Hinders my objectivity?
I don’t think so, unlike you, I actually LIVE IN PA, and was paying attention to Santorum during that time, believe me, I am being completely objective. Don’t try to lecture me about what Casey’s name is worth, I lived in PA was Casey was a governor, and still do today, so don’t give me that parroting talking point Santorum backing nonsense.
Santorum has no chance at winning a national campaign, and the dillusion that he lost PA because simply, he was running against a Casey, is nonsense... total and absolute nonsense. Only someone who wasn’t involved in PA Politics at that time could be remotely make the claim that Casey’s name carried the day by nearly 20 points and that Santorum was merely a victim of circumstances. To portray Santorums routing, and make no mistake, it was a ROUTING, as nothing more than that is insane, and complete denial.
Santorum didn’t just lose, he was spanked, and you don’t get spanked EVEN in PA by those sorts of margins as a sitting Senator just because your oponent, who literally no showed the campaign, has a certain name. Had Casey won by a few points you could make that sort of argument, but that’s not what happened, not even close.
Not only did Santorum lose PA, he would have lost it by a wide margin to MICKEY MOUSE that year, and yes, had it been Rendel, it would have been by a very large point spread. The mere fact you believe it would be otherwise tells me two things, one, you certainly were not in PA during the campaign, and 2 you don’t know Santorum or his history nearly as well as you believe you do.
Santorum, not only cannot win a national campaign, if he would wind up the nominee he would not be able to win PA or OH, let alone the rest of the nation. He’s at VP candidate on his BEST POLITICAL day, the idea he could carry a banner at the top of the ticket is patently laughable.
His a big government “compassionate conservative”, with a bent toward social conservatism. Which gives him play with a certain amount of the electorate, but it also makes him an easy target to be painted as extreme, as the left did very successfully to him in his last election. He had no counter for it, had alienated his would be allies and donors over time because of his two faced actions and he didn’t face a millionth of the attacks he would face if he were the top of the ticket. He is a non started are a Presidential nominee, and anyone who’s seen this guy campaign first hand can tell you that.
Casey’s name probably got him points on election day, but to believe that alone got him 18 points is nonsense. His name probably got him 3-5 points at most, and that could have been easily handled had not Santorum been such a complete mess. Casey literally no showed the campaign, and Santorum was easily painted as a radical extremist, was caught in a multitude of “honesty lapses”... particularly ones he had attacked previous opponents for priorly etc etc etc.. He just didn’t have it... Santorum was voted OUT of office far more than Casey was voted in.. if you think otherwise, you are drinking way too much Kool Aid.
Calm down a bit and quote where I said Casey's name got him 18 points.
Now calm down a little more and do some math:
Let's assume 3-5 points as Bob Casey's son and namesake
plus 5 points from Santorum's base from being supposedly pro-life and pro-gun
plus 5-8 points from running in a landslide year for Democrats instead of a neutral year
That's 13-21 points in rough terms, conservatively.
Now, absent all those factors, would Santorum have lost his bid for a 3rd Senate term in a lean-Democrat state? Maybe. Maybe not. Certainly he would have had a better chance if he was perfect, which of course he is not.
If you are arguing that Santorum is not the most conservative or most electable candidate Republicans could choose to nominate for President, I don't know who would take the other side. I can think of dozens of politicians who would be better, not to mention private citizens.
But to try to tear Santorum down when he and Newt Gingrich are the only options currently available that bear a passing resemblance to conservatives ... that is quite another matter.