Posted on 04/06/2006 5:44:02 AM PDT by moose2004
NO NEED TO SHOUT!!!
Given the fact that the only thing Pennsylvanians know about Casey is that they liked his dad, it should not surprise anyone that as soon as people find out a bit about Casey his support drops (and it seems that I was right and Philly-area pro-abortion RINOs return to Santorum when they realize they don't agree with Casey on *any issue*):
"After asking survey respondents who they would vote for, we informed them that the National Organization for Women (NOW) is concerned about Casey on the abortion issue and is endorsing another candidate in the primary. We then asked a second time about how each respondent would vote.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of Casey's initial voters changed their mind upon hearing this news. Half switched to Santorum while the others split between "some other candidate" and "not sure."
The change was dramatic enough that, having heard the new information, voters favored Santorum by a five-point margin (46% to 41%). This suggests a lack of voter knowledge about Casey that could make the race more competitive than it seems at this time.
News about NOW's concerns caused Casey's support to fall 12 points among moderate voters and 13 points among liberal voters. It did not gain him any conservative votes.
From a partisan perspective, Casey lost 7 points of support among unaffiliated voters and 13 points among Democrats. Just as important, however, the highlighting of Casey's pro-Life views actually increased Santorum's support among Republicans.
Initially, the GOP voters favored Santorum by a 61% to 27% margin. On the second ask, they favored Santorum 69% to 21%."
My prediction still stands: Santorum wins 52%-47%. http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/2005/08/rick-santorum-vs-bob-casey-jr.html
"Who are these people -- I guess liberal suburban Republicans?"
"This race promises to be one of the most closely-watched of the 2006 elections. Feminist voters have the opportunity to send extremist Republican incumbent Senator Rick Santorum packing."
Who's yelling, I'm only stating facts.
1) NOW has endorsed Casey's pro-choice opponent in the primary.
2) To my knowledge the national and Pennsylvania branch of NOW have never endorsed a pro-life candidate.
3) NOW is targeting Santorum because of his staunch pro-life position, what makes you think they'll warm up to Casey who's position is identical?.
Also, who's to say that an independent pro-choice candidate won't emerge. Can you honestly see NOW/liberal dems being satisfied with having to choose between two pro-life candidates? Will NOW campaign for, make calls for, knock on doors for, and donate money to a dem candidate who's views on abortion are identical to the "extremist" Repub candidate's? Can you honestly see Kim Gandy, Kate Michelman and their minions appearing with Casey on the campaign trail? Do you think they trust Casey to back pro-choice judges/justices/legislation? I can't and don't. Kate Michelman herself elevated the issue when she talked about running? And by the way, did NOW make this statement before or after Kate Michelman announced she might run?
My apologies.
And I'd add to that some indies and even Dems for whom abortion is the sole topic of discussion. Once they find out Casey's position there is the same as Rick's, then they have to decide if they'd rather have a freshman senator in the minority or the #3 guy in Senate leadership.
"Quinnipiac just came out w/a poll for the Phil. Daily News. Casey's up 48-37% (gap has shrunk four pts since last poll in Feb). Interestingly, in that poll 69% of Dems (who account for 565 of the 1,354 RVs) did not know of Casey's pro-life position, and 8% thought he was pro-abortion. Independents favored Casey about 2:1. 77% of Dems were voting for Casey, while 70% of Pubbies were voting for Santorum."
Interesting don't you think?
On the Web all caps generally is accepted as YELLING, even if that wasn't your intent. :-)
It loooks like Casey's campaign may have peaked too soon. He was helped by some gaffes by Santorum, but they've become old news.
The race is in play after all.
While Santorum's made some gaffes, I don't want the guy to lose!
Now try not to get upset, okay? But this race has always been in play.
First, I would quarrel with your description of PA as a "Democrat state." Currently, PA has two Rep Senators, 12 GOP Congressmen compared to 7 Dems, and the state legislature, both houses, is controlled by the GOP. Since 1963 (William Scranton), five of the eight governors have been Reps.
PA has gone Dem the last four Presidential elections, but the last two (Gore and Kerry) barely received 50% of the vote and Clinton won by greater percentages, but never received 50% of the vote. Kerry's 50.92% of the vote is actually the highest percentage a Dem has received since LBJ's 65% in 1964.
Santorum has won before, i.e., twice as a Congressman and twice as Senator. In 1990, at age 32, Santorum was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, defeating a seven-term Democratic incumbent. He served two terms (1991 – 1995). In 1994, Santorum was elected to the U.S. Senate, defeating the incumbent Democrat, Harris Wofford.
In 2000 Santorum was reelected with a 52% to 46% margin running on the same ticket as Bush who lost PA 50.6% to 46.4%.
To win Penn you need to get Dems on your side. If you can't overcome the "party" support system in the primary, I am NOT going to believe he would have done better in getting Dems to crossover in the General. NOT in a presidential year. Had it been mid-terms, different story entirely.
To win in PA, you need to stop the voter fraud in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
This casey is nowhere near as being as social conservative as his dad was.
What about the illegals: isn't Santorum an amnesty man?
Impressive stuff. Thanks
It was not my intent, my intention was emphasis, and again my apologies.
I don't know, I hope not.
I've always thought it would be in play, but I admit, I was starting to wonder if it was slipping too far out.
But this does go a long way to show what most of us knew all along: Casy has a glass jaw.
I've said from the beginning of the 2006 election cycle, we need to remind the deep blue regions of PA that the restrictive abortion laws there are the legacy of Bob Casey Sr.
"This Casey is nowhere near as being as social conservative as his dad was."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.