Sr. won statewide with 50.69% of the vote, but his percentages in the Philly suburbs were pitiful: 39.59% in Bucks County, 39.50% in Delaware County ("Delco") and 33.69% in Montgomery County ("Montco") (source: http://wilkes-fs1.wilkes.edu/~hcox/gov/PaGov1986.html). And in his reelection bid in 1990, Casey, Sr. beat then-Republican Barbara Hafer with a whopping 67.65% of the vote, yet his percentages in the Philly suburbs were much lower: 58.58% in Bucks, 54.82% in Delco and 49.84% in Montco (source: http://wilkes-fs1.wilkes.edu/~hcox/gov/PaGov1990.html). Santorum, on the other hand, has always run very strongly in the Philly suburbs, running well ahead of GOP presidential candidates. In 2000, Santorum got 57.09% in Bucks County, 54.15% in Delaware County and 54.43% in Montgomery County (source: http://wilkes-fs1.wilkes.edu/~hcox/sen/PaSen2000.html), in each case over 10% higher than Bush's 46.29% in Bucks, 42.66% in Delco and 43.81% in Montco (source: http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/index.html). That was against Congressman Ron Klink, a socially conservative, economically liberal Democrat from Western PA (pretty much Casey, Jr. without the famous name but with more accomplishments and a better personality). In 1994, against Harris Wofford, who was not only a socially liberal Senate incumbent but also a Philly-area suburbanite, Santorum got 52.35% in Bucks, 52.70% in Delco and 50.49% in Montco (source: http://wilkes-fs1.wilkes.edu/~hcox/sen/PaSen1994.html). So Santorum should do very well in the Philly suburbs, which were the counties that gave Gore and Kerry their narrow statewide victories over Bush in 2000 and 2004.
In 2004, 33.08% of Pennsylvania's votes were cast in the Philly metro area (composed of Philadelphia, Montco, Delco, and Bucks and Chester Counties; Bush got 36.7% in the area); 18.86% of PA's votes were cast in the Pittsburgh metro area (composed of Allegheny, Washington, Beaver, Butler and Westmoreland Counties; Bush got 47.3% there, which proves that the Pittsburgh area is far more Republican today than it was in the 1980s), and 48.05% of the PA votes were cast outside the Philly and Pittsburgh metro areas, also known as "the T" (Bush got 57% there) (source: http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/index.html). Assuming that in 2006 the same percentage of PA votes are cast in each region, Santorum can win with 50.15% merely by getting 42% in the Philly metro area (5% better than Bush, which is certainly doable since he matches up a lot better against Casey in the Philly area than did Bush against Kerry), 47% in the Pittsburgh metro area (same as Bush, also doable because, while Casey is not a social liberal like Kerry, Santorum is a Pittsburgh native and has affirmative strength there) and 57% in the rest of the state (same as Bush, also doable assuming that Santorum works his conservative base hard).
But as I said, I think Santorum will do better than 42% in the Philly area and win with 52% statewide. I can't prove I'm right, but you'll have to wait until November of 2006 to prove me wrong.
Casey stunk up the place on Meet The Press.
The morons like Charlie Cook and Chris Matthews viewed Casey's performance as a wash.