PA-Sen: Santorum Sinks Further

Casey up 18 points despite being down 15 points in name ID. I am starting to wonder if there will be any drama at all when it comes to defeating the man progressives would most like to see go down next year:
Pennsylvania State Treasurer Robert Casey, Jr., has opened a 52 - 34 percent lead over incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum in the 2006 Senate race, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 50 - 39 percent Casey lead in a July 13 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University.(...)

Pennsylvania voters give Santorum a 33 - 30 percent favorability with 19 percent mixed and 18 percent who say they don't know enough to form an opinion.

Casey gets a 38 - 9 percent favorability, with 20 percent mixed and 33 percent who say they don't know enough to form an opinion.

Voters disapprove 61 - 37 percent of the job President Bush is doing, his lowest score ever and down from a 53 - 44 percent disapproval July 13.(...)

From September 27 - October 3, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,530 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.

That's right--9% say he is too liberal. There are some real wingnuts in Pennsylvania.



Display:


We shouldn't get complacent.... (3.00 / 0)

This race may tighten up, but those are lovely numbers. Its hard to imagine an incumbent Senator polling that poorly and coming back to win. But we had better fight like its a dead heat just the same.
by Keith Brekhus on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:38:02 AM EST

Re: We shouldn't get complacent.... (none / 0)

"This race may tighten up, but those are lovely numbers. Its hard to imagine an incumbent Senator polling that poorly and coming back to win. But we had better fight like its a dead heat just the same."

It would be shocking if this race DOESN'T tighten up.  It's always better to play with the lead, but you're absolutely right.  This race has to be fought like it is going to be a photo finish.

Santorum is a total nut, but he's a very dangerous and formidable nut who will wage a very competitive campaign.
   

by Politicalhack06 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:56:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree - There's too much at stake here (none / 0)

We still got over a year to the elections. I'm not buying into any polls this far out for that matter. Santorum, from what I've heard, campaigns like a tiger... he'd definately claw back next year. The question is - Will Casey fight to the death and campaign strongly too? I hope so.
by sircharles on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can anyone tell me what Santorum has done? (none / 0)

I can't seem to find anything interesting that Santorum has stood for, and I'm beginning to wonder if Santorum is in fact in DC representing Pennsylvanian interests.

Not that things like this couldn't happen, mind you, after all there are some Texas senators that are definitely working for Saudi Arabian interests.

Just curious if he was able to get anything done. Does anyone know what his record is?

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:47:05 AM EST

Re: Can anyone tell me what Santorum has done? (none / 0)

Well, he's tried to eviscerate the National Weather Service to the sole benefit of a Pennsylvania donor, AccuWeather.  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.00786:

For those who don't want to read the whole bill (it's about two pages), the nasty part says:
"SEC. 2. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AND NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.      
[...]
(b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR- The Secretary of Commerce shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a product or service (other than a product or service described in subsection (a)(1)) that is or could be provided by the private sector unless--

            (1) the Secretary determines that the private sector is unwilling or unable to provide such product or service; or

            (2) the United States Government is obligated to provide such product or service under international aviation agreements to provide meteorological services and exchange meteorological information.

What he's trying to do with this bill is to kill http://www.weather.gov, which is far and away the most accurate and most useful weather site in the country.  The site is kind of a by-product of their primary job, storm forecasting.  But they have the data, they've crunched the numbers, and it's all available right down to point forecasts.  It almost makes commercial weather services obsolete; the one service they can still provide that the government won't is "forecast insurance" -- for a fee they'll financially insure that it won't rain on your freshly poured concrete this afternoon, for example.

The thing that bothers me most about Santorum is that this is even bad for the rest of the folks in his state.  The ONLY beneficiaries are the few employees of AccuWeather.  The rest of the country is simply screwed by a bill like this.

by redaxe2 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can anyone tell me what Santorum has done? (none / 0)

whoooooaaaaa thats heavy. I don't like that. I want Noaa to be a bunch of storm chasers not some kind of accu-jack.

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 02:29:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, Teve Torbes is all for this! (none / 0)

http://www.forbes.com/columnists/columnists/forbes/2005/1017/027.html

Groan...

by Geotpf on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 03:14:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He picked on a brain-dead woman in FL (none / 0)

Although, in fairness, he may have just believed she was closely related to him.
by jcjcjc on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 01:24:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Come on Chuck Pennachino people... (3.00 / 1)

Tell us how Bob Casey is another Zell Miller and other stupid dellusional observations.
by zt155 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:55:56 AM EST

Re: Come on Chuck Pennachino people... (none / 0)

Zell Miller is not a dumb bunny. Lets hope he sees the light and falls into line.

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:04:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on Chuck Pennachino people... (none / 0)

What does Miller matter now?  He is irrelevant.  The dems don't need him and the GOP doesn't really want him.
by yitbos96bb on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:46:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on Chuck Pennachino people... (none / 0)

you're right. he's just another fox news guy.
by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 02:26:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on Chuck Pennachino people... (none / 0)

He's just another asshole.
McCain sucks!
by teknofyl on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 01:28:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't count him out (3.00 / 0)

As bad as things are going for the GOP right now -- and for Santorum in particular -- I still see them making a come back next year.

Well, I'm not predicting it, but it could definitely happen. Let's not rest on our laurels. Until Election Night, after we've won, then I'll celebrate.

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds
by LiberalFromPA on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:04:00 PM EST

Re: Don't count him out (none / 0)

All Depends on Karl Rove. This guy is their "magic smear machine" that gets them all kinds of points just by figuring out how to keep everyone talking about anything but the issues.
by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absoutely (none / 0)

He is a fighter and will lie like crazy to disparage the integrity and character of Casey.  There are still a lot of people undecided and Santorum knows he won't win any popularity contests.  As a result, he is forced to get down and dirty in order to raise Casey's unfavorables.

Let's just hope that Casey's people are willing to fight it out and be as aggressive as Santorum surely will be.  Let's not have a Kerry repeat for crying out loud.  

by Eric11 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:07:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sen Casey (2.00 / 0)

"That's right--9% say he is too liberal. There are some real wingnuts in Pennsylvania."

These are probably the ones who have not forgiven him for backing Speter in 2004.

I hope this finally ends those Chuck people from foaming at the mouth how much better Chuck is than Casey.

by THE MODERATE on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:07:44 PM EST

Re: Sen Casey (none / 0)

Well, without knowing anything about how Chuck would poll, I don't think you can make that assumption.  For all we know, any Democrat, even with very little name recognition could be soundly beating Santorum.
Progressive Philadelphia Politics: Young Philly Politics
by DanielUA on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:18:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sen Casey (none / 0)

There is a reason why no polls include Chuck, because he is not a factor.  When PA has there Senate Primary I think in March Casey will have between 70% to 80% of the vote the rest will be spread between what they call minor candidates, guess what Chuck is.
by THE MODERATE on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:59:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sen Casey (none / 0)

Thanks for your enlightment that Casey is likely to win the Dem primary.  You really have to go out on a limb for that.

My point is simply that Santorum, with such a low re-elect, may not be able to win against anyone.  If so, that would suggest that the electability argument for Casey does not hold water, because, anyone can beat Santorum.  

Progressive Philadelphia Politics: Young Philly Politics
by DanielUA on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 02:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

don't get cocky (none / 0)

Casey is a weak campaigner and is down on $.
by raginillinoian on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:09:30 PM EST

Re: don't get cocky (none / 0)

Huh?  He's raised a boatload.
by Adam B on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:50:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't get cocky (none / 0)

There arumors floating that he beat Santorum for 3Q. I don't know whether to believe that, but it would be fantastic.
by PantherDem on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

perhaps (none / 0)

he should retire and let Pat Toomey run. He couldn't do much worse than 34%.
by tparty on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:28:37 PM EST

The man Progressives most want to see gone? (none / 0)

I think you are little biased based on the fact you are from Philly.  I would bet good money that if you polled progressives on who they want most gone (of people that could be voted out in 2006) Tom Delay is public enemy #1.  However, I would relegate Santorum to a miniscule less slimy #2.  Hopefully, we can take them both out.
by yitbos96bb on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:43:38 PM EST

Re: The man Progressives most want to see gone? (none / 0)

dude, tom delay has been stealing money and doing that whole money laundering thing, you know = cash and carry government. That much I understand.

But what has santorum been found on?

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 02:27:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did anyone even oppose him in 2000 ? (none / 0)

What a waste of 6 years.
by Cyt on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:44:19 PM EST

Re: Did anyone even oppose him in 2000 ? (none / 0)

Ron Klink, little-known guy from Western Pennsylvania, survived an ugly primary with Allyson Schwartz and another candidate. He didn't have a lot of money, campaigned little, and on election day a hell of a lot of voters in the east didn't even know who he was.

Still got to 47%.

by PantherDem on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:47:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did anyone even oppose him in 2000 ? (none / 0)

Yep.  Klink's problem was that he's pro-life, and a bitter Democratic primary against two SE PA pro-choices erased his ability to raise money and support from the Democratic base of the state.
by Adam B on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:51:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did anyone even oppose him in 2000 ? (none / 0)

Not only did Klink loose to Santorum but by leaving his Congresional seat, he allowed Melissa Hart to get into congress.  Hopefully we can get rid of her next year too.
by Gene In PA on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 03:30:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Replacing Santoruem with ... (none / 0)

a new Zell Miller.
Lets face it in a desparate attempt to play the game by a republican "book" the D's are supporting a closet Republican.

This will come back to bite us.

We through all principles and positions over the side , Choice, labor rights, freedom from cults, all to nominate a anti choice, trickle down economics, big business war supporter.

That helps us how?

ps and he is still lying on why his father wasn't given a speaking spot in 92. Choice had nothing to do with it his daddy wouldn't committ to supporting the Democratic candinate.
If he is so willing to lie in a manner that hurts the D's now why should anyone expect anything good from him after he gets in.

Be willing to bet he switches parties afterwards. If McCain runs bet he deserts the D's.

by Rational on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 01:23:26 PM EST

Re: Replacing Santoruem with ... (none / 0)

LOL.

Look upthread, we've been waiting for this.

Desperate...

by PantherDem on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 01:29:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell you what (none / 0)

Why don't you just go vote for Santorum then, as a matter of fact, maybe you should campaign for Rick and give him some money.  Becasue in the end there is going to be two choices Casey and Santorum and since we know how you feel about Casey I guess that means you are for Rick.  Meet Rational the Santorum supporter.
by THE MODERATE on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 01:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Replacing Santoruem with ... (none / 0)

Closet Republican?

Casey is probably one of the strongest pro-labor voices in the Democratic Party today.

Abortion doesn't define whether or not one is a Republican or Democrat, as much a some would like to believe.

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds
by LiberalFromPA on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 02:19:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Replacing Santoruem with ... (none / 0)

I find this post somewhat irrational.

I think Casey will be a good ol' fashioned "New Deal" type Democrat.  By this I mean he will be "bad" on social issues, but he will be good on domestice ones.  I am pretty sure he is pro-labor, for the most part anti-corporate and thus good on taxation and budget issues.  He will be very good on trade.

He is certainly no Paul Wellstone, but to say he is another Miller is ridiculous.  He will be better then Lieberman (not saying much, granted).  My guess is that he will be with the progressives as often as someone like Feinstein, though he will vote wrong on a completely different set of issues then she does.  Again, not my ideal, but certainly better then the alternative and much better then Miller, Liberman, etc.

Andy Katz
by Andy Katz on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 04:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Replacing Santoruem with ... (none / 0)

Casey reminds me of Spitzer.  Someone who syas "Capitolisim is great but for it to work, we have to be fair."  Casey's will be a great senator who will stand up for the little guy in a truley Roosevelt way.
John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 05:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Replacing Santoruem with ... (none / 0)

First off, it's Santorum (there's no e)

As for abortion rights, while I disagree with Mr. Casey on his stance, I do admire the fact that in order to curb abortions he wants to put federal funding into places that will help out those who get abortions. I mean why would the Democratic Party support someone who believes in helping out hte poor and those who can't help themselves. That's better than the GOP's anti-choice stance which is they'll make abortion illegal and that's that

As for labor rights, God forbid a Democrat is actually pro-union in a state where many voters grew up in a house where both parents belonged to labor unions to get them fair wages and helped put a roof over their heads. To say that Bob Casey favors big business over the working man is probably the dumbest statement one can make about the man.

Freedom for cults, well there's no actual statement from Casey that I could find that says you would have to join a religion or a cult or have it taught in public schools so I have no clue what the hell you mean here. Now if you're talking about Casey being religious, that's pretty much a good thing as most religions have liberal beliefs when it comes to helping others and taking care of the environment.

by BryanLVPA on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 12:07:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Santorum (none / 0)

He is a fighter and will lie like crazy to disparage the integrity and character of Casey.  There are still a lot of people undecided and Santorum knows he won't win any popularity contests.  As a result, he is forced to get down and dirty in order to raise Casey's unfavorables.
Let's just hope that Casey's people are willing to fight it out and be as aggressive as Santorum surely will be.

It's far too early to bury santorum.  He will fight viciously and "will lie like crazy to disparage the integrity and character of Casey".  

If the Casey team has the wit and the stones to fight, santorum will be vulnerable to the charge that he defrauded the Penn Hills School District and that he's not a resident of the state of Pennsylvania (the house listed as his official residence has a family living in it).

Or they could play back the tape of his very first campaign run, when he claimed that his opponent spent so much time in DC that he didn't really understand Pennsylvania.  

If they have the nerve to fight.

by zak822 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 03:34:40 PM EST

"Alarming" Internals (none / 0)

To tell you the truth, I think the "internals" of the poll are much better for Santorum then I would have thought.  Santorum has a net (+) 3 favorability rating, despite Bush's horrible numbers there.  Apparently, Casey's lead is based on his 38-9 positive to negative rating, but this ratio will go way down once the Rethugs unload the negative attacks.  Once that happens, and Casey's negatives increase, the race will get much tighter.

I still think Casey will almost certainly win though.  What he needs to do is tie Santorum into Bush, driving the former's negatives even lower.

Andy Katz
by Andy Katz on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 04:48:23 PM EST

Re: "Alarming" Internals (none / 0)

Casey has to drive Santorum's unfavorables up as well.  He has to be willing to pull out all the stops because Santorum is going to cheat like hell.  
by Eric11 on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 01:06:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.