 | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 County results Congressional district resultsCasey: 50–60% 60–70% 70–80% 80–90% Santorum: 50–60% 60–70% | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
The2006 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania was held on November 7, 2006. IncumbentRepublicanRick Santorum ran for re-election to a third term, but was easily defeated byDemocratic State TreasurerBob Casey, Jr., the son of former GovernorBob Casey Sr.[1] Casey was elected to serve between January 3, 2007 and January 3, 2013.
Santorum trailed Casey in everypublic poll taken during the campaign. Casey's margin of victory (nearly 18% of those who voted) was the largest ever for a Democratic Senate nominee in Pennsylvania, the largest margin of victory for a Senate challenger in the2006 elections, and the largest general election margin of defeat for an incumbent U.S. senator since1980.[2] Casey was the first Pennsylvania Democrat to win a full term in the Senate sinceJoseph S. Clark Jr. in1962, and the first Democrat to win a Senate election since1991. He was the first Democrat to win a full term for this seat since1940.
This was one of the three Republican-held Senate seats up for election in a state thatJohn Kerry won in the2004 presidential election.
As of 2026, this was the last time the following counties have voted Democratic in a Senate election:Greene,Washington,Westmoreland,Somerset,Lawrence,Mercer,Armstrong,Indiana,Cambria,Warren,Forest,Elk,Clearfield,Clinton,Schuylkill,Columbia, andCarbon. This was also the last time an incumbent senator from Pennsylvania lost a general election until2024, when Casey was defeated byDavid McCormick.
Featherman withdrew his candidacy after a Republican party petition challenge because he did not have the necessary number of signatures to get on the ballot. As a result, Santorum won the Republican nomination unopposed.[3]
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | Rick Santorum (incumbent) | 561,952 | 100.00% | |
| Total votes | 561,952 | 100.00% | ||
TheDemocratic primary was held May 16, 2006.
Casey won a landslide victory in the primary.[8]
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | Bob Casey, Jr. | 629,271 | 84.48% | |
| Democratic | Chuck Pennacchio | 66,364 | 8.91% | |
| Democratic | Alan Sandals | 48,113 | 6.46% | |
| Write-in | 1,114 | 0.15% | ||
| Total votes | 744,862 | 100.00% | ||
Michelman decided against running and tacitly endorsed Casey in March 2006[9]
Romanelli was removed from the ballot by aCommonwealth Court judge on September 25, 2006, following a challenge from Democrats for failing to collect enough valid signatures required of third-party candidates. He lost the appeal to thestate Supreme Court challenging the required number of signatures, on October 3, 2006[10] Carl Romanelli was ordered to pay more than $80,000 in legal fees stemming from his failed effort to make the ballot.[11]
Republican strategists took Santorum's primary result in 2006 as a bad omen, in which he ran unopposed for the Republican nomination. Republican gubernatorial nomineeLynn Swann, also unopposed, garnered 22,000 more votes statewide than Santorum in the primary, meaning thousands of Republican voters abstained from endorsing Santorum for another Senate term. This may have been partly due to Santorum's support forArlen Specter over CongressmanPat Toomey in the 2004 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Even though Santorum was only slightly less conservative than Toomey, he joined virtually all of the state and national Republican establishment in supporting the moderate Specter. This led many socially and fiscally conservative Republicans to consider Santorum's support of Specter to be a betrayal of their cause.[12][13][14] However, Santorum said he supported Specter to avoid risking a Toomey loss in the general election, which would have prevented PresidentGeorge W. Bush's judicial nominees from Senate confirmation.[15] Santorum saysSupreme Court JusticeSamuel Alito would not have been confirmed without the help of Specter, who was chairman of theSenate Judiciary Committee at the time.[15]
In the Senate, Santorum was an outspoken conservative from a state with a history of electing moderates. This led many political commentators to speculate that his low approval ratings were due to some of his more controversial statements and opinions.
Among these controversies were his views on the privatization ofSocial Security[16][17] and the teaching ofintelligent design in public schools.[18] In addition, his involvement in theTerri Schiavo case was considered by many in his state to be out of place.[19][20]
All this left Santorum in a precarious position throughout the race. On May 31, 2006, the polling firmRasmussen Reports declared that Santorum was the "most vulnerable incumbent" among the senators running for re-election.[21] SurveyUSA polling taken right before the election showed that Santorum was the least popular of all 100 senators, with a 38% approval rating and a net approval rating of -19%.[22]
While Santorum maintained a small residence inPenn Hills, a township near Pittsburgh, his family primarily lived in a large house inLeesburg, a suburb ofWashington, D.C. inNorthern Virginia. Santorum faced charges of hypocrisy from critics who noted the similarities between his living situation and that of former RepresentativeDoug Walgren, who Santorum defeated in1990. Back then, Santorum had claimed that Walgren was out of touch with his district; these claims were backed up with commercials showing Walgren's home in the Virginia suburbs.[23]
OnNBC'sMeet the Press on September 3, 2006, Santorum admitted that he only spent "maybe a month a year, something like that" at his Pennsylvania residence.[24]
Santorum also drew criticism for enrolling five of his six children in an online"cyber school" in Pennsylvania'sAllegheny County (home to Pittsburgh and most of its suburbs), despite the fact that the children lived in Virginia. The Penn Hills School District was billed $73,000 in tuition for the cyber classes.[25]
Santorum began his contrast campaign against Casey early, charging him with relentlessly seeking higher political office[26] and failing to take definitive stands on issues.[27] While these charges kept the race competitive, in late September and through October, Casey's campaign seemed to regain the momentum it had had throughout most of the campaign, asmost polls showed Casey widening his lead after a summer slump. In aQuinnipiac University Polling Institute poll, released on September 26, 2006, Casey was favored by 14 points.[28] An October 18, 2006 poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports showed Casey with a similar double-digit lead. In the Rasmussen poll, only 46% of voters surveyed had a favorable view of Santorum, while 57% of voters viewed Casey favorably.[29]
At least one of Santorum's television ads called into question his campaign's use of the facts regarding Casey and people who had donated money to the Casey campaign.[30] The ad, which aired in September, showed several men seated around a table, while talking amongst themselves and smoking cigars, inside a jail cell. While none of the figures, who were played by actors, were named personally, the narrator provided the job descriptions, previous donations to Casey, and ethical and/or legal troubles of each. The Santorum campaign later provided the names of the people portrayed. An editorial in Casey's hometown newspaper,The Times-Tribune, pointed out that all but one of the contributions "[was] made to Casey campaigns when he was running for other offices, at which time none of the contributors were known to be under investigation for anything."[31] In fact, two of the persons cited in the Santorum campaign ad had actually given contributions to Santorum's 2006 Senate campaign. Another of the figures portrayed had died in 2004. Political scientistLarry Sabato called the ad "over the top" and suspected that the fallout would hurt Santorum.[32]
| Source | Ranking | As of |
|---|---|---|
| The Cook Political Report[33] | Lean D(flip) | November 6, 2006 |
| Sabato's Crystal Ball[34] | Safe D(flip) | November 6, 2006 |
| Rothenberg Political Report[35] | Likely D(flip) | November 6, 2006 |
| Real Clear Politics[36] | Likely D(flip) | November 6, 2006 |
| Source | Date | Bob Casey Jr. (D) | Rick Santorum (R) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quinnipiac[37] | February 16, 2005 | 46% | 41% |
| SurveyUSA[38] | March 8–9, 2005 | 49% | 42% |
| Keystone[39] | March 22, 2005 | 44% | 43% |
| Quinnipiac[40] | April 23, 2005 | 49% | 35% |
| Keystone[41] | June 6, 2005 | 44% | 37% |
| Quinnipiac[42] | July 13, 2005 | 50% | 39% |
| Rasmussen[43] | July 22, 2005 | 52% | 41% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[44] | July 31, 2005 | 51% | 40% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[45] | September 12, 2005 | 52% | 38% |
| Keystone[46] | September 13, 2005 | 50% | 37% |
| Quinnipiac[47] | October 3, 2005 | 52% | 34% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[48] | October 16, 2005 | 52% | 36% |
| Keystone[49] | November 10, 2005 | 51% | 35% |
| Rasmussen[50] | November 10, 2005 | 54% | 34% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[51] | November 16, 2005 | 51% | 36% |
| Quinnipiac[52] | December 13, 2005 | 50% | 38% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[53] | December 18, 2005 | 50% | 39% |
| Rasmussen[54] | January 15, 2006 | 53% | 38% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[55] | January 25, 2006 | 50% | 40% |
| Keystone[56] | February 9, 2006 | 50% | 39% |
| Quinnipiac[57] | February 13, 2006 | 51% | 36% |
| Rasmussen[58] | February 16, 2006 | 52% | 36% |
| Muhlenberg College[59] | March 2, 2006 | 49% | 37% |
| Mansfield University[60] | March 7, 2006 | 45% | 31% |
| Rasmussen[61] | March 14, 2006 | 48% | 38% |
| Rasmussen[62] | March 29, 2006 | 50% | 41% |
| Quinnipiac[63] | April 6, 2006 | 48% | 37% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[64] | April 13, 2006 | 50% | 40% |
| Rasmussen[65] | April 20, 2006 | 51% | 38% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call[66] | April 26, 2006 | 46% | 38% |
| Keystone[67] | May 4, 2006 | 47% | 41% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[68] | May 10, 2006 | 49% | 41% |
| Quinnipiac[69] | May 11, 2006 | 49% | 36% |
| Rasmussen[70] | May 22, 2006 | 56% | 33% |
| American Research Group[71] | May 25, 2006 | 54% | 41% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[72] | June 15, 2006 | 49% | 40% |
| Rasmussen[73] | June 19, 2006 | 52% | 37% |
| Quinnipiac[74] | June 21, 2006 | 52% | 34% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[75] | July 20, 2006 | 50% | 40% |
| Rasmussen[76] | July 26, 2006 | 50% | 39% |
| Muhlenberg College[77] | August 5, 2006 | 45% | 39% |
| Quinnipiac[78] | August 15, 2006 | 47% | 40% |
| Benenson Strategy Group (D)[79] | August 16, 2006 | 51% | 37% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[80] | August 17, 2006 | 47% | 41% |
| Rasmussen[81] | August 22, 2006 | 48% | 40% |
| Keystone[82] | August 24, 2006 | 44% | 39% |
| USA Today/Gallup[83] | August 27, 2006 | 56% | 38% |
| Keystone[84] | September 18, 2006 | 45% | 38% |
| Princeton Research Associates[85] | September 18, 2006 | 52% | 31% |
| Rasmussen[86] | September 20, 2006 | 49% | 39% |
| Temple/Philadelphia Inquirer[87] | September 24, 2006 | 49% | 39% |
| Quinnipiac[88] | September 26, 2006 | 54% | 40% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[89] | September 28, 2006 | 50% | 40% |
| Mason-Dixon/McClatchy-MSNBC[90] | October 2, 2006 | 49% | 40% |
| Rasmussen[91] | October 5, 2006 | 50% | 37% |
| Zogby International/Reuters[92] | October 5, 2006 | 48% | 36% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call[93] | October 8, 2006 | 46% | 41% |
| Rasmussen[94] | October 16, 2006 | 55% | 43% |
| Democracy Corps[95] | October 17, 2006 | 54% | 37% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[96] | October 23, 2006 | 49% | 42% |
| West Chester University[97] | October 27, 2006 | 50% | 39% |
| Rasmussen[98] | October 28, 2006 | 55% | 42% |
| Temple/Philadelphia Inquirer[99] | October 29, 2006 | 54% | 38% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[100] | October 30, 2006 | 49% | 39% |
| Quinnipiac[101] | November 1, 2006 | 52% | 42% |
| Keystone[102] | November 1, 2006 | 53% | 38% |
| Reuters/Zogby International[103] | November 2, 2006 | 48% | 40% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call[104] | November 3, 2006 | 51% | 43% |
| Mason-Dixon/McClatchy-MSNBC[105] | November 5, 2006 | 52% | 39% |
| Strategic Vision (R)[106] | November 6, 2006 | 52% | 40% |
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | Bob Casey Jr. | 2,392,984 | 58.64% | +13.2% | |
| Republican | Rick Santorum (incumbent) | 1,684,778 | 41.28% | −11.1% | |
| Write-in | 3,281 | 0.08% | N/A | ||
| Total votes | 4,081,043 | 100.00% | N/A | ||
| Democraticgain fromRepublican | |||||
At 9:45 PMEST on Election Night, Santorum called Casey to concede defeat.[108]
Casey Jr won 14 of 19 congressional districts, including four districts that elected Republicans to the House. Santorum won five districts, including one that elected a Democrat.[109]
| District | Casey Jr. | Santorum | Representative |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 87.7% | 12.3% | Bob Brady |
| 2nd | 89.6% | 10.4% | |
| Chaka Fattah | |||
| 3rd | 54.0% | 46.0% | Phil English |
| 4th | 54.9% | 45.1% | Melissa Hart (109th Congress) |
| Jason Altmire (110th Congress) | |||
| 5th | 49.9% | 50.1% | John E. Peterson |
| 6th | 58.5% | 41.5% | Jim Gerlach |
| 7th | 59.1% | 40.9% | Curt Weldon (109th Congress) |
| Joe Sestak (110th Congress) | |||
| 8th | 58.8% | 41.2% | Mike Fitzpatrick (109th Congress) |
| Patrick Murphy (110th Congress) | |||
| 9th | 44.9% | 55.1% | Bill Shuster |
| 10th | 49.1% | 50.9% | Don Sherwood (109th Congress) |
| Chris Carney (110th Congress) | |||
| 11th | 62.3% | 37.7% | Paul Kanjorski |
| 12th | 62.9% | 37.1% | John Murtha |
| 13th | 63.0% | 37.0% | Allyson Schwartz |
| 14th | 76.4% | 23.6% | Mike Doyle |
| 15th | 56.9% | 43.1% | Charlie Dent |
| 16th | 45.8% | 54.2% | Joe Pitts |
| 17th | 51.3% | 48.7% | Tim Holden |
| 18th | 55.2% | 44.8% | Tim Murphy |
| 19th | 45.6% | 54.4% | Todd R. Platts |
.jpg)
)_cropped.png)
