Pa.’s pricey Senate race

There’s more to Toomey vs. McGinty than nasty ads

You’re sick of it, right? All the ads painting Pat Toomey a Wall Streeter who doesn’t care about you; all the ads saying Katie McGinty is an ethical mess out only for herself.

Hang in there. The ads and campaigns soon will be gone.

But understand: This marquee U.S. Senate race is more than its noise might lead you to believe. First, it’s yuge. It’s branded with the imprint of Donald Trump, as in whether Mr. Toomey is wise to stay “stuck” (his word) on the question of voting for Mr. Trump now that it seems a majority of Pennsylvanians will not. Mr. Toomey’s, um, stance, drew direct fire over the weekend from the Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, who asked if Mr. Toomey doesn’t have “the courage” to stand up to Mr. Trump “can you be sure he’ll stand up for you?”

An easy, empty partisan line, sure. Just further evidence of how much Democrats want Mr. Toomey’s seat, which might give them Senate control.

And that’s why the race will cost more than any ever conducted in Pennsylvania: $100 million, maybe more. It might end up costing more than any Senate race anywhere. The record is $113 million, spent in a 2014 North Carolina Senate race.

It’s also the first Pennsylvania race I and other longtime watchers of state politics recall that’s attracted the attention of The New York Times editorial page. The newspaper Friday endorsed Ms. McGinty as a “better choice for anyone concerned about social and economic fairness.”

Which means social and economic fairness as defined by The New York Times, of course.

And as one wag offered, “Everyone reading the Times in this state already is voting for Katie, and I’ll bet she won’t show that endorsement in central or western Pa.”

That, in a nutshell, is why the race is close. There are two Pennsylvanias.

There’s Ms. McGinty’s: environment-oriented, prochoice, supports more spending for child care, more for education and an increased minimum wage.

There’s Mr. Toomey’s: business-oriented, pro-life, opposes government regulations, thinks a minimum wage hike would kill jobs.

There’s also the fact that Mr. Toomey is a national figure as a unique Republican who sought compromise on background checks for gun sales.

And Ms. McGinty, though untested, is policy-savvy, a fighter and a better candidate today than when this campaign began.

Despite their characterizations of each other in TV ads, both are sensible, serious people genuinely interested in public service, a fact that can fall through the cracks of a rough campaign.

The Real Clear Politics average of polls has Mr. Toomey up by 1.8 percentage points. That’s within the margin of error but still is a tribute to Mr. Toomey because he runs with Trump around his neck in a Democratic state.

But Ms. McGinty’s folks say an “unprecedented,” coordinated Democratic ground game will make the difference on Election Day. And maybe that’s true.

Just don’t view this as a “change election.” Yeah, it could result in the state’s first female senator, and that would be a change. But in terms of policy? Not so much.

The Senate has a rule requiring 60 votes to pass almost any legislation (the number needed to stop a filibuster), which explains why so little gets done in Washington.

The most optimistic Democratic scenarios suggest the party might win majority control with as few as 51 seats. No one predicts a 60-seat supermajority. So, even if Democrats win the White House and Senate (and even, by some miracle, the House), the 60-vote rule likely will thwart the Democratic agenda.

The Toomey vs. McGinty race is not establishment vs. anti-establishment, either. Both candidates support the principal tenets of their parties. But it is a statement election; a statement on what government should and should not do. She wants more. He wants less. Your choice.

Just don’t forget to vote. Even if you’re sick of it.