No disrespect intended, but while you were in Arizona looking at numbers, I've been working with the campaigns and the candidates. Bush I won because people thought that his first term would be Reagan III. For term II, Bush I screwed the pooch by breaking his no new tax vow. Conservatives stayed home. Bob Dole sucked as a candidate. He got the nomination because he paid his dues and wanted to tell his great grand children that he ran for president. Again, conservatives stayed home.
Before you (or any one else) goes off on conservatives for this practice, all I can say is deal with it. Conservatives with principles won't compromise their values and the GOP better learn the lesson or expect to lose.
Mike Fisher was Bob Dole II. His candidacy was a payoff for years of faithful service to the GOP. He must have thought that Rendell signed off on the deal too, because he forgot to campaign. Fisher was the weakest candidate that I've ever seen. I worked on the campaign purely because I didn't want Rendell to win. I won't put that kind of effort into another candidate if he doesn't show the promise of a Pat Toomey. Casey lost the primary to Rendell because he didn't have the feet on the ground to make it happen. It was a dismal campaign effort.
Interestingly, Rick Santorum - one of the most conservative GOP Senators - WON the same election that "W" lost. Toomey won his race that year too by preaching the conservative message. It was his biggest margin to date.
Another race that you don't mention is for the Allegheny County Chief Executive. The incumbent Republican was pro choice. The Democrat challenger was pro life. The pro life groups swarmed to him and he handily defeated the incumbent.
I think what you are missing is the people themselves, the candidates and their personalities. Where a strong and principled candidate runs a strong campaign, he wins. When he tries to blur the differences thinking that he can pick up the middle, he loses. The reason is that the few (relatively speaking) 'undecideds' that he picks up are more than offset by the loss of the base that is alienated by the pandering. He also loses the activism and vote generating capacity of the base. (W, are you listening?)
"So, i really cannot envision a scenario where Toomey would pull this off."
Have you seen the poll numbers? In the last 90 days, Toomey has gone from a 23% point deficit to a 9% deficit. It is now a horse race. The closer those numbers get, the more outside support Toomey will get. There are a lot of people around the country that want Specter gone and they are putting their money where their mouth is to do it.
In this race, like the others I mentioned above, it is the candidate and how he presents his philosophy that makes the difference. They both boast of their conservatism but only Toomey has the record to back it up. Specter's disingenuousness is costing him. He'd do better if he proudly proclaimed his liberalism than lying about it.
" I really think that this race should be reserved for a time when Republicans control the Senate with 54-55 seats, i would be all for Toomey then. But this isn't the time unfortunately."
Toomey is the man and this is the time. We've waited almost 70 years for an opportunity to rule based on GOP principles. The Specters, Snowes, Chaffees, and Jeffords have obstructed that chance as much as the Democrats. Specter and the rest of the lot have to go.
And rest easy. We will pick up other seats as well as converting the PA seat into not only a Republican (from RINO) but also to conservative.