New Poll Shows Casey lead Cut to 6% (

PloiticsPa.com ^

[HitmanLV]

If the GOP holds steady or has a gain of +1, all it means is that they are going backwards slower than the dems. :-)

[Torie]

Thanks for the note.

[Salvation]

Looks like we all need to be praying for Santorum.

[Ramcat]

Time to get out the Amish Vote!!!

Thanks for the picture.

I'm a country boy married to a farm girl. We both admire the Amish.

The election will come down to turnout. If the conservative middle of the state forgives Rick for the Specter election and turns out he'll win.(They'll never vote for Casey!)

Keep the Pat Toomey ads coming and camp out in central PA.

As far as the Philly burbs go, didn't those people put Rendell into office?

[AuH2ORepublican]

"You seem to be positing that socially conservative Pubbies can hold Pubbies that are socially liberal, but conservative on ecnonomics, better than Democrats who are socially conservative, but liberal on economics, can socially liberal Dems, and better than Pubbies who are liberal on social issues, but conservative on economics, can hold socially socially conservative Pubbies."

---

Damn, that sentence gave me a headache. : ) Let's see, I'm saying that a Republican who is conservative on both social and economic issues will do better among socially liberal, economically conservative voters than would a socially conservative, economically liberal Democrat. If you're a socially liberal, economically conservative Philly suburbanite, a socially conservative but economically liberal Democrat such as Bob Casey, Jr. has nothing to offer you, while a socially and economically conservative Republican such as Rick Santorum at least will vote your way on taxes and trade. In the same vein, a socially liberal but economically conservative Republican won't do as well among socially conservative but economically liberal voters than would a socially and economically liberal Democrat, since those voters disagree with the Republican on everything but at least agree with the Democrat on economic issues. As for "holding" socially and economically conservative Republican voters, I think that socially liberal but economically conservative Republicans will certainly do better than would socially and economically liberal Democrats, but the problem is more one of energizing the largest part of the Republican base.


"I really don't agree with that in the Mid Atlantic states, although it might be close to break even in Pennsylvania, which has probably a close to equal number of socially conservative Dems, and socially liberal Pubbies. That just isn't true elsewhere in the region."

---

OK, there you are talking about the breakdown of the electorate among the 4 main quadrants (socially and economically conservative; socially conservative-economically liberal; socially liberal-economically conservative; socially and economically liberal). You are clearly correct that there are more socially liberal-economically conservative voters than socially conservative-economically liberal voters in NJ (and DE and certainly NY), and that these two groups are roughly in equilibrium in PA (and maybe MD, although liberal-liberal voters far outnumber conservative-conservative voters in MD). However, before one can say that a socially liberal, economically conservative Republican is a better candidate against a socially and economically liberal candidate in NJ, one also has to take into account (i) the turnout for the state's socially and economically conservative voters when the Republican candidate is a social liberal and (ii) the number of socially liberal, economically conservative voters who would desert a socially and economically conservative Republican for a socially and economically liberal Democrat. I think recent history has shown that liberal Democrats have an advantage over liberal Republicans in NJ, which is why I think that Kean will have difficulty beating Menendez unless a corruption scandal manages to stick to Menendez. And as for PA, I think a socially and economically liberal Democrat has a clear advantage over a socially liberal but economically conservative Republican and a very slight advantage over a socially and economically conservative Republican, but that a socially conservative and economically liberal Democrat is at a slight disadvantage against a socially and economically conservative Republican.


"Thanks for your post! It caused me to muse about the issue."

---

You're very welcome.

[MassachusettsGOP]

Those Philly burbs have been betraying their Republican roots lately. They voted for Gore, Rendell and Kerry, and helped S.P.E.C.T.R.E. beat Toomey in 2004.

Could this be permanent realignment in the Philly suburubs?

[Torie]

It is tough to put this all in words isn't it?

"And as for PA, I think a socially and economically liberal Democrat has a clear advantage over a socially liberal but economically conservative Republican and a very slight advantage over a socially and economically conservative Republican, but that a socially conservative and economically liberal Democrat is at a slight disadvantage against a socially and economically conservative Republican."

It all depends whether there are move swing socially conservative and economically liberal voters than socially liberal economically conservative swing voters, and the salience each put on the two matrix boxes., relative to each other, and of course what issues are currently salient. For Santorum to survive, he needs to pick up more Philly suburb socially liberal, but economically conservative voters, than he loses in Western PA to Casey with socially conservative, but economically liberal voters. Unless the Philly suburbanites get worried about their wallet vis a vis the Dems this time, I don't see that happening, myself.

[Torie]

Could this be permanent realignment in the Philly suburubs?

Yes it is, as long as social issues have more salience than economic ones. It is happening, or in fact has happened, in NYC, Philly, the DC suburbs, Chicago, SF, and LA big time. Some smaller white collar suburban ring areas are going the same way, such as Columbus, Seattle, and Portland. Denver might be next. Part of it is the changing nature of the economuy in some of those places, with high income folks not having to butt heads with blue collar work forces.

[Nonstatist]

For Santorum to survive, he needs to pick up more Philly suburb socially liberal, but economically conservative voters, than he loses in Western PA to Casey with socially conservative, but economically liberal voters.

I dont think Casey has as much currency with western Pa as you think. He's from eastern Pa (Scranton) and Santorum is from Butler County (western Pa)..Could be Santorum is more authentic social conservative than Casey , and is there such a thing as an economic conservative in the Senate any more? Not from my perspective...

[Nonstatist]

It is happening, or in fact has happened, in NYC, Philly, the DC suburbs, Chicago, SF, and LA big tim

Government workers tend to vote Democrat, no matter how wealthy they are. And we know how govt has grown in the last decade and a half. That explains DC anyway, and parts of the rest..

[Tribune7]

ping

[Torie]

is there such a thing as an economic conservative in the Senate any more? Not from my perspective...

That is one reason for the erosion I think, among a rather small but significant cohort of voters, but it cuts against the GOP among those who are ecomically conservative, but socially liberal, unless and until the Dems seem to pose a threat to one's net worth going forward, for those who have a significant net worth, or income, or expect to have. Class based economics just doesn't matter much anymore - for the moment.

[Torie]

The odd thing however, is that those high GS ranked government types in Montgomery County used to split their votes. They don't anymore as much, not nearly as much, and the reason is social issues. That is also true to a lessor extent in Northern Virginia.

[Torie]

The collapse of the GOP in tony suburbs, in the other areas has nothing to do with government workers. Most of them can't afford to live in those areas, particularly since so much of their income is deferred income, in the nature of juicy pension plans.

[Nonstatist]

but it cuts against the GOP among those who are ecomically conservative, but socially liberal, unless and until the Dems seem to pose a threat to one's net worth going forward

And that just lays out the job in front of Santorum and the rest of the Republicans in jeopardy. They have to ratchet up the tax and regulation rhetoric, or they have no chance. My guess is thats what will be on Santorum's agenda, later this summer

Unfortunately, they dont have much credibility with me. As far as Im concerned, they wont mean what they say.

[Nonstatist]

Most of them can't afford to live in those areas, particularly since so much of their income is deferred income, in the nature of juicy pension plans.

You been to DC lately? The richest suburbs in the country are overfilling with mom and dad ES level beauracrats and govt contractors. Homeland Security (which didnt exist 5 yrs ago) has tons of GS-15's and above, and 2 people making 120K each can buy a perty home, believe me.

Montgomery County, Howard County and even Anne Arundel County have tons of govt millionaires (what with the housing market recently) and they LOOOVE their governement income!!

[Torie]

Ya, the is the DC metro area. My comment was about other metro areas.

[Ciexyz]

I have relatives in Montgomery County, and the houses are like mini-mansions. They're the richest branch of the family. I should say, they're the ONLY rich branch of my clan, hehehe.

[Nonstatist]

Class based economics just doesn't matter much anymore - for the moment.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the next recession and see how things sort out.

[Nonstatist]

I have relatives in Montgomery County, and the houses are like mini-mansions

I'm not too far from there and the growth of govt wealth in the last 25 years has been phonomenal..

.Of course, this represents a diversion of resources from other areas, whether people realize this or not (ie upstate New York and Michigan would do better with less govt spending and regulation (ie spending), IMO.