Redstate

The rationale cited by those polled are :

1.) Santorum's stance on Social Sec Privatization, and  

2.) involvement in Terri Schiavo's case.

One would expect the Schiavo fiasco to be a foggy memory by 2006 -

A positive resolution will need to have been attained re Social Sec however.   Likely by 2006 ? ...hmmm

Quote from Poll Director:

"But this campaign, which has miles to go and millions to spend, is still in early previews."

That is why (way) early polling isn't that helpful.  However, it is obvious that Santorum is the most vulnerable Republican incumbent (more so than Chafee or Snowe).  And it is becoming apparent that Casey's pro-life Democrat stance is a good one for Dems in PA.  Hopefully some Lynn Swann coattails and a fading memory of the Schiavo incident will help, but I'd put Santorum's chances under 50% right now.

You gotta think that a conservative senator in a solid blue state wouldn't have much chance.  I'm wondering how he got elected in the first place.

Santorum is as out of place as a Democratic senator in a Southern state, and I would expect him to be realigned as such, unless he can deliver the pork a la HRH Robert C. Byrd.

I can't see the Schiavo thing having legs.  For one, Santorum lost the fight.  Second, the actions were taken on moral grounds.  He gets some points for standing up for what he thinks he's right.  Third, none of us should fault him for doing such, and if it does cause harm then I wouldn't want to represent such callous voters.

Pennsylvania is not really a solid blue state.

It may lean a little left overall but only because of Philly and Pittsburgh.  And its high number of Catholics makes it a pretty pro-life state for leaning left.  This is closer to a Dem being elected in NV (Reid) or FL (Nelson) than the "South".  It's no NY or MA; the President won 49% of the state.

I guess after living in da Burgh, PA looked pretty darn blue.  Add to that having Dem Rendell and RINO Specter in office as well.  

And when was the last time the state went for the GOP in a Presidential election?

Here is a good atlas of past Presidential elections.  PA has generally picked the overall winner of the election.  They were on the wrong side this time, but the last time they missed was in 1968 when they went for Humphrey 48%-44% over Nixon.  Gore won 51%-46% and then Kerry won 51%-49%.  That's a swing state in my mind.

I think it was Carville who describe PA as a third Philadelphia, a third Pittburgh, and a third Alabama.

Re: And it is becoming apparent that Casey's pro-life Democrat stance is a good one for Dems in PA.

Might this not be a good thing? At least for anyone who holds pro-Life views there's both a strategic and a tactical advantage to seeing a pro-Life Dem elected to the Senate. And for those worried about the GOP majority, it is highly unlikely it will be endangered if Casey is elected.

Re:  I'm wondering how he got elected in the first place.

1994 and all that. It was (relatively) easy for Republicans to win seats in 1994. More surprising is that Santorum won a 2nd term, bucking his state's pro-Dem vote in 2000 (unlike Abraham in Michigan).

Anyway, remember: it's not over till it's over.

about that.  I would argue that until Roe is overturned, every Republican (even pro-choicers) who votes for constructionist judges is doing more for the pro-life movement than every Democrat (ever pro-lifers) who might vote against constructionist judges or even filibuster them.  If Roe falls, then it would be nice to see a few pro-life Dems to make the pro-life caucus bipartisan.  But if Roe falls, the whole political scale is throw for a loop.  For example, I become a big Guiliani/Schwarzeneggeer fan.

Why the Democrats did not co-opt the pro-life stance to begin with.

I don't agree with the Democrats' solutions on poverty/working class issues, but the average voter doesn't spend enough time contemplating public policy enough to even swallow the "The Welfare State Perpetuates Poverty" argument, let alone digest it. To most folks, it just seems like a - for lack of a better word - "Christian" thing to do to help the poor and less fortunate out when they need it (I, too, am in favor of helping the poor - I'd just rather contribute voluntarily to my church/disaster relief causes than have it confiscated from my paycheck).

My point is, if the Democrats adopted the pro-life stance, and were also perceived as the party looking out for the little folks and the poor, I think they could easily dominate the American electorate right now, and we'd all be living in the North American redux of Great Britain (minus the abortion on demand). The Dems' unfortunate use of the pro-choice litmus test has been one of the great political missteps in this generation, IMO.

I, too, have the feeling that Santorum will lose - which is regrettable because he's among my favorite Senators, and the early favorite to get my vote in the '08 primaries. However, I don't think we should hang too much on his future if he loses this Senate race. Remember that some of the greatest GOP'ers in times past have lost some significant races and been put in early graves, only to become some of our greatest presidents (Lincoln and Reagan come to mind).

If Casey wins, it will be interesting (to me) to see how much air time he will be given on the national stage by the dems. It will be more interesting to see if he will break party ranks the first time a judge that is considered "too pro-life" comes down the pipe.

MachoNachos

And a very descriptive quote.  Pretty cool how many "rednecks" actually live up north.

Re: "I have never understood why the Democrats did not co-opt the pro-life stance to begin with?"

Answer: 1972. McGovern. Secularism as the blue-state faith. Emily's List. Aging, flabby hippie chicks as delegates at the DNC every year. Lots and lots of pot smoked at said convention.

BTW, If he wins, Casey Jr. will be lionized for about two weeks, and then banished into the abyss from whence he came.