Hand-wringing and prognostication
We are now in the traditional summer news slump before an election, and you know what that means: inane and incessant commentary about poll numbers, historical trends, and the magic crystal ball that everyone seems to have which will tell them who will win in November.
It is only Memorial Day, and I am already tired of it.
That aside, I wanted to relate something I heard on Election Night at Santorum's headquarters. Rick Santorum is the perpetual underdog no matter who he is running against. His poll numbers are always in the toilet. Always. It happened in 1990, 1992, 1994, 2000, and again in 2006. Remember when the Democrats redistricted Santorum's House district in 1992 and he "couldn't" win the seat again since it contained twice as many Democrats as Republicans? Of course not. He won with better than 60% of the vote, though. And remember in 2000 when his approval ratings were at 31%? No, of course not. He won against a pro-life Democrat that year, too.
This does not mean that Santorum's a shoe-in, but it does mean that an election featuring Rick Santorum is not one where you can rely on registration numbers and historic trends. This campaign will hinge on real issues and real decisions--things like taxes and immigration and NOT where someone's legal address is. On those issues, I can say as a conservative that I have been very happy with my Senator's performance and that I will remember that in the voting booth. Sooner or later I think others will come around.
The talking heads have consistently gotten Pennsylvania politics wrong; there are about 17 soon-to-be ex-legislators who can attest to that. I suppose this Senate election is no different.
But think--only five more months to go.
It is only Memorial Day, and I am already tired of it.
That aside, I wanted to relate something I heard on Election Night at Santorum's headquarters. Rick Santorum is the perpetual underdog no matter who he is running against. His poll numbers are always in the toilet. Always. It happened in 1990, 1992, 1994, 2000, and again in 2006. Remember when the Democrats redistricted Santorum's House district in 1992 and he "couldn't" win the seat again since it contained twice as many Democrats as Republicans? Of course not. He won with better than 60% of the vote, though. And remember in 2000 when his approval ratings were at 31%? No, of course not. He won against a pro-life Democrat that year, too.
This does not mean that Santorum's a shoe-in, but it does mean that an election featuring Rick Santorum is not one where you can rely on registration numbers and historic trends. This campaign will hinge on real issues and real decisions--things like taxes and immigration and NOT where someone's legal address is. On those issues, I can say as a conservative that I have been very happy with my Senator's performance and that I will remember that in the voting booth. Sooner or later I think others will come around.
The talking heads have consistently gotten Pennsylvania politics wrong; there are about 17 soon-to-be ex-legislators who can attest to that. I suppose this Senate election is no different.
But think--only five more months to go.
Comments on "Hand-wringing and prognostication"
post a comment