Last Spring, Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) got together with PA Governor Ed Rendell and decided that the candidate to take on Rick Santorum should be Bob Casey Jr.  They even pressured Joe Hoeffel and Barbara Hafer into not running.  One of their main reasons was that Casey got a record number of votes in his '04 Treasurer's race against a Republican no one can name.  The other is that Casey is "pro-life".  This, they thought, would take the abortion issue off the table.  

But polls are suggesting otherwise.  In the December Quinnipiac University poll Casey had a 50-38 lead over Rick Santorum.  However, after it was pointed out pro-choice Casey voters that he and Santorum both oppose legalized abortion, only 63% of his pro-choice "supporters" said they still will vote for him, while 22% said they will not vote in this race.  Another 6% said they'd vote for a pro-choice 3rd party candidate.  

Many respondents had assumed Casey's pro-choice because he's referred to as a Democrat.  After all, in a state where roughly 55% of voters identify as pro-choice it sure would've made sense for Dems to pick a pro-choice candidate to run against anti-choice Santorum.  

Now two new polls, show Casey's lead dropping fast. In the latest Rasmussen election poll, Casey earns support from just 48% of PA voters. That's a four-point drop since  February. Casey has lost at least a point in each of the last several surveys. Rasmussen argues the decline is likely due to recent attention to Casey's anti-choice views when former NARAL pres Kate Michleman was considering running as an Independent).   Casey currently attracts only 70% support from Democrats, 60% from "liberals".

Casey's lead has also been declining in the Zogby interactive polls: In March, he got 47.4% to Santorum's 39.4%  

Now that voters are starting to learn Casey is "pro-life" his lead is almost cut in half.  Roughly 50% of PA Republicans are pro-choice.  Why would socially liberal / fiscally conservative Republicans vote for Casey?  They don't agree with him on anything.  But many of them would vote for a pro-choice Democrat like Chuck Pennacchio.

What will happen when voters learn that Casey is also against embryonic stem cell research and universal healthcare, and that he supports the war in Iraq and confirmation of Samuel Alito?  The January Zogby poll  showed that his lead evaporated.  On the other hand, progressive Democrat Chuck Pennacchio beat Santorum by almost 3 points.  

We have overwhelming evidence that Casey cannot beat Santorum.  For every 2 liberals willing to plug their nose and pick Casey in November you'll find one that won't.  We need Pennacchio to win the primary on May 16th.  Go to Chuck's website and volunteer or contribute to his grassroots, PAC-free camapaign.  Pennsylvania can either elect the next Paul Wellstone, or have 6 more years with "Man on Dog".  

Imagine you're taking a survey about soda.  First question is "Do you like Pepsi?"  #2: "Do you like Coke?" #3:  "If you were given a choice between a can of Pepsi or a can of Coke, which soda would you choose?"   #4:  "Do you generally prefer drinking Pepsi or Coke?"  #5 "Which has a prettier can, Pepsi or Coke?" and finally #6: "If you were given a choice between a can of Coke or a can of Diet Rite, which would you choose?"

Now, don't ya kinda feel like a Coke?   Okay, regardless of what kind of cola you drink, whether or not you even like soda (or "pop" as they call it in Pittsburgh), the point is: it was a biased poll.  The lesser known, but refreshing Diet Rite didn't get mentioned until the very last question.  If you really wanted to know what cola people prefer you would need to include all colas in an equal number of questions, right?

Problem is, political polls are far too often done the same way.  For many months, my candidate for the US Senate, Chuck Pennacchio, was excluded from polls entirely.  This despite the fact that Chuck was filed with the FEC and on the campaign trail longer than his main Democratic primary opponent, Bob Casey Jr..  Not to mention that last Spring Barbara Hafer and Joe Hoeffel were included in polls against Santorum, even though they were never even officially in the race.

It wasn't until this Fall that Chuck Pennacchio, was finally included in a Keystone poll... but only against Casey.  I'm too lazy to google it, but I think the numbers were 67% Casey - 5% Pennacchio.  Needless to say, I was very discouraged when I saw it.  That is, until I realized it was push poll just like the one above; heavily biased in Coke II... I mean, Casey's favor. Casey's name is repeated in multiple questions and pounded into a respondent's head before they poll Casey v. Pennacchio

You can hear Chuck's comments on these polls in his recent Radio Times interview here.

Another problem with political polls (especially for primaries) is they don't predict voter turnout.  Remember in the 2002 Gubernatorial primary, Casey maintained a huge lead over Rendell in the polls but still lost.  Only about 1 in 12 (8% of) registered voters vote in primaries.  That means Pennacchio only needs 4% +1 Democrats to vote for him on May 16th to win.  If the 5% who said they'd vote for Pennacchio are much more likely to actually show up at the polls than those who said they'd vote for Casey, then Chuck Pennacchio may be much closer to winning the primary than pundits (or the Casey campaign) would have us believe.  And that may very likely be the case because, Pennacchio's campaign has focused mainly on reaching the Democratic "super voters" who are guaranteed to vote on primary day.  And if Chuck's grassroots endorsements are any indication, they like what they hear.

The only scientific poll to include all D&R candidates (and have an equal number of questions for each) found that after respondents learned the candidates' positions on the issues, Chuck Pennacchio actually had a stronger lead over Santorum than Casey.

So frankly I find the Casey apologists' "Chuck can't win" argument a little hard to swallow.    

That being said, the more Democrats who hear about Chuck, the better his chances.  He'll be running some radio spots soon.  Give them a listen, and contribute to help him become Pennsylvania's Paul Wellstone.  

It has been all too common for newspaper articles on Pennsylvania's upcoming US Senate race to ignore progressive Democratic candidate Chuck Pennacchio.  When Chuck does receive a mention, his name is often preceded by an adjective like "longshot" or "unknown" as in  this article.   It never seems to dawn on journalists that Chuck's alleged underdog status could have anything to do with the fact that he receives but a small fraction of the media attention his primary opponent Casey enjoys.  Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.  After months of the mainstream media acting as though Casey has already won the nomination, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Chuck would trail Casey in primary polls.

PA's "Democratic" Governor Ed Rendell, along with DSCC chair and NY Senator, Chuck Schumer,  have done their best to cram Casey down Democrat's throats.  

The Casey apologists over at Kos chant incessantly that Chuck is not a viable candidate.  With such biased reporting it is truly amazing that Chuck has come as far as he has.  Despite the best efforts of the Democratic machine to crush Pennacchio and deny PA Dems an open primary, Chuck continues to rack up endorsements from grassroots groups across the state.  The Lancaster Democratic Committee recently voted to have an open primary.  And Casey only narrowly snagged an endorsement from the Bucks County Democratic Committee.

In Sunday's edition of the New York Times Robin Toner writes "...some public opinion polls consistently showing Mr. Santorum trailing his Democratic opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr."

Not only is Chuck Pennacchio not mentioned by name, it is as if there is no primary.   Please contact Robin here and make sure the NY times is aware of this oversight.  Also send a letter to the editor to letters@nytimes.com.  

Chuck Pennacchio is a viable candidate; the media just refuses to acknowledge it.  He's done over 260 public campaign stops to Casey's 5.  Yes, Pay-Per-View Bob has done a few dozen fundraisers but that is not the same as actually talking with voters and winning them over. The Democrats have lost 14 consecutive full-term US Senate elections.  Let's break that losing streak.