Interesting analysis, in the NYTimes, of the Pennsylvania senate race. Written by Robin Toner,
It will be interesting to see how the increased negativity of the Rep candidates, coupled with better TV access, thanks to deeper pockets, changes the races.
Toner claims, a couple of times, that it has not changed it significantly or fundamentally. I'm not certain. Casey is, at best, a lack luster candidate and is likely to make it more as the not-Santorum. Well, there is the help from his father's legacy but that may be waning.
-----
The New York Times
September 25, 2006
A Senator Bets on Party’s Clout in Pennsylvania
By ROBIN TONER
An endangered Republican like Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania could always comfort himself with this: The political winds may be blowing the Democrats’ way this year, but the Republicans retain some formidable structural advantages.
Like money: Mr. Santorum, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate leadership, has had a significant fund-raising advantage over his Democratic challenger, State Treasurer Bob Casey, which means more money for television advertising.
Or the Republicans’ near-legendary voter turnout operation: the 72-hour program, tested and proven (to the Democrats’ despair) in the 2002 and 2004 elections, which moved coordinators into Pennsylvania more than a year ago to prepare for Nov. 7.
Not to mention the bully pulpit of the White House: even a politically beleaguered president can shape the terms of political debate, as President Bush demonstrated anew with his focus on terrorism in recent weeks.
As the midterm campaign enters its final six weeks, these Republican fortifications will be tested around the country, but arguably nowhere as much as in Pennsylvania. Mr. Santorum has lagged behind Mr. Casey in opinion polls for nearly a year now, at times by double digits; his seat has become the Democrats’ best hope for one of the six seats they need to regain a Senate majority.
Republican strategists say they have seen some signs in recent days of an improving political climate for their party nationally, which they hope is translated — soon — into individual races. But few are willing to declare a turning point in the battle for the House and Senate; both parties are waiting to see if the Republicans’ traditional advantages kick in.
Here in Pennsylvania, with every new poll, the question arises: Can Mr. Santorum, with all his resources, change the dynamics of this race?
So far, the answer is not fundamentally. One of the latest independent surveys, the Keystone Poll released last week, showed Mr. Casey retaining the lead, with the support of 45 percent of registered voters, to Mr. Santorum’s 38 percent. The race, experts say, has tightened since spring, and Mr. Casey’s unfavorable ratings have climbed.
But G. Terry Madonna, who heads the Keystone Poll at Franklin & Marshall College, noted that Mr. Santorum had been unable, so far, to improve his own standing significantly.
“He gets, on average, about 40 percent of the voters,” Mr. Madonna said. “He’s been able to knock Casey down just a tad, but he’s been unable to go up himself.”
The Keystone Poll showed Mr. Santorum still lagging significantly behind Mr. Casey in the Philadelphia suburbs, a critical battleground. A poll for The Philadelphia Inquirer, released yesterday, showed Mr. Casey with a 10-point lead.
Neil Newhouse, Mr. Santorum’s pollster, counters that the Republicans are clearly gaining ground — and have the time and the resources to gain more. “It’s a single-digit race,” Mr. Newhouse said. “And he has a financial advantage going into the last six weeks of this race. Anybody who would, at this point of the campaign, count him out, I think is making a serious mistake.”
Still, Mr. Madonna and other experts say the latest poll ratings are noteworthy because Mr. Santorum has already run substantial television advertising. According to an analysis of data gathered by the Campaign Media Analysis Group, the Santorum campaign and supporting groups overwhelmingly outspent the Casey forces in television advertising between late May and mid-September.
Mr. Santorum has run some positive commercials — former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York praises him in the latest — but the advertising wars have grown increasingly harsh in recent weeks. Like other endangered Republicans this year, who are fighting general discontent with the Bush administration and a Republican-controlled Congress, Mr. Santorum is trying to turn this race into a choice, not a referendum. And he needs to portray Mr. Casey — still undefined to many Pennsylvanians — as an unacceptable choice.
One of the most contentious Santorum advertisements opens in a room that is literally smoke-filled, with a group of cigar-smoking men (who are actors) playing cards, and clearly up to no good.
“Meet Bob Casey’s campaign team,” the announcer intones, citing unnamed developers and businessmen who have contributed to Mr. Casey and are now under investigation. Only when the camera pans back is it clear where the men are meeting — behind bars.
The advertisement was described as misleading by Factcheck.org, the nonpartisan monitor at the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, which noted that none of the men cited currently work for Mr. Casey, and that some had contributed, in past campaigns, not only to Mr. Casey, but also to Mr. Santorum.
Mr. Casey, in an interview, described the advertisement as a sign of “desperation” in his opponent. “It sent me a real signal that he feels he’s in trouble, that he can’t win this on his record or on his vision for the future,” Mr. Casey said.
Mr. Santorum’s advisers defend their advertising and say they plan more spots on Mr. Casey’s donors and his ethics, as well as his rapid ascent through elective offices. “We’re just starting to paint a picture for people of the Bob Casey they need to know about,” said John Brabender, Mr. Santorum’s media adviser.
The Casey campaign is running tough spots of its own. One recent advertisement featured a woman taking Mr. Santorum to task for suggesting, in his book “It Takes a Family,” last year, that in some families both parents work because of choice, not necessity. “He doesn’t understand how hard it is in order to make ends meet,” says the woman, Debbie Balcik, talking directly into the camera, explaining her anger. “I’m not like a U.S. senator. I can’t vote my own pay raise.”
Another focuses on Mr. Santorum’s voting record — or, as the announcer puts it, “a 98 percent voting record with George Bush” and “a record that hurts Pennsylvania.”
The air war has only recently been fully engaged in Philadelphia, the most expensive market in the state and one that reaches 40 percent of the voting-age population. Casey campaign officials said they husbanded their money this summer, and did not try to match the Santorum campaign’s spending, so that they could go toe to toe with the Republicans this fall.
“Did the race tighten over the time frame when Santorum and the Republicans were exploiting their cash-on-hand advantage? Yeah,” said Jay Reiff, Mr. Casey’s campaign manager. “But not now. We can match them now going down to the wire.”
They recently got some help from Gov. Edward G. Rendell, the Democrat who recruited Mr. Casey to enter the Senate race. Far ahead in his own race for re-election, Mr. Rendell announced in recent days that he was raising money to help Mr. Casey keep pace.
Republicans, in the end, are hoping to make the Senate race tight enough that a superior turnout operation can make the difference. The state has been a high priority with the national party from the start, given the challenge to Mr. Santorum and the competitive races facing several Republican House members there. Republicans are keenly aware of the challenge they face in the Philadelphia suburban counties, particularly with Mr. Rendell on the ticket.
“We have a Democratic governor running who’s good at this,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, alluding to Mr. Rendell’s prowess at turnout. “And we’ve been preparing for the past 16 months.”
Many Democrats also suggest that the sheer intensity of their voters will go a long way toward matching the Republicans’ structural advantage. “People are anxious to vote, and they’re anxious to vote for change,” Mr. Casey said. “They know a good turnout and a good vote means we can chart a different course.” He added, “The intensity is like none I’ve ever seen in our state.”
nytimes.com |
