# 2010 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania

Elections in Pennsylvania :
Federal government
U.S. President
1789
1792
1796
1800
1804
1808
1812
1816
1820
1824
1828
1832
1836
1840
1844
1848
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Presidential primaries
Democratic
2000
2004
2008
2016
2020
2024
Republican
2008
2016
2020
2024
U.S. Senate
1788
1791
1793 sp
1794 sp
1795
1796
1797
1801
1801 sp
1802
1806
1808
1808 sp
1809 sp
1812
1814
1814 sp
1818
1820
1824
1826
1830
1831 sp
1832
1834 sp
1836
1840 sp
1843
1845
1845 sp
1849
1851
1856
1857
1861
1861 sp
1863
1867
1869
1873
1875
1877 sp
1879
1881
1885
1887
1891
1893
1897
1899
1901 sp
1903
1905
1905 sp
1908
1909
1909 sp
1911
1914
1916
1920
1922
1922 sp
1926
1928
1930 sp
1932
1934
1938
1940
1944
1946
1950
1952
1956
1958
1962
1964
1968
1970
1974
1976
1980
1982
1986
1988
1991 sp
1992
1994
1998
2000
2004
2006
2010
2012
2016
2018
2022
2024
2028
U.S. House of Representatives
1788
1791
1792
1794
1796
5th sp
1797
5th sp
1798
1st sp
4th sp
1800
8th sp
1801
4th sp
8th sp
12th sp
1802
1804
10th sp
1805
4th sp
11th sp
1806
1st sp
1808
1st sp
1809
1st sp
1810
1812
1813
3rd sp
5th sp
7th sp
13th sp
15th sp
1814
2nd sp
3rd sp
1815
1st sp
3rd sp
9th sp
1816
9th sp
1817
10th sp
1818
4th sp
6th sp
1820
5th sp
7th sp
1821
5th sp
10th sp
1822
1st sp
6th sp
7th sp
14th sp
1824
8th sp
13th sp
1825
16th sp
1826
2nd sp
7th sp
13th sp
18th sp
1827
2nd sp
1828
1829
8th sp
16th sp
1830
1831
11th sp
1832
1833
1st sp
1834
1836
13th sp
24th sp
1837
3rd sp
1838
9th sp
1839
14th sp
1840
13th sp
22nd sp
1841
2nd sp
13th sp
20th sp
18th sp
Jun
Dec
1842
17th sp
21st sp
1843
1844
12th sp
13th sp
21st sp
1846
1848
6th sp
1850
11th sp
15th sp
1852
1854
8th sp
1856
1857
12th sp
1858
8th sp
1860
8th sp
1861
2nd sp
12th sp
1862
7th sp
1864
1866
1867
12th sp
1868
9th sp
20th sp
1870
1872
13th sp
1874
23rd sp
1876
12th sp
1878
1880
1882
1884
19th sp
1885
19th sp
1886
1888
1890
3rd sp
4th sp
1892
1893
2nd sp
8th sp
1894
at-large sp
1895
15th sp
1896
1897
25th sp
1898
23rd sp
1899
9th sp
1900
5th sp
1901
10th sp
1902
17th sp
1903
4th sp
1904
3rd sp
1906
2nd sp
3rd sp
12th sp
1907
2nd sp
1908
1910
1911
2nd sp
14th sp
1912
1st sp
1914
1916
1917
28th sp
1918
1919
22nd sp
1920
3rd sp
1921
at-large sp
1922
1924
1926
1927
1st sp
1928
8th sp
1929
12th sp
1930
1931
2nd sp
1932
6th sp
18th sp
20th sp
1933
9th sp
1934
1936
1937
18th sp
1938
1939
4th sp
1940
1941
15th sp
1942
11th sp
12th sp
33rd sp
1943
2nd sp
23rd sp
1944
2nd sp
17th sp
1946
10th sp
23rd sp
33rd sp
1947
8th sp
1948
1949
22nd sp
26th sp
1950
1951
8th sp
14th sp
33rd sp
1952
1954
1956
2nd sp
30th sp
1957
13th sp
1958
4th sp
21st sp
1960
17th sp
18th sp
1961
16th sp
1962
1963
15th sp
23rd sp
1964
5th sp
1966
1968
1970
9th sp
1971
18th sp
1972
27th sp
1974
12th sp
1976
1st sp
1978
1980
11th sp
12th sp
1981
3rd sp
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1991
2nd sp
1992
1994
1996
1998
1st sp
2000
2001
9th sp
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
12th sp
2012
2014
2016
2nd sp
2018
7th sp
15th sp
18th sp
2019
12th sp
2020
2022
2024 :
State government
Governor
1790
1793
1796
1799
1802
1805
1808
1811
1814
1817
1820
1823
1826
1829
1832
1835
1838
1841
1844
1847
1848
1851
1854
1857
1860
1863
1866
1869
1872
1875
1878
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Lieutenant Governor
1874
1878
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Attorney General
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Auditor General
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
State Treasurer
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
State Senate
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
State House of Representatives
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
Elections by year
State elections
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025 :
Philadelphia
Mayoral elections
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1856
1858
1860
1862
1865
1868
1871
1874
1877
1881
1884
1887
1891
1895
1899
1903
1907
1911
1915
1919
1923
1927
1931
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2019
2023
City Council elections
1951
1954 sp.
1955
1959
1963
2015
2019
2022–23 sp.
2023
Other municipal elections
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
2023 :
Pittsburgh
Mayors
1909
1913
1917
1921
1925
1929
1933
1937
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1959
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2007
2009
2013
2017
2021
2025 :
Allentown
Mayors
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2019 sp
2021
2025 :
Lancaster
Mayors
2009
2017
2021
2025 :
Harrisburg
Mayors
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2021
2025 :
Government :
vte :
The 2010 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania took place on November 2, 2010, during the 2010 midterm elections. Incumbent Republican-turned-Democrat U.S. Senator Arlen Specter ran for reelection to a sixth term, but lost in the Democratic primary to Joe Sestak. Republican nominee Pat Toomey then won the seat.
Toomey had previously run for United States Senate in 2004, challenging Specter for the Republican nomination, but was narrowly defeated in the primary. Specter went on to be reelected to his fifth term, defeating the Democratic nominee, Congressman Joe Hoeffel. Toomey announced on April 15, 2009, that he would again seek the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in the 2010 election.
The primary season was marked by Specter's decision in early 2009 to switch from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party due to his disagreement with the increasingly conservative positions of the party, pitting him against Sestak in the Democratic primary. The contest, characterized by attacks between the two Democratic candidates, was one of the most-watched primary races of the 2010 election cycle. Sestak ultimately defeated Specter in the May 18 primary, garnering 53.9% of the vote, to Specter's 46.1%. Pat Toomey easily defeated challenger Peg Luksik for the Republican nomination. Toomey received 81.5% of the vote, to Luksik's 18.5%.
Toomey defeated Sestak in the general election on November 2, 2010. Toomey garnered 2,028,945 votes (51.01%) to Sestak's 1,948,716 (48.99%), a margin of 80,229 votes (2.02%). The race was called by the Associated Press shortly before midnight. Not long thereafter, Sestak officially conceded the election to Toomey. Toomey's winning margin made this election the third-closest race of the 2010 Senate election cycle, behind only the elections in Illinois and Colorado.

## Democratic primary
### Candidates
#### Nominee

* Joe Sestak, U.S. representative for Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district

#### Eliminated in primary

* Arlen Specter, incumbent U.S. Senator

#### Withdrew

* William C. Kortz, member of Pennsylvania House of Representatives

### Campaign

The Democratic party race between Specter and Sestak was considered one of the most bitter and highly watched of all the 2010 primary elections. On April 28, 2009, Specter switched to the Democratic Party after having served in the Senate as a Republican for 28 years, encouraged by Vice President Joe Biden and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, after he had voted in favor of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan and was faced with opposition from Pennsylvania Republicans. Although Specter claimed he switched largely because he disagreed with the increasingly conservative direction the Republican Party was heading in, he also admitted that the switch was due to his poor chances of winning a Republican primary against Toomey due to Specter's support of the Obama stimulus package . The Democratic establishment had until then encouraged Sestak, a former U.S. Navy admiral and the representative of Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district, to run in the Democratic primary. But after Specter switched parties he was largely embraced by such major Democratic figures as Obama, Biden, Rendell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Democratic establishment now feared Sestak would harm Specter's chances in the general election and encouraged him to drop out, but Sestak refused and strongly criticized Specter's party switch as an opportunistic move aimed solely at political self-preservation.
Specter led Sestak by more than 20 percentage points in polling for most of the race and, while Sestak struggled to overcome problems from his low name recognition, Specter received endorsements from major Democratic figures and influential organizations like the AFL-CIO and Pennsylvania Democratic Committee. Specter's lead narrowed significantly in the final month of the campaign, when Sestak concentrated his funds and efforts on television commercials that questioned Specter's Democratic credentials. As the race progressed, Specter grew more strongly critical of Sestak, attacking his House attendance record, accusing him of failing to pay his staffers' minimum wage, and claiming that he was demoted in the Navy for creating a "poor command climate". On May 18, Sestak ended Specter's nearly 30-year Senate career, earning 53.8 percent of the primary vote to Specter's 46.2 percent. Political observers said the commercials played a major part in Sestak's victory, and that a national swing in momentum toward Republicans and against incumbents ultimately harmed Specter's chances. During the primary campaign, it was revealed that former President Bill Clinton had offered Sestak a position in the Obama administration if he withdrew his candidacy. This drew allegations from Republicans that the administration violated federal statutes forbidding government employees from interfering with a Senate election, but no formal investigation was opened. The Democratic primary occurred on May 18, 2010. Although Specter had won the endorsement of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, at 10:14 PM EDT that evening, the Associated Press projected the race as won by Sestak.

### Polling

| Poll source | Dates administered | Arlen Specter | Joe Sestak |
| POS | May 3, 2009 | 62% | 24% |
| Research 2000 | May 4, 2009 | 56% | 11% |
| Quinnipiac | May 28, 2009 | 50% | 21% |
| Rasmussen Reports | June 17, 2009 | 51% | 32% |
| Franklin/Marshall | June 25, 2009 | 33% | 13% |
| Quinnipiac | July 19, 2009 | 55% | 23% |
| Rasmussen Reports | August 11, 2009 | 47% | 34% |
| Research 2000 | August 12, 2009 | 48% | 33% |
| Quinnipiac | September 28, 2009 | 44% | 25% |
| Rasmussen Reports | October 13, 2009 | 46% | 42% |
| Rasmussen Reports | December 8, 2009 | 48% | 35% |
| Quinnipiac U | December 8, 2009 | 53% | 30% |
| Rasmussen Reports | January 18, 2010 | 53% | 32% |
| Rasmussen Reports | February 8, 2010 | 51% | 36% |
| Quinnipiac | February 22–28, 2010 | 53% | 29% |
| Research 2000 | March 8–10, 2010 | 51% | 32% |
| Rasmussen Reports | March 15, 2010 | 48% | 37% |
| Quinnipiac | March 31 – April 5, 2010 | 53% | 32% |
| Rasmussen Reports | April 13, 2010 | 44% | 42% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call | May 2, 2010 | 48% | 42% |
| Quinnipiac | April 28 – May 2, 2010 | 47% | 39% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call | May 7, 2010 | 43% | 43% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call | May 8, 2010 | 42% | 44% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call | May 9, 2010 | 42% | 46% |
| Rasmussen Reports | May 10, 2010 | 42% | 47% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call | May 10, 2010 | 42% | 47% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call | May 11, 2010 | 43% | 47% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call | May 12, 2010 | 45% | 45% |
| Quinnipiac | May 12, 2010 | 44% | 42% |
| Franklin & Marshall | May 12, 2010 | 36% | 38% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call | May 13, 2010 | 44% | 44% |
| Suffolk | May 13, 2010 | 40% | 49% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call | May 14, 2010 | 45% | 43% |
| Daily Kos/Research 2000 | May 14, 2010 | 43% | 45% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call | May 15, 2010 | 44% | 43% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call | May 16, 2010 | 44% | 44% |
| Quinnipiac | May 16, 2010 | 41% | 42% |

### Results

Democratic primary results :
| Party | Party | Candidate | Votes | % |
| | Democratic | Joe Sestak | 568,563 | 53.9% |
| | Democratic | Arlen Specter (incumbent) | 487,217 | 46.1% |
| Total votes | Total votes | Total votes | 1,055,780 | 100.0% |

## Republican primary
### Background

Pat Toomey, a Republican former Congressman representing the Lehigh Valley-based 15th congressional district, had previously challenged incumbent Arlen Specter in the Republican primary of the 2004 Senate race, in which the conservative Toomey tried to portray Specter as too liberal. Although Toomey ultimately lost, he came within 17,000 votes (less than two percentage points) of beating Specter, despite the long-time Senator's strong name recognition and wide support from party leaders. In an interview with The Hill on 1 December 2008, Toomey said he was considering a 2010 bid against Specter, whom he said was "significantly more vulnerable now than he was in 2004". Toomey claimed that many liberal and moderate Republicans had since abandoned the party to join the Democratic Party during the 2008 presidential primaries, eliminating many of Specter's core constituents from a closed Republican primary.
   As this disastrous recession worsens, I have become increasingly concerned about the future of our state and national economy. Unfortunately, the recent extraordinary response of the federal government – more corporate bailouts, unprecedented spending and debt, higher taxes – is likely to make things worse. I think we are on a dangerously wrong path. Pennsylvanians want a US Senator focused on real and sustainable job creation that gets our economy growing again. That is why I am considering becoming a candidate for the U.S. Senate.
The next month, however, Toomey announced he would not likely not run for Senate again and said he was instead seriously considering a possible bid for governor in 2010. But after Specter voted in favor of the Barack Obama-supported stimulus proposal aimed at stopping the economic recession, Toomey began to once again contemplate running for Senate, claiming he believed the incumbent Senator was supporting federal government bailouts and spending plans that were "taking the country on a dangerously wrong path". In discussions with potential supporters in his possible governor bid, dozens of Pennsylvanians urged Toomey to challenge Specter, who was considered particularly vulnerable because he had supported the Democrats' stimulus plan. In early March, Toomey began to privately assure supporters he would run against Specter, and during a March 28 keynote address before the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference in Harrisburg, he announced, "It's very likely that very soon I will be a candidate for the U.S. Senate"; the 600 audience members gave him a standing ovation at the news.
Peg Luksik, a conservative anti-abortion activist from Johnstown who previously lost bids for governor in 1990 and 1994, had announced her candidacy for the Republican primary in March. Although some questioned her lack of elected office experience and limited knowledge of foreign affairs, Luksik said she planned to be an advocate against big government and excessive spending. During a conversation in February 2009, Toomey had assured her he did not plan to run for Senate again. She was present the next month at the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference when Toomey announced his plans to run, but Luksik said she nevertheless planned to stay in the race. She said she did not feel betrayed by Toomey's surprise announcement, adding, "I understand these two men have a long, personal and rather vindictive history and there's a real desire for the two of them to go and hit each other with sticks. I get that. I have five sons." Her candidacy led to speculation that Luksik and Toomey could split the conservative vote, which could help Specter secure a victory in the primary from moderate voters, but Luksik said she would resist any efforts by conservative Republicans to pressure her into withdrawing.

### Candidates
#### Nominee

* Pat Toomey, former U.S. Representative and candidate for the United States Senate in 2004.

#### Eliminated in the primary

* Peg Luksik, conservative activist

### Campaign
#### Specter's party switch

Pat Toomey formally announced his candidacy on April 15, 2009, Tax Day, via a video on his website, and stepped down as head of the anti-tax political organization Club for Growth to concentrate on his campaign. A Quinnipiac University Polling Institute poll released the previous month had indicated Toomey would defeat Specter by 14 percentage points in a two-man race if the primary were held that day. That same poll, however, found three out of four Republicans didn't yet know enough about Toomey to form an opinion about him. Some Republicans expressed concerns that if Toomey defeated Specter in the closed Republican primary, he would be a weaker candidate in the general election and the party could risk losing the Senate seat to the Democrats. Toomey rejected such concerns, pointed to his two successful reelections in the Democratic-leaning Lehigh Valley congressional district as proof he could win votes from the opposing party. Rumors began to circulate that Senator John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and a Specter supporter, had asked Toomey to drop his candidacy, but Toomey denied those claims. Nevertheless, Toomey received some early support from conservatives like Jim DeMint, the senator from South Carolina who endorsed Toomey and donated thousands of dollars to his campaign.
Starting in April, Specter made the rare move of starting to run television advertisements more than a year before the primary election, linking Toomey's background as a Wall Street banker and support of credit default swaps to the economic crisis. While Toomey criticized Specter as a liberal who consistently sided with the Democratic majority, Specter stressed that if Toomey won the primary, he would lose the general election and give Democrats a 60th seat in the Senate, which would allow them to suppress Republican filibusters. In an interview on Morning Joe, Specter said, "If Mr. Toomey is the nominee, you can be sure he'll lose. He's to the right of Rick Santorum. Santorum lost by 18 points, spent $31 million and was a two-term incumbent." Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, said of the expected primary match-up, "Republicans will have to decide whether they want to hold the seat or make a statement about issues and ideology."
On April 28, 2009, however, Specter announced he was leaving the Republican Party and becoming a Democrat, claiming he disagreed with the increasingly conservative direction the party was heading in and found his personal philosophy was now better aligned with the Democratic Party. Although Specter said his decision was made primarily based on principle, he admitted it was also partially due to his poor chances of beating Toomey in the Republican primary: "I have traveled the state and surveyed the sentiments of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania and public opinion polls, observed other public opinion polls and have found that the prospects for winning a Republican primary are bleak." Toomey became widely considered the favorite to win the Republican primary as a result of Specter's defection. Peg Luksik said of Specter's switch, "It is clear that Arlen Specter stands with President Obama on a host of issues and with this decision, has gone home to the Democratic Party."

#### Republican primary

With Specter's departure from the primary, some speculated that a less conservative candidate than Toomey was needed to defeat Specter in the general election, since the state had previously supported Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. John Cornyn declined to immediately endorse Toomey and Senator Orrin Hatch, vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said of him, "I don't think there is anybody in the world who believes he can get elected senator there." Names of other potential Republican candidates began to be floated, like Congressman Jim Gerlach, Lieutenant Governor Joseph B. Scarnati, and State Senate Majority Leader Dominic F. Pileggi, none of whom ruled out running. Some, like Senator Lindsey Graham and Republican State Committee Chairman Robert Gleason, suggested former governor Tom Ridge might be a suitable candidate. Ridge began to seriously contemplate a run, and Quinnipiac University polls indicated Specter held a projected lead over Ridge of only three percentage points, compared to 20 points over Toomey.
Even before Ridge made a final decision, however, conservative bloggers began criticizing Ridge's moderate positions and support for abortion rights. Political opponents also circulated e-mail messages questioning Ridge's residency eligibility because, although he still voted in Pennsylvania, he lived in Chevy Chase, Maryland. On May 7, Ridge announced he would not run in the primary, claiming he preferred to continue supporting the Republican Party by promoting causes as a private citizen. Some felt Ridge's decision not to run ended the Republican Party's best chance to win the seat from Specter. But Toomey expressed confidence he could beat the incumbent senator, claiming Democrats would find him difficult to trust after seeing the way he abandoned the Republicans. Toomey said he "expected to beat Arlen Specter soundly in the Republican primary, but I had no idea I would drive him clear out of the party." A Quinnipiac University poll released on May 28 projected Toomey now trailed Specter by nine percentage points, a smaller gap than Specter's 20-point lead from a May 4 survey.
Although Toomey anticipated that other candidates would enter the race, the Republican primary remained a two-way race between him and Luksik. State Senator Jane Orie, from the North Hills area of Pennsylvania, briefly considered entering the race but announced on July 13 that she would not run because she wanted to concentrate on the state budget. The National Republican Senatorial Committee announced on July 14 that it was endorsing Toomey, even though the group previously helped Specter defeat Toomey in 2004. It was considered a key endorsement expected to help improve fund-raising efforts for Toomey, who had already raised $1.6 million in the previous three-month quarter. By July 22, polls indicated that Specter's projected lead over Toomey had nearly disappeared, as the Senator now led him only 45-44 percent. That same poll showed Toomey led Luksik by 47 percent to 6 percent, a margin so large that media outlets predicted Luksik stood little chance of overcoming him; the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said Luksik was "not considered to be a stiff challenge". By August, Toomey had an even greater advantage in the polls, 12 points, over Specter.
Following an e-mail exchange with the Democratic challenger Joe Sestak about health care, Toomey agreed to an unorthodox proposal by Sestak to hold a joint town hall about the issue, which was held September 2 at Muhlenberg College in Allentown. Specter was not invited to participate, and political pollster G. Terry Madonna described it as an "informal pact" between Sestak and Toomey to weaken their joint rival, something the two men denied. Commentators suggested Toomey was willing to help Sestak at this stage of the race because he preferred Sestak as a general election opponent rather than Specter, who could possibly steal Republican and Independent voters from Toomey. By October, Toomey had raised a total of $3.1 million for the race, but spent $861,000 in the past three-month quarter as he traveled across the state for his campaign. In contrast, Luksik raised less than $100,000 from June to October. Also in October, Toomey was endorsed by former Massachusetts Governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who called Toomey the "man for the job" and pledged to help him raise funds.

#### Late campaign

   We're going to win this election because when you give people a choice between prosperity and stagnation, they'll choose prosperity. We're on the side of the people who pay all the bills. I believe they will choose to return to the principles of this great party.
Toomey continued to hold projected leads against his Democratic opponents as the primary campaign entered 2010, with January polls indicating he held a 14-point lead over Specter and a 17-point lead over Sestak. Some political scientists, like G. Terry Madonna and Jeff Brauer, attributed Toomey's gains to voter dissatisfaction with the health-care plan before Congress and a poor national political climate for Democrats and incumbents. Toomey's campaign continued to portray him as a political outsider and small-government advocate while condemning Specter and Sestak as "a rubber stamp for the Reid-Pelosi big government agenda". In February, it was announced Toomey raised more money than Specter in the final three months of 2009, earning $1.67 million compared to Specter's $1.15 million, although Specter's total war chest of $8.66 million was still significantly larger than Toomey's $2.8 million. In that same quarter, Peg Luksik raised $163,000 and had $66,000 on hand. On February 13, the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania endorsed Toomey over Peg Luskik in the Senate race. Toomey told the committee he would work to restore fiscally conservative principals to Washington and fight to eliminate street money, or state grants offered in exchange for support on key issues. When asked whether Luksik would continue to run, she replied, "Absolutely. Are you kidding? I always run un-endorsed."
With news outlets like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Fox News predicting Toomey would have little difficult defeating Luksik in the primary, Toomey again became involved with the Democratic primary by accepting an invitation to a second debate with Sestak, who had been trying unsuccessfully to engage Arlen Specter in more than one primary debate. In accepting the April 11 debate, Toomey said, "Like many politicians who have spent decades in Washington, Sen. Specter maintains a sense of entitlement to his office and he is unwilling to put his record and ideas to the test of open and honest debate." In response to the scheduled debate, Luksik spokesman Steve Clark said Toomey had to remember he was running against Luksik in the primary, not Sestak or Specter. By March, Specter appeared to be gaining momentum in the Democratic primary, with polls indicating he not only led Sestak by 24 percentage points, but had recaptured a projected lead against Toomey in the general election by a margin of 49 percent to 42 percent. Pollsters indicated Specter was benefiting greatly from the large amount of media attention the Democratic primary had received, as well as the Senator's strong name recognition, whereas Sestak and Toomey remained relatively unknown.
When the Senate candidates publicly released their quarterly campaign finance reports on April 15, it was revealed that Pat Toomey once again raised more in the first three months of 2010 than either Democratic candidate, increasing his funds by $2.3 million to a total of a $4.1 million war chest compared to Specter raising $1.1 million to a total of $9.1 million and Sestak raising $0.4 million to a total of $5.3 million. The funds raised that quarter made Toomey the best-funded Senate challenger in the country to that point. Political analysts attributed Toomey's success to the national swing in momentum toward Republicans, and said it could indicate the Republicans would be victorious in many Senate races, including in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Luksik continued to campaign in low-attendance appearances on conservative anti-abortion, anti-tax and anti-spending principles, while portraying herself as a down-to-earth housewife and common-sense candidate. In the days leading up to the primary election, Toomey received endorsements by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. On May 10, he ran his first television advertisement, which called for more jobs and less government and included a narrator saying, "Trillion dollar bailouts and deficits, government-run health care, record unemployment. Had enough?" John Baer of the Philadelphia Daily News said Toomey was so widely expected to defeat Luksik that he said of the Republican primary, "The race is a balloon with no air. It sits flat while the Democratic fight between Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak sucks up all the oxygen."
Pat Toomey won the May 18 primary with 81.5 percent of the vote, or 668,409 of the votes cast, compared to 18.5 percent and 151,802 votes for Peg Luksik. The Associated Press wrote that Luksik could not overcome Toomey's financial advantages, particularly when the Republican primary was so overshadowed by the Democratic race. The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that Toomey's run against Luksik in the primary "will help him maintain his competitive condition" against Sestak, who defeated Specter in the Democratic primary.

### Polling

| Poll source | Dates administered | Arlen Specter* | Pat Toomey | Tom Ridge* | Peg Luksik |
| Research 2000 | December 8, 2008 | 43% | 28% | –– | –– |
| Franklin/Marshall | March 17, 2009 | 33% | 18% | –– | 2% |
| Qunnipiac | March 19, 2009 | 27% | 41% | –– | –– |
| Rasmussen | April 21, 2009 | 30% | 51% | –– | –– |
| POS | May 3, 2009 | –– | 22% | 62% | 2% |
| Public Opinion | May 5, 2009 | –– | 23% | 60% | –– |
| Research 2000 | May 7, 2009 | –– | 41% | 33% | –– |
| Quinnipiac | May 28, 2009 | –– | 38% | –– | 3% |
| Quinnipiac | July 19, 2009 | –– | 47% | –– | 6% |
| Quinnipiac | May 12, 2010 | –– | 60% | –– | 9% |
| Suffolk | May 13, 2010 | –– | 60% | –– | 9% |
* Declined to run for Republican nomination

### Results

Republican primary results :
| Party | Party | Candidate | Votes | % |
| | Republican | Pat Toomey | 668,409 | 81.5% |
| | Republican | Peg Luksik | 151,802 | 18.5% |
| Total votes | Total votes | Total votes | 820,211 | 100.0% |

## General election
### Candidates

* Pat Toomey (R), former U.S. Congressman
* Joe Sestak (D), U.S. Congressman

### Campaign
#### Early weeks

   I passionately disagree with his ideas, and you're going to see us talking about that, but there will never be anything of a personal nature. At the end of the game, let's have had a great debate and then go out and have a beer. That's how they did it in the old days.
Shortly after Joe Sestak's primary victory, Arlen Specter called him to offer congratulations and vowed to support his candidacy, saying that "I think it's vital to keep this seat in the Democratic Party." Both Sestak and Pat Toomey began campaigning for the general election the day after the May 18 primary. Before reporting to Capitol Hill for House matters, Sestak appeared in interviews on several national media outlets including CNN, MSNBC, NPR and CBS News. Both Toomey and Sestak said they considered each other friends and vowed to engage in a "clean" campaign focusing on policy rather than personal attacks. The two quickly began challenging each other's records, however, with Sestak citing Toomey's past Wall Street career and claiming he would rather aid rich bankers than the working class, and Toomey portraying Sestak as a liberal aligned with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The day after the primary, Sestak claimed that Toomey wanted to continue "to back failed policies of George W. Bush" and "to let Wall Street do whatever it wants". At a rally at the Allegheny County Airport, Toomey said Sestak's politics were more liberal than most mainstream Democrats and described him as a proponent of "even-larger government".
Within minutes of Sestak's victory, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn issued a statement describing Sestak as too liberal for Pennsylvania, claiming that he consistently voted with Washington Democratic leaders and supported energy policies that would reduce jobs. President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, all of whom vocally supported Specter in the primary, each called Sestak after his primary victory and pledged to support him in the general election. Congressman Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said it would "be incredibly disingenuous and reek of political payback" for Sestak to accept any such support from the Obama administration after Sestak had accused the White House of offering him a job in exchange for dropping out of the Democratic primary. Nevertheless, while Sestak said he would not become "part of the establishment", he welcomed the Obama administration's support and said, "I plan on being the president's best ally."
On May 20, Toomey released the first statewide advertisement of the campaign, a television commercial with a narrator describing both candidates as "Two good men with very different ideas." The ad contrasted the positions between the two candidates on the Wall Street bailout, national health-care debate and terrorist trials. Meanwhile, Sestak said Toomey needed to be held accountable for his support of bank deregulation and former President George W. Bush's financial policies which helped lead to the economic recession. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said Toomey was "conveniently failing to mention his decades of service to Wall Street" in his advertisements. When asked about the promise between Sestak and Toomey to maintain a clean and friendly campaign, Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman T.J. Rooney said, "Guess what? That all changed at 10:30 p.m. (Tuesday). I hope the congressman adheres to his word, but I have no consuming expectation that he will. It's going to get hard in a moment. This race is going to take a turn."
Early polls showed varied results over who was leading, although some indicated Sestak had an advantage due to the positive press he received for defeating Arlen Specter. Despite Specter's stated support for Sestak, the Senator's former chief of staff David Urban, now a lobbyist, offered his support to Toomey after the Democratic primary ended. Urban sought to connect moderate Republicans, conservative Democrats and the current and former chiefs of staff of Republicans and encourage them to help Toomey get elected. Both candidates sought to use online media avenues to reach out to prospective voters, which was still considered a relatively new field for politicians. The two started accounts on Twitter, with the ToomeyForSenate account amassing 4,907 followers and the Sestak2010 account 3,796 followers as of June 4. Both also had accounts on Facebook, where Toomey had 10,361 friends and Sestak had 3,146.
   Both candidates have decided to go negative and go negative early because both are trying to win by making the other candidate unacceptable and therefore, not the choice of the voters.
Sestak and Toomey had wildly different views on almost every issue, including abortion, health care, energy, social security and the recent stimulus bill and financial bailouts. Sestak favored the bailouts of the United States financial system, automobile industry and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, claiming they saved many jobs and homes. Toomey condemned them as a waste of taxpayer money that rewarded irresponsible behavior. Sestak praised the financial regulatory reform bill before Congress as "a victory for the American people over Wall Street" that would protect the economy from shadow banking and toxic assets. Toomey said it did nothing to prevent taxpayer bailouts of failing corporations. Toomey also argued against a proposed cap and trade bill, which he said would encourage firms to move manufacturing jobs overseas and force Pennsylvania businesses to close. Sestak claimed the bill would help businesses by lowering energy costs in the long-run, claiming, "Pat Toomey is in the pocket of big oil, and big oil doesn't want alternative energy."
Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Sestak criticized Toomey for his support of offshore drilling in Lake Erie, claiming the proposal risked placing 90 percent of the country's surface water in danger. Toomey said that he supported allowing states to retain the right to make decisions about drilling, and claimed Sestak was too willing to cede control to the federal government. Both Sestak and Toomey sought to portray themselves as the ideal candidates for small-business issues. Toomey campaigned on lower taxes and less regulation, and released a 30-second television advertisement emphasizing his experience as owner of a small chain of bars and restaurants in the 1990s. Sestak countered that image, however, citing past court depositions that indicated Toomey was not very involved in the businesses and delegated most responsibilities to his brother Steven. Sestak said he would help small businesses through tax cuts and federal loan guarantees.
Heading into July, polls still indicated that the two candidates were roughly even. Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said this was better news for Toomey than Sestak because it meant Toomey had "limited the damage" from the national positive publicity Sestak received after defeating Arlen Specter. From April 1 to June 30, Toomey raised $3.1 million compared to Sestak's $1.95 million. This left Toomey with $4.56 million in total funds, more than twice Sestak's total amount of about $2 million. Toomey was considered to have a financial advantage in part because he did not have as challenging a primary as Sestak, and thus was able to save most of his money. Additionally, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent $1.4 million of the allotted sum in support of Specter during the primary, which left them with only $200,000 for the general election race.
In July, Toomey began airing five new television commercials, focusing on how he would oppose the Democratic establishment if elected, and four focusing on different votes Sestak had cast in the House: the stimulus plan, health-care reform, cap and trade, and tax increases. The ads characterized Sestak's positions as extreme, and each ended with a narrator saying, "That's liberal. That's Joe Sestak." Although they directly attacked Sestak, Toomey claimed that they did not break the candidates' pledge for a clean campaign because they focused on his policies, not his character. By running the commercials four months before the general election campaign, Toomey hoped to gain an advantage in name recognition. Also in July, the United States Chamber of Commerce began running television advertisements criticizing Sestak's support of "a government takeover of health care" and "billions in job-killing energy taxes", claiming he voted with Nancy Pelosi "100 percent of the time". Sestak called the ads inaccurate, citing specific instances when he voted against Pelosi; Two Pennsylvania television stations removed the ads, but Toomey defended them, claiming they were not misleading and accusing Sestak of being "hyper-sensitive".

#### Final campaign

Starting in July, both Sestak and Toomey blamed each other for the federal budget deficits that had become a national spotlight amid the troubled economy. Toomey portrayed Sestak as lacking "fiscal discipline" and supporting budget earmarks for pet projects, while Sestak said Toomey supported President George W. Bush's deficit spending and damaged the economy by helping deregulate Wall Street. On July 15, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Sestak received at least $119,650 in campaign contributions from employees of companies that received federal earmarks he had steered to the state since 2008. Although a common practice among political candidates, Sestak had advocated banning earmarks in favor of a competitive grant program, and vowed on his website to return any contributions from organizations or individuals who "has made a request for an appropriations project". In response to the story, Toomey called on Sestak to return those contributions, which he did not respond to. However, Sestak said he routinely returned money from employees of such companies, but sometimes had difficulty tracking donations from low-level employees. Toomey vowed never to seek earmarks if elected, while Sestak said although he favors ending the practice, he would continue advocating for them as long as earmarks continued to exist.
While Sestak presented economists who agreed with his positions, the conservative non-profit Citizens Against Government Waste gave him a zero rating on spending issues based on a review of 120 of his votes in Congress. Toomey challenged Sestak to sign a "No Pork" pledge offered by the organization. In turn, Sestak criticized Toomey for accepting campaign contributions from Club for Growth, a group that Toomey used to spearhead and which received criticism from such prominent Republicans as Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator John McCain and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
On August 2, moderate Republican Senator Susan Collins, who was once condemned by Toomey's Club for Growth for her support of the stimulus package, headlined a $1,000-a-plate luncheon for Toomey's campaign at Philadelphia's Union League. The Philadelphia Inquirer said Collins' support indicated Toomey was finding success in seeking moderate support for his candidacy. The newspaper noted other apparent efforts to draw in centrists, including Toomey's support for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who many conservatives opposed, and the fact that throughout the campaign Toomey had rarely brought up social issues like gay rights and abortion, for which he held conservative views. Sestak's campaign claimed those gestures only sought to conceal an extremely conservative voting record.
The first debate was held on October 20 at WPVI-TV studios in Philadelphia and the second held on October 22 at WPXI studios in Pittsburgh. Both candidates criticized the each other's ideology and referred to the other as extreme. Toomey heavily criticized Sestak for his support of Obama's stimulus, cap and trade, and healthcare reform. Sestak not only supported these measures but said they did not go far enough, referred to Toomey as "Pennsylvania's most right-wing congressman", and criticized him for working at Wall Street and supporting the elimination of corporate taxes.
Toomey was endorsed by former longtime Democratic Mayor of Harrisburg Stephen Reed, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, United States Chamber of Commerce, NRA Political Victory Fund, U.S. Senator Scott Brown and former governor Sarah Palin. Newspaper endorsements include the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, The Intelligencer, The Tribune-Democrat and the Bucks County Courier Times.
Sestak was endorsed by independent NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel. Sestak received newspaper endorsements from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Erie Times-News, The Citizens' Voice, The Patriot-News, the Observer-Reporter, and The Huffington Post.
Toomey defeated Sestak on election day by a margin of 80,229 votes, and 2.1 percentage points. The Associated Press called the race for Toomey shortly after midnight. The Washington Post credited his victory to voter discontent with the Obama administration and unemployment rates. Sestak conceded defeat addressing a crowd at a suburban Philadelphia hotel in his congressional district, stating "it is now Alex time" referring to his 9-year-old daughter. Toomey gave his victory speech at a get together in Allentown, stating that the election was a "simple, clear message to the establishment" with some conciliatory notes that he would cooperate with the White House and fellow Pennsylvania Senator, Bob Casey Jr, a Democrat. It was third-closest race of the 2010 Senate elections, behind only Illinois and Colorado.

### Predictions

| Source | Ranking | As of |
| RealClearPolitics | Tossup | October 20, 2010 |
| Rothenberg | Tilt R (flip) | October 28, 2010 |
| Sabato's Crystal Ball | Lean R (flip) | October 28, 2010 |
| Rasmussen Reports | Tossup | October 30, 2010 |
| CQ Politics | Tossup | October 31, 2010 |
| Cook Political Report | Tossup | October 31, 2010 |

### Polling

| Poll source | Date(s) administered | Sample size | Margin of error | Joe Sestak (D) | Pat Toomey (R) | Other | Undecided |
| Research 2000 (report) | May 7, 2009 | 600 | ± 4.0% | 37% | 32% | –– | –– |
| Quinnipiac University (report) | May 20, 2009 | 1,191 | ± 2.8% | 37% | 35% | 1% | 23% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | June 16, 2009 | 800 | ± 4.5% | 41% | 35% | 7% | 18% |
| Quinnipiac University (report) | July 19, 2009 | 1,173 | ± 2.9% | 35% | 39% | 1% | 23% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | August 11, 2009 | 1,000 | ± 3.0% | 35% | 43% | 5% | 18% |
| Research 2000 (report) | August 12, 2009 | 600 | ± 5.0% | 42% | 41% | –– | 17% |
| Quinnipiac University (report) | September 28, 2009 | 1,100 | ± 3.0% | 35% | 38% | 1% | 25% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | October 13, 2009 | 1,000 | ± 3.0% | 38% | 37% | 6% | 19% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | December 8, 2009 | 1,200 | ± 3.0% | 38% | 44% | 6% | 13% |
| Quinnipiac University (report) | December 8, 2009 | 1,381 | ± 2.6% | 35% | 40% | 1% | 22% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | January 18, 2010 | 1,000 | ± 3.0% | 35% | 43% | 6% | 16% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | February 8, 2010 | 1,000 | ± 3.0% | 35% | 43% | 7% | 15% |
| Franklin & Marshall (Report) | February 15–21, 2010 | 954 | ± 2.9% | 20% | 38% | 3% | 39% |
| Quinnipiac University (report) | February 22–28, 2010 | 1,452 | ± 2.6% | 36% | 39% | 1% | 24% |
| Research 2000 (report) | March 8–10, 2010 | 600 | ± 4.0% | 39% | 42% | –– | 19% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | March 15, 2010 | 1,000 | ± 3.0% | 37% | 42% | 7% | 15% |
| Franklin & Marshall (report) | March 15–21, 2010 | 1,119 | ± 2.9% | 19% | 27% | 5% | 49% |
| Public Policy Polling (report) | March 29 – April 1, 2010 | 934 | ± 3.2% | 36% | 42% | –– | 22% |
| Quinnipiac University (report) | March 30 – April 5, 2010 | 1,412 | ± 2.6% | 34% | 42% | 1% | 22% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | April 14, 2010 | 1,000 | ± 3.0% | 36% | 47% | 5% | 12% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | May 6, 2010 | 1,000 | ± 3.0% | 40% | 42% | 10% | 9% |
| Research 2000 (report) | May 14, 2010 | 600 | ± 4.0% | 40% | 45% | –– | 15% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | May 19, 2010 | 500 | ± 4.5% | 46% | 42% | 3% | 9% |
| Research 2000 (report) | May 24–26, 2010 | 600 | ± 4.0% | 43% | 40% | –– | –– |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | June 2, 2010 | 500 | ± 4.5% | 38% | 45% | 5% | 12% |
| Public Policy Polling (report) | June 19–21, 2010 | 609 | ± 4.0% | 41% | 41% | –– | 18% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | June 29, 2010 | 500 | ± 4.5% | 39% | 45% | 6% | 11% |
| Quinnipiac University (report) | July 6–11, 2010 | 1,367 | ± 2.7% | 43% | 43% | 1% | 12% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | July 14, 2010 | 750 | ± 4.0% | 38% | 45% | 6% | 12% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | July 28, 2010 | 750 | ± 4.0% | 39% | 45% | 6% | 10% |
| Public Policy Polling (report) | August 14–16, 2010 | 585 | ± 4.1% | 36% | 45% | –– | 20% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | August 16, 2010 | 750 | ± 4.0% | 37% | 46% | 5% | 12% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | August 30, 2010 | 750 | ± 4.0% | 39% | 45% | 5% | 11% |
| Ipsos/Reuters (report) | August 31, 2010 | 407 | ± 4.0% | 37% | 47% | 2% | 15% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | September 13, 2010 | 750 | ± 4.0% | 41% | 49% | 2% | 8% |
| Pulse Opinion Research (report) | September 18, 2010 | 1,000 | ± 3.0% | 40% | 48% | 4% | 8% |
| Quinnipiac University (report) | September 15–19, 2010 | 684 | ± 3.8% | 43% | 50% | –– | 7% |
| CNN/Time Opinion Research (report) | September 17–21, 2010 | 741 | ± 3.5% | 44% | 49% | 4% | 3% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call (report) | September 18–23, 2010 | 445 | ± 5.0% | 39% | 46% | –– | 14% |
| Suffolk University (report Archived 2010-10-08 at the Wayback Machine) | September 24–27, 2010 | 500 | ± 4.4% | 40% | 45% | –– | 13% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | September 29, 2010 | 750 | ± 4.0% | 40% | 49% | 4% | 7% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | October 12, 2010 | 750 | ± 4.0% | 39% | 49% | 2% | 10% |
| Quinnipiac University (report) | October 13–17, 2010 | 1,046 | ± 3.0% | 46% | 48% | –– | 5% |
| Public Policy Polling (report) | October 17–18, 2010 | 718 | ± 3.7% | 46% | 45% | –– | 9% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call (report) | October 16–19, 2010 | 403 | ± 5.0% | 44% | 41% | 5% | 10% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call (report) | October 17–20, 2010 | 420 | ± 5.0% | 43% | 43% | 4% | 10% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | October 21, 2010 | 750 | ± 5.0% | 44% | 48% | 1% | 7% |
| Franklin & Marshall University (report) | October 18–24, 2010 | 720 | ± 5.0% | 36% | 43% | 2% | 19% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call (report) | October 21–24, 2010 | 437 | ± 5.0% | 42% | 47% | 2% | 9% |
| Ipsos/Reuters (report) | October 22–24, 2010 | 400 | ± 4.9% | 46% | 46% | 2% | 6% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call (report) | October 22–25, 2010 | 448 | ± 5.0% | 40% | 48% | 3% | 9% |
| CNN/Time/Opinion Research (report) | October 20–26, 2010 | 1,517 | ± 2.5% | 45% | 49% | 3% | –– |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call (report) | October 23–26, 2010 | 457 | ± 5.0% | 41% | 46% | 3% | 9% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call (report) | October 24–27, 2010 | 460 | ± 5.0% | 40% | 48% | 2% | 10% |
| Susquehanna Polling & Research (report) | October 24–27, 2010 | 800 | ± 3.46% | 44% | 46% | –– | 9% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call (report) | October 25–28, 2010 | 470 | ± 4.5% | 42% | 47% | 3% | 9% |
| Rasmussen Reports (report) | October 28, 2010 | 750 | ± 4.0% | 46% | 50% | 1% | 3% |
| Marist College (report) | October 26–28, 2010 | 806 | ± 3.5% | 45% | 52% | 1% | 2% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call (report) | October 26–29, 2010 | 480 | ± 4.5% | 43% | 45% | 2% | 10% |
| Quinnipiac University (report) | October 25–30, 2010 | 1,244 | ± 2.8% | 45% | 50% | –– | 5% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call (report) | October 27–30, 2010 | 484 | ± 4.5% | 43% | 45% | 2% | 9% |
| Muhlenberg/Morning Call (report) | October 28–31, 2010 | 474 | ± 4.5% | 44% | 48% | –– | –– |
| Public Policy Polling (report) | October 30–31, 2010 | 772 | ± 3.5% | 46% | 51% | –– | 4% |

### Fundraising

| Candidate (party) | Receipts | Disbursements | Cash on hand | Debt |
| Pat Toomey (R) | $14,818,231 | $12,743,824 | $2,074,406 | $53,000 |
| Joe Sestak (D) | $11,842,844 | $10,185,073 | $1,657,769 | $0 |
| Source: Federal Election Commission |||||

### Results

General election results :
| Party | Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% |
| | Republican | Pat Toomey | 2,028,945 | 51.01% | −1.61% |
| | Democratic | Joe Sestak | 1,948,716 | 48.99% | +7.00% |
| Total votes | Total votes | Total votes | 3,977,661 | 100.00% | N/A |
| | Republican gain from Democratic | Republican gain from Democratic | Republican gain from Democratic | Republican gain from Democratic | Republican gain from Democratic |

#### Counties that flipped from Democratic to Republican

* Beaver (largest city: Beaver)
* Fayette (largest borough: Uniontown)

#### Counties that flipped from Republican to Democratic

* Delaware (largest city: Upper Darby)
* Erie (largest city: Erie)
* Lackawanna (largest city: Scranton)
* Luzerne (largest city: Wilkes-Barre)
* Montgomery (largest city: Lower Merion)