pennsylvania

I've often wondered why some politicians feel so compelled to play the game within the standard two party system?

One thing I believe will be accelerating for the near future is the disintermediation of political direction from centralized authority to individuals and candidates.  This is a product both of technology, and the decline of traditional media and traditional party "leadership" to impose discipline. As we've seen, some in the DC GOP establishment seem quite offended that party members reach their own conclusions.

The wired world is a world where party members are far more likely to figure out "the score" on an officeholder, and it will be far more difficult to "talk the talk" in one's home state when one hasn't "walked the walk" in DC.

The first victim of this phenomena was CT Senator Joe Lieberman in 2006. No matter how often he had supported Democrats on other issues; the rank and file CT Democratic party saw his support for the Iraq War as a dealbreaker and he lost his primary.

Lieberman is still in the Senate because he took the advice of his mentor John Droney and ran a 3rd party race; correctly perceiving that in such a "blue state" the Republicans would not seriously contest the general election. But given that Lieberman won by 10 points, it's not clear to me even a full bore Republican effort would have been successful, and the greater risk was throwing the election to squishy Ned Lamont.

Joe Lieberman is not the first or last politician whose views, while palatable to voters in general, have moved where their party will not travel.  Oddly, the Lieberman lesson was lost on two other Senators in risk of losing Democratic primaries---Arlen Specter and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Arlen Specter thrived for decades under the rubric of being "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". or, at least moderate. The stimulus vote ripped this meme to shreds and left him easy pickens to any credible Republican who filed for a primary, in this case,Pat Toomey saw his opportunity and took it.       

Arlen Specter thought he had greener pastures as a Democrat, but now he had decades of votes in favor of Republican bills and nominees to defend. Not the least being the AUMF vote on Iraq. So unless the Democrats muscled all the serious challengers out of the way, Specter was facing serious trouble.

Delaware County Congressman Joe Sestak wasn't dissuaded (hard to browbeat those career military men) and the primary between him and Specter is already on the ugly side.

I think Specter is going to lose this primary. His prior support for George W. Bush is going to be toxic. A disproportionate number of Democratic primary voters are in metro Pittsburgh, where Specter ran weakly in both the 2004 primary and general. Sestak is an unknown there now; that won't last. Maybe the huge black vote in Philadelphia turns out for Specter in a '10 primary;he garned little of it against a weak general election opponent in '04. And Specter's support among moderates in the SEPA suburbs and the "T" is likely to erode if he tries a slash and burn against Sestak; who is a Philly suburbanite and not some raving lefty.

The only way for Specter to win a Democratic primary is to tack his policies far to the left. So if he wins, then he hands Pat Toomey the issue of whether Pennsylvania is well served by a political chameleon. Not that a Republican is a sure thing in 2010 PA, but against a self-serving DC insider, well, it starts looking a lot better. And Toomey will be the "nice guy" in the race having avoided the intermural blood match.

What if Arlen had run independent?  I think he had enough residual strength among voters who don't vote in either primary to win, plus suburban/small city PA is a bigger chunk of that electorate.than the urban dominated Democrats or the rural dominated GOP. Plus, the fear of letting a vocal conservative like Toomey in the Senate would have put a damper on Democratic funding and recruitment. Could Specter have navigated the path of being an "Obama Republican"?  Not sure he'd be worse off now for having tried; and he could grab the mantle of being too concerned about policy to worry about party politics.

So, we find a party switch didn't work out so well for a Republican who was too liberal. So how is staying in her party working for a somewhat conservative Democrat? Not so well.

Kirsten Gillibrand's misfortune was to be appointed to the Senate as an upstate ticket balancer to liberal Harlem Democrat Governor David Paterson.Paterson's standing has crashed and dragged Gillibrand with it.

Gillibrand was a pro-Second Amendment; anti-bailout; border security Blue Dog. At least she was when representing a Republican leaning upstate district. Since joining the Upper Chamber she's been reeducated to modify her views to appease liberal downstate Democrats.

And she shouldn't have bothered. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, a liberal from Manhattan's "silk Stocking" district, has all but announced her primary bid and tied with her in the polls. And don't think anyone who has the Citicorp HQ in her district won't be able to raise cash at will.

Gillibrand's strength and weakness is she is viewed as "the upstate senator".  Upstate NY thinks--correctly--it is the forgotten child in NY State politics.  But it cast about 45% of the vote in an off-year general election. An upstate Democrat is well positioned to win a two way statewide race given the inevitable Democratic pluralities out of the City.

But an upstate candidate is poorly positioned to win a contested nomination. Over 50% of Democratic primary votes are cast in the City, and another 20% in the suburbs. There are very few parts of the City (the 9th CD; the 13th CD; some legislative districts in Queens) where a Democrat of Gillibrand's background is going to be well received.  As long as Maloney can frame this race as the NYC liberal against the less reliable girl from Albany, she is going to win this primary...since Gillibrand will need a virtually unanimous vote upstate to offset NYC.  And , barring sudden interest by a serious Republican--Maloney wins the general election.    

Let's assume the Republicans run someone akin to a John Spencer or a Howard Mills.  And let's assume Gillibrand did a Lieberman. I doubt the Republican could garner 20% of the statewide vote under this scenario; since I think Gillibrand pulls from their regional upstate base.

Now let's assume Upstate Democrats stuck with Gillibrand. Under these circumstances she'd just need to cobble together enough soft Republicans and independents in the suburbs and outer boroughs to win. (Hmm, Bloomberg and Giuliani endorsements?) . I think there's an easier path for her to get 42% in a general election than 50% in a Democratic primary. Especially since there already is a centrist 3rd Party (the Independence Party) which is guaranteed a ballot spot for the '10 NYS general election. 

I think that centrists of both parties are going to have to come to grips with the reality that if they want to stay in office, they will have to do it themselves. It's better to stay in office with the "cup of Joe" then to be tossed out trying to be the partisan your record proves you are not. 

Perhaps MA State Treasurer Tim Cahill, planning a independent candidacy against embattled Obama clone Gov. Deval Patrick, is the start of a trend?   

 We've been told that Republicans don't make moderates feel very welcome. How welcome are the Democrats under Obama, Reid and Pelosi?...especially if you are a moderate from a blue state? 

Just got off the phone with my 85 year old Yellow Dog Democrat Aunt who lives in Pennsylvaina; she had the most priceless quote ever on Arlen Specter:

I've been voting against Arlen Specter for 30 years.  I see no reason to stop now.  I'm too old to start voting for Arlen Specter.

Go Sestak!!!

After Arlen Specter announced his plans to run as a Democrat in 2010, Gov. Ed Rendell stated: 

“Well, I think that Arlen will probably wind up running unopposed, or without a serious challenger… Everyone knows Arlen and I are personal friends, go back to when he hired me as an assistant district attorney without asking me what party I belonged to. I think every major Democrat is gonna be for Arlen.”  

I wondered at the time, could Rendell really deliver a free-ride to Arlen Specter.  Granted, Rendell is the most powerful Democrat in the State at this moment - so powerful that many Democrats were seriously hoping he would jump into the Democratic Primary to face Specter in the General. But with that no longer an option and Rendell being term-limited, how much influence could a lame-duck Governor have in a state where legislators carve out 30-year power bases. Case in point:

PA State Representative Mark Cohen (D-Philadelphia) is the Majority Caucus Chair, the third ranking leadership position in the Dem controlled State House;  he has been in office since 1974 and is an elected member of the PA Dem State Committee.  Cohen also understands new media - he has  posted to his own blog for several years, is a frequent contributor to DailyKos and Cohen’s facebook page boasts 2000+ followers.  His status updates are measured statements, so last night when he posted Arlen Specter had “jumped from the frying pan to very hot water”  and Democrats “continue to examine their options” I read it as a statement that Democratic leaders are not at all excited about a Specter candidacy - solid liberals distrust him as much as the conservative base in PA.

I e-mailed Cohen and asked him which candidates were still exploring options and he replied:

Democrats exploring Senate candidacies include Congressman Joe Sestack, Pittsburgh City Controller William Lamb, Allegheny County State Representative Bill Kortz, and former Constitution Center President Joe Torsella. Sestack, with at least $3.7 million on hand, and Torsella, with almost $600, 000 on hand, are likely the leading candidates of the bunch.

By contrast, Pat Toomey, whose recent candidacy forced Specter to defect, did not report 1st quarter numbers and likely hasn’t yet raised as much as the Democratic candidates named above.  Specter has $6.7 million on hand.

So Senator Specter finds himself in a familiar situation - looming on the horizon could be a formidable, well-funded candidate with strong support from the base of his (new) party - the question his, how commited is he to put his 29 year career in the hands of Pennsylvania Democrats? 

crossposted at Election Journal

...until Barack Obama throws Arlen Specter under the Bus?!?

Over/Under 1 year?

My personal guess is that it's about a year.

"This is not the Arlen Specter I used to know..."

"...Arlen Specter is just a guy who lives in my neighborhood."

That is all.

Cahnman out.

The news that Arlen Specter is switching parties has sparked a lot of attention to the predictable Republican reaction, which ranges from disappointment to blame-storming to "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".

But that's not the most interesting story here.

Once everybody gets the Republican reaction story out of their system, we'll turn to a much, much more interesting chapter in this story: How will Democrats react to Democratic Senate candidate Arlen Specter?

Early reaction (Daily Kos, Glenn Greenwald, The New Republic, MyDD, Open Left) suggests Senator Arlen Specter has somehow managed to join a political Party that dislikes him even more than Republicans did. 

So, by promising to give Specter the institutional support of the Democratic Party, it looks like the Democratic establishment has engineered a switch that advances their political control at the expense of the ideological agenda and ideals of the progressive movement.

This will be a crucial test of who holds the power on the Left. Who controls the Democratic Party: the Party establishment or the progressive movement?

Amidst all the recent hoopla regarding chairman Michael Steele's television gaffs, one of his more significant statements as party chairman has gotten less press than it perhaps deserves. Steele, when asked how he would punish Senators Specter, Snow and Collins for their stimulous apostasy, stated that opposing their reelection was not out of the question. Patrick has discussed this idea here with regard to troubled and gaff-prone incumbent Jim Bunning, while scandal-prone and perhaps equally trouble incumbent David Vitter dodged a minor bullet when Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, elected not to challenge him in the primary. Still, Vitter faces a potential challenge from popular Secretary of state Jay Dardenne. Meanwhile Specter, who squeaked by Pat Toomey in the 2004 primary, looks to be facing a really tough rematch in which his reelect numbers are already below 50 percent. As someone from the KeyStone state, two facts which have escaped general notice leap out at me regarding the Specter case. First, PA chairman bob Gliesen has hinted that Specter may not get the state party's backing. This is a tectonic shift in PA politics, as the state party is not only deeply establishmentarian but is represented, at it's high eschalons, with southeastern party folk very close to Specter. If even the PA committee, which has a tendency to endorse the insider and incumbent in almost every situation, is considering not backing one of the longest-serving, most well-connected and most politically vindictive incumbents in Pennsylvania history, Specter ought rightfully to be very very concerned. The second and related point is that the firm which conducted the poll in which Specter's numbers were so low is a well-known Republican polling firm respected in PAGOP circles. James Lee, of Susquehannah polling, has been the pollster of choice for PA's Republican legislators for some time now (full disclosure: I met Lee in college, all be it briefly, and was pretty impressed). Given the source, hearing James Lee say that "Specter is toast" can't be helping Arlen's digestion any.

So, in the Specter, Bunning and Vitter cases, the question becomes, would the RSCC and RNC (not to mention the state parties in PA LA and KY) be better off backing primary challenges if these three troubled incumbents were unwilling to withdraw?

First, it's worth pointing out that, in GOP circles, the idea that a retirement is preferable to even a weak and troubled incumbent is a huge paradigmatic shift. yet if we look at the case of Florida, where Mel Martinez's retirement has cleared the way for a number of potentially strong challengers, this conclusion is inescapable. Whatever his motivation, Martinez, in opening the race to a strong field and doing so early, has taken a huge target out of the Democrat's sites for 2010 and quite possibly done the party a huge service (one wonders, hypothetically, whether a Dole retirement in early 2007 might have left room for the GOP to recruit a strong candidate and hold the NC senate seat). Should Specter, Bunning and Vitter announce their retirements, the GOP would almost certainly be in a position to recruit strong challengers in each of these races. These challengers would, as fresh faces untarred by scandal in a year in which the Democrats will have a historically up-hill battle, probably stand a somewhat better chance of holding the seats than the current incumbents.

Given this, how ought the party and campaign committees, and the state paties for that matter, to view primaries. I can see two arguments, from this perspective, not to actively recruit and support primary challengers. First, primaries are expensive and, in theory, damaging to all parties involved. Second, a bruising primary challenge with a well-heeled incumbent might damage a challenger's ability in future contests.

I think both of these arguments fall short. First, with regard to primaries. While they can be damaging, they can also raise the name recognition ofthose involved. Primaries dominate the news cycle, and the winner has already been tested with a tough election battle. His or her negatives have probably gone as high as they are going to go. This may not be the case for a candidate who has been waiting in the wings, struggling to break into the news cycle and who has not faced real opposition research. Second, a strong primary challenger actually endorsed by a state party may cause an incumbent to withdraw. Fighting the state party is a hard enough task when one is the challenger, but there at least one has the outsider image working in one's favor. Not so for a troubled incumbent; how can primary voters be expected to place faith in an incumbent rejected by the party committees? As to the second argument, I think this is unlikely. If anything, a well-fought but closely-lost primary challenge is often a springboard for future electoral success.

At the very least, the RSCC, RNC and state parties should do as little as possible to help weak incumbents, and make it very public that they will not be making primary endorsements or providing primary help to these incumbents. Smart and ambitious politicians in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Louisiana would almost instantly read the tea leaves correctly. Not only secretary of state Jay Dardenne, but freshman representative Joseph Cao, who faces a very tough reelection bid, might take a shot at an unprotected Vitter. Kentucky has a few very solid prospective candidates, as Patrick has already mentioned. And with party luminaries and the state party not standing in his way, Toomey, who won election and reelection in a Democrat-leaning district and knows economic issues far better than most sitting senators, would have a solid chance of toppling Specter. These younger, fresh faces, who could stand as stark contrasts to the actions and inaction of Washington Democrats, would, in my view, be at least as likely to hold their seats as would the weak and troubled incumbents who hold them now. And such an outcome would tell members of the house and senate that the party will not bail them out when they make disastrous mistakes. Rewarding failure, after all, ought not be a Republican virtue.

Michael Barone makes a typically brilliant point looking forward to 2010:

[I]f I were a conservative cheerleader against the Obama/Pelosi stimulus package, I would be concentrating less of my fire against the three Republicans who supported the Senate version and more on Democratic members of the House and (at least those who are up for reelection in 2010) the Senate.

Given all the talk on the right the past few days, I must go on the record AGAINST a primary challenge to Arlen Specter.  My reason is simple: Arlen Specter is the only Republican who's won Statewide in Pennsylvania at the Federal Level since 2001.  More specifically, he knows how to win in the Philly suburbs.  As Chris Palko has blogged about on this site, Republicans have gotten killed in the Philly 'burbs for the past decade.

A little background: I supported Pat Toomey in 2004.  In 2004, Republicans had a (reasonably) popular President, control of the U.S. House, and VERY narrow control of the U.S. Senate; under those circumstances, it made sense to replace a Liberal Republican with a Conservative Republican.  There was good reason to believe that whoever won the Republican Primary would cruise to victory in the General Election.  As a state with a Democrat Governor and a Republican State Senate, Pennsylvanians are well known ticket splitters.

In 2010, Republicans will only have 41 Senators.  While the President's popularity heading into the election cannot be known, Conservatives should prepare for the worst.  Republicans shouldn't risk a perfectly good Senate seat when a much smarter alternative exists.  Whatever Specter's flaws, a liberal Republican is better than a Democrat.

And what, pray tell, is the Alternative?

That one's simple.

Let's Beat Democrats!

More Specifically, there are 5 (actually 10) Senate seats currently held by DEMOCRATS that we should aggressively target before we counterproductively cannibalize our own.

1) Indiana - While Obama eeked out McCain in this state in 2008, it's historically been a GOP stronghold.  As such, Indiana will be Ground Zero of any backlash against President Obama's economic policies; Evan Bayh will not be able to hide his vote(s) .  If Mike Pence runs for the Seat, so much the better.

2) Wisconsin - While Obama won this state solidly in 2008, it has a history of electing Republicans and Bush almost won it in 2004.  The Incumbent, Russ Feingold, is a far left kook who teamed up with John McCain for one of the all time great legislative assaults on the Constitution.  If Congressman Paul Ryan or Former Governor Thompson could pick up this seat, they would do the nation a great service.

3) North Dakota - This is a state that consistently votes Republican at the Presidential and Gubenatorial Levels yet elects borderline Bolsheviks to the U.S. Senate.  Well, the Radicals Have Taken Over and they just got their way on economic policy.  Byron Dorgan will own the results of President Obama's economic policy.  Most of the statewide offices (at the state level) are held by Republicans.

4) Arkansas -  This state was one of the few bright spots for the GOP in 2008.  Every county voted more Republican than 2004.  Seats like these are the low hanging fruit of any future majority.

5) Nevada - President Obama just insulted Las Vegas.  Harry Reid is President Obama's cheif Lieutenant in the Senate.  Need I say more?

As you can see, pickup opportunities abound in seats currently held by Democrats.  We can do more to influence the agenda in the Senate by picking up these seats than by going after one of our own.  Primary Challenges are a luxury we cannot afford.

---

In case you would like to know why Arlen Specter deserves to stay in the Senate, I present the following three reasons:

1) The Surge -- In 2007, when the Democrats in Congress wanted to give up in Iraq, Senate Republicans rallied around President Bush and gave him enough breathing room to get the Surge off the Ground.  Arlen Specter was one of those Senate Republicans.

2) John Roberts and Sam Alito -- As Judiciary Committee chairman, Specter did what was necesssary to get President Bush's Supreme Court nominees through the Senate.  He'll do the same with any future Republican President.

3) Senator Chris Matthews -- I just can't handle that.  No way.  I can live with Arlen Specter if it prevents that.

I hope this helps.

Thoughts/Suggestion?!?

Cross-posted from NextGenGOP.

At this point, I don’t think that any of us can effectively predict what the outcome of tomorrow’s elections will be. Quite frankly, I’m not even sure that we’ll know the who the next President of the United States is going to be for many hours, if not days, after polls close. That said, it seems that there are three possible scenarios that could play out in tomorrow’s Presidential election:

1. Barack Obama wins in a huge landslide.
2. Barack Obama wins in a close race.
3. John McCain pulls off an historical upset in a close race.

Barack Obama Wins in a Huge Landslide

This seems to be the narrative that the Leftosphere would like us to believe. This scenario seems to be the most unlikely due to a number of factors, including the huge percentage of undecided voters (which should break for McCain), McCain’s success in raising doubts in the minds of voters about Barack Obama, and Obama’s struggles with working-class voters in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Nonetheless, if current polling is to be believed, then we should see a such a landslide with an electoral map looking something like this (this is pulled straight from the RCP “No Toss Up States” map):

Barack Obama Wins in a Close Race

Unfortunately, I strongly believe that this scenario is the most likely. Basically, I see Florida and Ohio departing from their current polling numbers and going for McCain. Obama is polling near, but not at, the 50% mark in each of the states, and I think that the vast majority of undecided voters will swing to McCain in these states, allowing him to win each of them, albeit closely. Thus, the final electoral map in this scenario would look like this:

John McCain Pulls of an Historic Upset in a Close Race

I am extremely hopeful that John McCain can pull off an upset tomorrow. Unfortunately, looking at the electoral maps above, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which he can accomplish such a difficult feat. However, if it’s going to happen, I think that in addition to Ohio and Florida bucking the current polling trends, so will Pennsylvania and, out of necessity, another state with a couple of electoral votes. Based on current RCP averages, I’m of the opinion that Nevada is the other state most likely to swing.

First, let’s talk about Pennsylvania. I’m Pittsburgh born and raised, and so I’ve lived in Pennsylvania my entire life. As a former Santorum 2006 staffer, I know that accomplishing a statewide victory in Pennsylvania is an incredible challenge for Republicans. However, I also believe that the dynamics of Pennsylvania’s electorate make it the next most likely state to flip from polling projections after Ohio and Florida. No, this isn’t because we’re racist or a bunch of rednecks (although I believe that Murtha’s comments may drive an increased number of Republicans in his district to the polls tomorrow, which is undoubtedly in McCain’s favor). Rather, I believe that the blue collar voters of Pennsylvania, although reliably Democrat, find it extremely difficult to swallow Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth around” policies – and as a result, they may either decide to not vote at all, or to pull the lever for John McCain. Additionally, there are a number of highly competitive Congressional races in PA in which an outcry of Republican voters could help turn the race in favor of McCain. Specifically, I look to William Russell’s race against John Murtha (which I mentioned above), but also to Lou Barletta’s race against the filthy Paul Kanjorski, in which I think Lou will defeat Kanjorski. With Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida going against polling trends, the electoral college stands at 270 for Obama-Biden to 268 for McCain-Palin, requiring one more state to flip for a McCain-Palin victory.

In my eyes, there are two other states that potentially could end up becoming red despite polling that indicates otherwise: Virginia and Nevada. Winning in either of these states will prove difficult for John McCain. However, he only has to flip one of them from its polling trends in order to win. So a McCain-Palin victory might look something like this:

The roadmap to victory for the McCain-Palin ticket is enormously difficult and quite improbable, although certainly not impossible. Some important questions to ponder over the next day or so: Can Barack Obama close? Will the GOP’s vaunted GOTV machine have the success we’ve seen in previous elections? Will young voters turn out in droves, and if so, will they really disproportionately vote for Obama? And, most importantly, does John McCain’s campaign have the ability to pull off an unprecedented and historic electoral victory?

Spent the weekend in Pennsylvania and could not escape Obama health care commericals accusing McCain of planning to impose the first ever tax on health care benefits.

Obama is running at least two commercials on this issue with white women bemoaning the threat from McCain. McCain's failure to answer this attack will be devestating.

The only fight back I saw was a Republican National Committee ad accusing Obama of b8ing a big spender. It charges Obama with wanting to spend a trillion dollars!!

Having just watched a Republican President (supported by McCain) ram through a $700 billion bail out on top of a $300 billion package the RNC ad is clearly barking up the wrong tree. No one believes McCain or any politican will cut spending.

That's not a hypothetical matchup folks, it happened this week on Monday night.

It didn't leave much of a paper trail in the MSM, But Huckabee and Huffington engaged in a vigorous debate as surrogates for McCain and Obama in Pennsylvania on the night before the second presidential debate.

On paper, given the clearly polar opposite natures of the worldviews these folks represent , this debate could have resulted in some serious fireworks, (which I'm sure was the intended appeal of the event) but Huckabee and Huffington rose to the occasion with a civil but vigourous debate on the issues. To be honest, there were more on target, real honest to God townhall style questions answered in this debate than in the presidential one which followed Tuesday night

The debate took place before a dinner for business owners and was telecast on t.v. and radio across the state. Live feedback from phone in commentators after the debate revealed an appreciation for the civil nature of the debate, and showcased a number of undecideds who now lean McCain after Huckabee's sterling performance as a surrogate in this context.

Click on the 'Election 08' tab on the following link to view the video of the debate in its entirity. You will need quicktime to view it.

http://www.pcntv.com/pcn_online.html

There is no doubt in my mind that Huckabee could have gone toe to toe with Obama in these presidential debates, wiped the floor and sqeezed out the rag. As it is, McCain is well advised to continue to use him in a surrogate capacity in those blue collar swing states.

If anyone out there knows how to get this debate recorded in a format that can be loaded to You Tube... Do it!! I'd love to be able to email links that may be more user friendly.