Rick Santorum V. Robert Casey Jr.

Rick Santorum v. Robert Casey Jr.

The Rick Santorum and Robert Casey Jr. senate race of Pennsylvania was very close and followed typical measures to why the race shifted the way it did. It is not common for an incumbent to lose a political race because the recourses available to them. Santorum had a slight advantage over Casey entering campaigning because he had risen over twice as much as Casey. Pennsylvania is a competitive state because party identification is split leaning slightly toward the Democratic Party. It is important to understand party identification in this race since Santorum was a two time incumbent for the state. Also national issues will be addressed since they played a significant role in determining many other races in the 2006 senate elections. Each candidate has personal views and attributes that as a result factored into the outcome of this race.

Rick Santorum was elected to the U.S senate in 1994 and was reelected in 2000. He held previous offices prior to becoming a U.S senator. He was elected in 1990 to the U.S house of representative (The Frontier, 2006). He was no stranger to the political culture beating a seven time Democrat incumbent for the U.S house. Santorum began the Chairman of America’s Foundation. The Political Action Committee was created in order to raise funds necessary for reelection of republican candidates running for office nationwide (The Frontier, 2006). Santorum was a strong supporter and chairman for the Bush/Cheney reelection campaign in Pennsylvania. Santorum’s apparent affiliation not only with the Republican Party but directly with the Bush/Cheney administration affected his polls entering the election for U.S senate.

Santorum’s political views on mainstream issues were highly conservative although, gaining support from some democrats. He was the sponsor of a welfare act in 1996 that suggested personal responsibility and work opportunities (Source Watch, 2007). The bill became a law with bipartisan support signed by Bill Clinton. His views on religion were also supported by Senator John Kerry a democrat of Massachusetts. He proposed the Workplace Religious Freedom Act that would require employers to have appropriate accommodations for cultural independence (Source Watch, 2007). On the controversial issue of privacy, Santorum believed that privacy was not a right that was protected under the constitution. Santorum’s mainstream issues were aligned with those of democrats, therefore, not being the primary cause of his defeat in 2006.

Santorum’s opponent Robert Casey Jr. was elected State Auditor General prior to running for U.S senate. In 1995 he attempted a bid for the 2002 gubernatorial nomination but was unsuccessful (The Frontier, 2006). Casey was not a well known politician but was a quality challenger. During the democratic nomination he won by a landslide. His political perspective was theoretical; he primarily spoke on how he would have voted on issues in the senate. With no voting record Casey was free to discuss issues with no chance of contradicting himself based on a previous decision. Being an unknown contender is generally a disadvantage but in Casey’s circumstance proved to be successful. Individuals showed their discontent in practical policies and influenced new ideas.

Campaign finance is an important role in winning a federal election. Rick Santorum raised 28,639,350 (Open Secrets, 2007). He primarily received contributions from individuals, but also received seventeen percent of his contributions from PAC’s. It is more common for incumbents to receive support from PAC’s than challengers. Santorum’s contributions follow the rules of the game for incumbents. Casey on the other hand raised 17,929,270 almost eleven million less than Santorum. Casey’s campaign contributions were primarily from individuals (90%) (Open secretes 2007). The campaign finance in this election displays the theory of incumbency advantage, including larger donations from PAC’s.

Incumbents are generally