New Poll Shows Casey lead Cut to 6% (

PloiticsPa.com ^

[Ciexyz]

Pennsylvanians tend to vote for the incumbent unless they are really fed up about an issue (like the illegal pay hike), then they can be unforgiving.

[Ciexyz]

I'm voting for Mark Harris over incumbent Tom Stevenson (R-42nd District). Go Mark go!

[AuH2ORepublican]

"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."

---

You are assuming optimal turnout among socially and economically liberal voters. While such voters would support Casey over Santorum, it is possible that they would turn out in lower numbers than they did for John Kerry. Of course, it helps Casey that a socially and economically liberal Democrat, Governor Ed Rendell, will be atop the ballot in PA, which may keep liberal-liberal turnout at the historically high levels that we've seen in PA of late, but Rendell may have pissed off some of these voters and in any event they could always vote for a pro-abortion third-party candidate or leave the Senate ballot blank.

You should remember than in 2000 Santorum lost most of the socially conservative, economically liberal voters (especially those in the Pittsburgh area) to socially conservative, economically liberal Democrat Ron Klink, but still managed to defeat Klink by around 5%. And turnout among liberal-liberal voters was higher in 2000 than it will be in 2006, since it was a presidential election and Al Gore's campaign pulled off a masterful get-out-the-vote effort (especially in Philly) to carry a state in which polls had shown him behind.