Swing State Project

« NV-Sen: Recruitment Time | Main | FL-Sen: Joe Scarborough Out; Katherine Harris to Lose »

Saturday, August 20, 2005

PA-Sen: There is Finally Contrast in the Senate Race

Posted by Bob Brigham

Chalk this up as one of political history's greatest, "if you can't make it, fake it" moments. Since both Santorum and Casey are Theocons, there has been a noticable lack of contrast in the race. However, Casey has consultants earning every extra zero and has now come up with his plan: focus on contrast between Santorum and Santorum.

Philly.com has the story.

Posted at 05:26 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Technorati

Comments

Entirely Off Topic (Please Excuse...Wish SSP had Diaries)

All For One

Cross-posted at CA-48: Turning Orange County Blue

Political Dogfight has long believed that Democrats would be well served to field only one candidate in the CA-48 special election. (Of course, PD also has a dog in this race and a bone to pick, while I have neither).

After much thought, I've come to agree.

Philosophically, I'm opposed to efforts by Democratic power-brokers to clear the field for a chosen establishment candidate. But practically -- and in the case of CA-48 only -- I believe it makes sense for them (or bloggers or Democratic activists) to rally behind a single candidate before Monday's deadline.

I believe Democrats' best bet is to win the primary. Come either a Campbell-Gilchrist-Young/Graham/Foster or Brewer-Gilchrist-Young/Graham/Foster general election, the Republican frontrunner will find it in their best interest to attack the Democratic nominee. But in a lone-Democrat primary, both Campbell and Brewer would be ill-served to acknowledge -- much less critique -- the Democrat. Were Campbell to attack the lone Democrat, he would drive votes to Brewer.

Were Brewer to attack the lone Democrat and compete for moderate Democratic votes, she'd undermine her ongoing effort to position herself as conservative enough for the district and spend limited resources on efforts likely to bring less bang for her buck than would attacks on Campbell. Better to articulate her support for choice and stem cell research and let the moderates fall where they may. Gilchrist might choose to criticize the lone Democrat, but he has few votes to gain from doing so by name and will probably stick to a broader critique of the Democratic Party's response to illegal immigration.

Further, the benefits to fielding a single candidate are significant. Staff could begin work immediately, local and national fundraising could be channeled to a single campaign, and a district-friendly message could be developed and repeated through election day. Helped by a national media itching to write more special election copy following Paul Hackett's near-win in OH-2, a single Democrat could enable, in the words of conservative OC Blogger Kahuna, "one of the great Republican Party screw-ups of our time."

Posted by: Sam Seaborn at August 20, 2005 06:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'd rather have a contrast in the race by having two different candidates with differing views on issues. That's why I'm supporting Chuck Pennacchio for the Democratic nomination. He is pro-choice, in favor of funding for embryoinic stem cell research, and he is against the Iraq war and has been from the beginning. He is a real progressive candidate, unlike Bob Casey Jr, who simply agrees with Rick Santorum on pretty much everything.

For more information, check out Chuck's website:

www.chuck2006.com

Your pal,
Eric

Posted by: Bloodman at August 20, 2005 10:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"unlike Bob Casey Jr, who simply agrees with Rick Santorum on pretty much everything."

Yeah, except for ANWAR, school vouchers, Social Security, tax cuts, civil unions, veterans’ funding, AIDS research, foreign aid, free trade, Medicare, Medicaid, early childhood education, single mothers, contraception, Kyoto, working moms, the Energy Bill, the Bankruptcy Bill, renewable energy, soft money, Iraq, and Welfare.

Other than those things, they are basically clones.

Posted by: jkfp2004 at August 21, 2005 02:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"unlike Bob Casey Jr, who simply agrees with Rick Santorum on pretty much everything."

Yeah, except for ANWAR, school vouchers, Social Security, tax cuts, civil unions, veterans’ funding, AIDS research, foreign aid, free trade, Medicare, Medicaid, early childhood education, single mothers, contraception, Kyoto, working moms, the Energy Bill, the Bankruptcy Bill, renewable energy, soft money, Iraq, and Welfare.

Other than those things, they are basically clones.

Posted by: jkfp2004 at August 21, 2005 02:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"unlike Bob Casey Jr, who simply agrees with Rick Santorum on pretty much everything."

Yeah, except for ANWAR, school vouchers, Social Security, tax cuts, civil unions, veterans’ funding, AIDS research, foreign aid, free trade, Medicare, Medicaid, early childhood education, single mothers, contraception, Kyoto, working moms, the Energy Bill, the Bankruptcy Bill, renewable energy, soft money, Iraq, and Welfare.

Other than those things, they are basically clones.

Posted by: jkfp2004 at August 21, 2005 02:55 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Sorry for the double (now tripple post).

Posted by: jkfp2004 at August 21, 2005 03:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In reply to jkfp2004, all those other things are moot to me, I can't get past the pro life, Iraq war, separation of church and state, accepting PAC money issues. I will vote for Chuck Pennacchio. I believe Chuck has a better chance of beating Santorum than Casey does. Like me, there are many pro choice people that can't bring themselves to vote for a pro lifer. The any body but Santorum people will vote for, any body but Santorum. The only thing Casey has going for him is name recognition and that isn't enough. Casey is at the highest point that he will be in polls. Casey is a terrible speaker, Chuck however, is a magnificent speaker and will be a much better campaigner. I think Casey vs Santorum is a lose, lose situation.

Posted by: Mother Hen at August 21, 2005 09:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In reply to jkfp2004, all those other things are moot to me, I can't get past the pro life, Iraq war, separation of church and state, accepting PAC money issues. I will vote for Chuck Pennacchio. I believe Chuck has a better chance of beating Santorum than Casey does. Like me, there are many pro choice people that can't bring themselves to vote for a pro lifer. The any body but Santorum people will vote for, any body but Santorum. The only thing Casey has going for him is name recognition and that isn't enough. Casey is at the highest point that he will be in polls. Casey is a terrible speaker, Chuck however, is a magnificent speaker and will be a much better campaigner. I think Casey vs Santorum is a lose, lose situation.

Posted by: Mother Hen at August 21, 2005 10:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In reply to jkfp2004, all those other things are moot to me, I can't get past the pro life, Iraq war, separation of church and state, accepting PAC money issues. I will vote for Chuck Pennacchio. I believe Chuck has a better chance of beating Santorum than Casey does. Like me, there are many pro choice people that can't bring themselves to vote for a pro lifer. The any body but Santorum people will vote for, any body but Santorum. The only thing Casey has going for him is name recognition and that isn't enough. Casey is at the highest point that he will be in polls. Casey is a terrible speaker, Chuck however, is a magnificent speaker and will be a much better campaigner. I think Casey vs Santorum is a lose, lose situation.

Posted by: Mother Hen at August 21, 2005 10:01 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

PD is absolutely right. Fielding a single candidate is tactically a very good move given the structure of the election.

Posted by: Ohio 2nd at August 21, 2005 11:20 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment