Google Ads


Site Stats

PA-Sen: Sestak Tells Supporters That He Intends to Challenge Specter

by: James L.

Wed May 27, 2009 at 4:49 PM EDT


Fresh from TPM:

"He intends to get in the race," says Meg Infantino, the Congressman's sister, who works at Sestak for Congress. "In the not too distant future, he will sit down with his wife and daughter to make the final decision." [...]

Earlier today, a Sestak volunteer and contributor received a handwritten note from Sestak himself, announcing his intent to run and asking for a contribution. The source provided TPMDC a scan of the letter.

The note says, "I am writing you as especially dear supporters to let you know I intend to run for the U.S. Senate...my candidacy's credibility will have much to do with my fundraising success by the 30 June FEC filing deadline at the end of this quarter. Would you help me bring the change for the future we Pennsylvanians need[?]"

Infantino confirms that the note is genuine and that "Joe Sestak has written a number of similar notes."

It seems that the DSCC's efforts to keep the field clear for Specter have not produced the intended result, even with Specter seemingly becoming more comfortably in his new baby blue threads as of late. Perhaps Sestak was encouraged by a recent labor-commissioned poll showing Specter ahead by only 55-34 (Sestak's best margin yet).

Sestak's 7th District in suburban Philadelphia used to be a Republican stronghold, but it has veered sharply to the left in recent elections; while John Kerry won the district by six points in 2004 (an improvement over Al Gore's four-point win in 2000), Obama crushed McCain by 13% in the 7th CD last year. While the GOP will likely have a bench of candidates to choose from should Sestak take the plunge, the emerging consensus is that state Rep. Bryan Lentz, an Iraq War veteran who briefly ran for this seat in 2006, will be the Democratic flag bearer with Sestak out of the picture.

(H/T: Taegan)

James L. :: PA-Sen: Sestak Tells Supporters That He Intends to Challenge Specter
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Not convinced this is such a good move
But am willing to be talked round. Still, "intends" doesn't sound definite to me. He has left wiggle room if he gets a call from the WH.

Only potential downside = putting a safe house seat in play
But the PVI = D+3 for PA-07. That's not bad.
Assuming Lentz is our candidate, it would be an Iraq War vet running to replace the retired Admiral. That should keep the military vote happy.
(though Lentz's PA House seat would open up).

The potential upside = priceless.
(Keeping the leftward pressure on Specter, counterbalancing his natural DINO inclinations.)


Lentz will be a strong candidate and probably a better Congressman
Bryan Lentz bowed out on electability in 2006 but was already a strong candidate (e.g. Pat Murphy) and now has four good years in Harrisburg to rely on.  He'll have to work at fundraising and will have to be a DCCC priority, but he should win.  And he'll be a much more progressive vote in the House and will also have a moral position on national security issues.

[ Parent ]
Lentz's state house seat
Longtime R seat.  Lentz won with 51.5% in 2006, upped it to 55.5% in 2008.  District is moving left, but we need a good candidate.  

[ Parent ]
Figured he would
but still don't understand his rationale. Obama, Reid, Menendez, and the rest of the Dem establishment will be backing Specter, and Specter's been voting pretty well lately. On top of that, Specter's more popular among Democrats than any Republicans, has been for a long time, and is absolutely smashing Sestak in early polling. Even if a lot of that is name rec, how do you close a 40-point spread, even if you do have the better part of a year?

On top of that, it opens up a Dem-leaning but not super-safe seat. And what about Bryan Lentz's State House district? We need every State House we can get heading into redistricting. If the GOP wins both the governor's mansion and the House in 2010 (both vulnerable) they will control redistricting again.

Just not a logical decision, at least from a purely political perspective. I guess he sees it as a calling right now, or something.

20 years old, male, GA-12 (home), GA-10 (school); previously lived in CA-29, CA-28, CA-23, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01.


the House will keep moving for the dems
and I remain fairly certain Dems won't lose the State Gubernatorialship. The only way the GOP can win is by wracking big margins in sw PA and holding Dem margins in the burbs. Democrats look set to nominate a candidate capable of smashing them in the SW so the equation becomes impossible barring a terrible Democratic campaign, just by politcal geography and Demographics.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Don't be so sure
Remember, in the Assembly, before the 2006 wave the R's held a sizable margin and we now only have a slight lead after two wave years.  Because of the redistricting fights, (i) these seats should be major national priorities and (ii) the State party should stay out of primary season in Philly and Pittsburgh -- don't waste resources protecting incumbents in safe seats!

On the governor's side, we're in real trouble against Corbett.  


[ Parent ]
I don't think so, i mena
jeesh, Corbett won with 50.5% the first time and 52% in 2008 against an underfunded and completely unheralded Dem. I don't understand why he's considered a strong repub, he's never been seriously challenged.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Exactly
Corbett is hardly what I call a serious threat. I believe that either Allegheny Co Executive Dan Oronato or State Auditor Jack Wagner could beat him. The only reason Corbett won is because of PA's tradition of always electing Rs to the AG post ever since the office became an elected one in the '60s.

I also believe that Corbett is not well-liked at all by his fellow Republicans.


[ Parent ]
Those are Rose-Colored Glasses
He got 55 percent in the same election where John McCain got 44% at the top of his ticket, in a state with a lot of straight-ballot voters (the machines make that easy).  He's gotten good press, can raise money, and is a moderate Republican.  

Yes, it's a blue state.  But we make a huge mistake to discount Corbett -- he's a very talented politician.


[ Parent ]
No they aren't
He only got 52%, and that was against a virtual no-name. Yes, he has talents, but when you can only muster 52% against a no-name, that doesn't bode well.

Secondly, you also failed to note that the reason he's been able to win is b/c of his margins in SW PA. That's how he won in 2004 (both in the primary and in the general). This time around, he'll be facing either Dan Oronato or Jack Wagner, both of whom hail from SW PA as well. Furthermore, in 2008, while Corbett was winning 52-46, Wagner won 59-38. I have a feeling either Wagner or Oronato could take him.

While PA may have a lot of straight-ballot voters, it has just as many if not more split-ticket voters (especially in SE PA).

As for Corbett being talented, I'd say the same of Oronato.


[ Parent ]
The rational is that Specter will stab us in the back.
Specter's in this for himself.  He jumped ship to save his sorry hide thinking he'd get a free ride in the primary and coast in the general election.  The only reason he shaped up after a whole weak of nonsense, everything from voting against cramdown to a shout out to Norm Coleman, was "the sword of Sestak" hanging over his head.  If the primary challenge doesn't materialize, Specter will go back to doing his thing.  If he wins reelection to what will, like you said, probably be his last term, he will turn around and cut our throats when it suits him.  Getting rid of him here and now is our best option.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

[ Parent ]
Good!
C'mon PA Dems, get this right. Specter is emblematic of all that is wrong with DC, and it's time for him to go.  

And when you think about it
Specter is retiring six years from now, barring something shocking. This will be his only term as a Democrat, in all likelihood. Sestak could endear himself to the powers that be and be primed for a clear field in 2016. Why cause a ruckus this year, with the White House endorsing your opponent?

20 years old, male, GA-12 (home), GA-10 (school); previously lived in CA-29, CA-28, CA-23, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01.

He'll be old
65'ish.

[ Parent ]
Try 79 years old.
Your google needs fixing ;)

[ Parent ]
Specter is 79
Sestak would be 65ish in 2016 if he waited that long.

[ Parent ]
Because
it's the right thing to do. Specter is not a Democrat, Specter is in the PFS (Pennsylvanians for Specter) party.

Specter helped enable all of the worst abuses, crimes, and disasters of the Bush years -- esp. incl. the Iraq war. He's the emblem of the establishment that was for deregulation and selling out to big corporate interests, always.

And he ought to be held accountable for all that, and primaries are the only way to do so.

Go, Joe!


[ Parent ]
Just for the sake of curiosity.....
what makes you think that Sestak is better than Specter?

[ Parent ]
Easy
He (Sestak) didn't vote to authorize the Iraq war. He didn't vote for Alito and Roberts to be confirmed. He didn't vote for Military Commissions Act. He didn't vote to confirm Jay Bybee, one of the authors of the OLC torture memos, to a lifetime federal judgeship. He didn't vote for the Graham-Levin amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, thereby de facto eliminating habeas corpus rights for detainees.  

And when the chips were down in the Senate in 2007, when it was time to maybe put some pressure on Bush to change course in Iraq, it was only Olympia Snowe and Gordon Smith that actually broke with the administration and voted to go with the Dems to try and change strategy in Iraq -- certainly not Arlen Specter. Because that didn't occur, many more American troops were killed.

And on and on and on.  


[ Parent ]
I don't disagree
But some of these votes, notably the confirmations, are solely Senate business. So saying that Sestak didn't vote for them is sorta disingenuous.  Were he a Senator, he might have voted no on them...or he might not have.  We just can't know.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
moot points cause Sestak
wasn't in the senate, lol.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Wrong
Specter failed on those issues for us. There's no reason to think that'll change. To the extent that he owes favours, it's to PA's Dem machine and to the White House. He's not going to fight those two for us.

Sestak didn't fail us. He might not have fought for us, but not failing us is a good start. And he needs our help to win. Badly. Which means come December 2010 if he's Senator-elect he will owe us in a big way. Maybe not enough that he'll be our creature, but enough that he'll take more notice of the base than Specter would ever need or want to.

The risk-benefit calculation for the blogosphere is simple. Nobody expects us to play nice and fall in behind the President and they still want to use us as an ATM, so we don't get shunned. On the flip side, victory gives us a lot of power and frightens the be-Jesus out of every too conservative Democrat in congress.

As a not inconsiderable additional benefit, it also redefines Obama into being our chosen representative, not our leader. That allows us to exert a lot more pressure on him.


[ Parent ]
semantics
yes, fine, he might not have been 100% on the side of the angels (as englishlefty very ably and succinctly discussed) on those. but, to me it's enough to punish Specter for being a conservative Republican for six years ... and then trying to hoodwink everyone. accountability means getting booted for those votes, and he deserves it. if sestak is no better, then we'll redo it 2016. that's democracy, and there's no other way to hold senators accountable.  

[ Parent ]
Because he isn't a whore
Even if they have the exact same positions, I'll take the guy who won't just run the other way if the winds change.

[ Parent ]
You're close to convincing me!
I understand the "don't waste resources" and "don't put an otherwise safe house seat in play" arguments, and they are very valid/legitimate.

I also am not someone who, at the first instance of an incumbent doing something we don't like saying "Primary the S.O.B!"  I typically support Democrats where they are.  But then is Arlen really a Democrat?


[ Parent ]
He's def not a Democrat
He's a flip-flopping, opportunistic narcissist. He only switched to our team when it was clear he'd lose a primary if he stayed an 'R', and not a second earlier.

And this ain't Nebraska, or Louisiana, or Arkansas. I can't stand Ben Nelson, Pryor, Lincoln, or Landrieu -- but they are in rock-ribbed red states. Pennsylvania is now a bright blue state, and if we can get a progressive in there then it's worth the risk.  


[ Parent ]
Be Careful with the "Bright Blue" talk
if it was so blue they would not have re-elected the republican Attorney General last year (as in 2008).

There's still potential in the state to elect republicans.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26


[ Parent ]
RI has a Republican governor
So does Vermont. Electing the occasional popular statewide Republican is different from being a place that is generally favourable to conservatives. Corbett's popularity is despite, not because of, his conservatism and if he emphasises that he will suffer in the polls for it.

[ Parent ]
well, RI has a
Republican governor because voters feel like they have to balance out the overwhelmingly Democratic and corrupt state legislature. Democrats do themselves no favors in many of the places they have solid control, because then they end up becoming corrupt and playing un-Democratic machine politics. That's why I'm really against highly partisan gerrymanders.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Well said.
I think that's the best way I've ever heard that explained around here.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

[ Parent ]
Corbett not really popular either
Corbett has only managed to keep the AG post b/c, for whatever reason, PA just never elects Dems to be AG (while electing them all the time to be auditor).

Furthermore, both of his opponents were from eastern PA, while his base is in the Pittsburgh area. This time though, he'll face an opponent with the same exact geographic base (Oronato, Wagner). He has never been popular in eastern PA, and with his base under assault, his chances of winning diminish dramatically.


[ Parent ]
"barring something shocking"
I would be more shocked if Specter can serve out a full term

He's old (79) and he's had mutiple bad medical conditions that would do in most people. (I was surprised he didn't just retire and enjoy his golden years).

PLUS the PA Gov race is rated a toss-up, and so could easily be Repub during those 6 years.
The final joke would be on us if a Repub PA Gov gets to fill a vacancy.


[ Parent ]
Most favours don't last 6 years
If Sestak runs now, he faces no challengers from another region of the state nor from the Rendell machine. He does of course face a fearsome hydra representing the Democratic establishment, but at least for all the heads there's only one heart.

Whereas if he waited until 2016, he wouldn't have activist support (not enough of a reliable liberal) and there'd be other big beasts splitting the vote.


[ Parent ]
My friend lives in Sestak's district
and he'll be watching closely.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

such a shame
it'll be a shame to lose Sestak from the house, though hopefully Lentz will be even better than Sestak was.  

So lets see.  Sestak gets his tail handed to him in the primary after spending a couple mil and Lentz has to fight to keep the seat.....

then we have to fight to keep the state house seat which we desperately need to hold to control redistricting.....

Where exactly is the benefit in all of this???

All I see is a waste of resources that can be put to much better use elsewhere.  

Check out http://electioninspection.word... for the latest news, election results, poll analysis, and predictions


The other thing is that it guarantees Specter votes like a Dem
So how exactly does Sestak differentiate himself? Biggest downside therefore for is for Sestak himself. Secondly, resources get wasted that could go elsewhere to knocking of Repub incumbents. Thirdly, it opens up a House seat. Not that I expect to lose it but still, more resources that wouldn't otherwise be necessary. So I'm still on the fence.

[ Parent ]
This is sooooo Sestakish.
His entering the race is exactly what I'd expect out of a no-holds-bar, beat-everyone ex-Admiral. Now its Sestak versus every other elected Dem in Congress. Talk about balls.

A 'stalking horse' on behalf of who, exactly??
The White House and Gov. of PA have endorsed Specter already.
I don't understand.
Maybe Chris Cillizza in that article is mis-using the term.

[ Parent ]
Sestak will win.
   Sestak already has $2.5 million.  I don't think people realize how powerful Sestak has become so quickly.  I despise the "waste of resources" argument.  It's not zero-sum.  If Sestak runs in the primary, I give him money.  If it's only Specter, Specter gets no money.  Others agree.
   Also, Bryan Lentz is one of the most progressive Democrats in the State House, i.e. more progressive than Sestak.  I'd be happy to have him as my congressman (I vote in PA-07).  But there is another potential candidate in extremely popular State Rep. Greg Vitali.  He represents one of the most conservative parts of the district (in Delaware county) and won 70% of the vote last time.  He's pretty progressive too.

24, Male, GA-05

Fact check.
  Sorry guys, Sestak has $3.5 million.  That's a lotta moolah.

24, Male, GA-05

[ Parent ]
Yet...
Specter has $6.5 million, nearly twice as much as Sestak. Whatever you think about Specter, he's not a lightweight when it comes to fundraising.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
Marginal utility
How much can you spend on a Pennsylvania Senate race before the extra cash starts falling victim to the law of diminishing returns?

Maybe $20m? Specter's a third of the way there already. Sestak could still make it that far. Looking at relative CoH totals is important, but a) over 50% isn't bad and b) equally important is how much a campaign costs. There's only so much TV time it's worth buying.


[ Parent ]
Pennsylvania is not a cheap state
And it's not just television that matters, you also need to spend money on staff, organization, and street money (a must in the Philadelphia area).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
1. Specter is a democrat 2. It's a waste of resources
1. If Specter was as selfish and unprincpled as the anti's here suggest, he never would have voted for the budget bill in the first place and all the other things over the years that have pissed off the GOP in PA.  And while I respect the judgment and passion of many of the participants here, I trust Obama, Rendell and Schumer/Menendez even more when it comes to PA politics.  They felt this was a gamble worth taking, and I'm inclined to agree.  It's already paying off.  He has a contrarian streak (which I believe the general election voters like), but he's not a Republican.

2. It's a waste of resources because money that could be used to win a seat in FL or OH or KY or NC will be spent to hold a seat we already have.  "cilerder" says "If Sestak runs in the primary, I give him money.  If it's only Specter, Specter gets no money.  Others agree."  as if that were the question.

If Specter runs with no primary opponent, we give no money at all to PA, and spend it where we can pick up a seat.  And not just we with our very tiny spending ability, but the DSC with a couple of million.  I'd hate getting 6 more years of 100% right wing Burr or the 100% right wing Grayson just so we could get the 70% liberal Sestak instead of the 65% liberal Specter.  That just doesn't seem like smart use of limited (not zero) sums.


[ Parent ]
This is the marquee race
This is where the netroots puts its money and effort in 2010.

Sestak may be outspent, but assuming he doesn't relent (and I wouldn't rule out a late night Obama phonecall trying to accomplish that) it won't matter. His campaign will have enough to get on the air, and meantime it will have the energy to operate under the radar.

It's hard to dispute that Sestak's supporters will be more energised than Specter's. And that means that he doesn't need as much money.


Marquee race?
For the netroots maybe. Makes you wonder about where priorities lie. Imagine how many more seats could have been won in 2006 if Lieberman/Lamont hadn't sucked up so much oxygen.

[ Parent ]
Uh, probably none...
We won six seats and held all our own, not a bad year and probably the best we could do.  The only other three races that were vaguely competitive were TN, AZ, and NV-Kyle and Ensign had weak opponents and were always in strong shape, so those were out of contention.  The Ford/Corker race was the only one that was close, and there are a variety of reasons that could be ascribed to Ford's loss, none of them having to do with Ned Lamont.

Besides, leaving folks like Lieberman and Specter without primary opponents only leaves them free to kill good policy and push bad ones while engaging in what you could call the soft corruption of Washington entitlement.  I understand the desire to be a big tent party and get as many Democrats as possible, but it seems to me the reason we elect Democrats is to get the right public policy implemented.  If the priority is Democrats first and policy second, then I think our priorities are a little backwards.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com


[ Parent ]
Granted
Personally, I'd rather people just concentrated on defeating actual Republicans.

[ Parent ]
Can do both at once
I don't see how Joe Sestak challenging Arlen Specter in Penna at all detracts from the efforts in any or all of the open seats in Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire (where we enter the races with decent-to-decided advantages) -- not to mention an open seat in Florida (prolly leaning against us w/ Crist in the race) and good pickup opps in North Carolina and Kentucky (depending upon our candidates).

To me, it's just as important to get good, strong liberals in the Senate in New York, Illinois, Delaware, and Pennsylvania and Colorado as it is to pickup Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire. Anything past that is gravy (although NC and KY would be especially sweet).

And Sestak already has cash, I don't see how the nickles from the netroots really matter all that much in that race.


[ Parent ]
Do both
Agree. But I chafe at any suggestion that this primary should be a priority.  

[ Parent ]
That would be the ideal.
Unfortunately, Republicans aren't the only one's who push bad policy.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

[ Parent ]
Retirement.
   Has anyone considered the possibility that Specter could retire?  Hell, maybe he'll run for governor.  He could do anything.

24, Male, GA-05

PA
I don't like this at all.  Sestak is not a progressive, like Nate has said he might not even end up being as Liberal as Specter will be in the Senate.  It also risks a House Seat and wastes a ton of money.  This is exactly what we DONT need in a year when we will be playing a lot of defense.  Really bad job by Obama and Co. not keeping him out.

29/D/Male/NY-01

Nate is wrong.
   Nate uses a mathematical equation to calculate how much more liberal Specter will become.  It was one of the worst posts I have ever read.  You cannot use an equation to predict how one person will change.  
  Obama doesn't control who runs in primaries; there's this thing called Democracy.  

24, Male, GA-05

[ Parent ]
Nate can
and in the past people do move to the spectrum of whatever party they switch.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Nate is usually wrong
Relatively good at predicting election outcomes? Sure.

Good political analyst? Hell no.

Nate should stick to horse-race analysis. It's what he's good at. And even there, his innovation was in actually analysing what the congressional districts were like. He's not a wizard.


[ Parent ]
i dunno
he called Frankens margin within a few dozen votes.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
That's numbers
Statistical analysis. Not political analysis.

To the extent that numbers explain human actions on a personal level, the amount of power required to compute the probabilities is prohibitively high. Statistics works largely because acceptable best estimates can be found.

Where there are distinctive individuals with a lot of power and information, simple statistical models rapidly become insufficient.


[ Parent ]
right before they started the recount


Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
I completely agree.
   He is not a good political strategist.  He is very good at predicting elections.  He did think that Mike Steele would be an excellent RNC chairman.  So there's that...

24, Male, GA-05

[ Parent ]
I don't understand this...
Why is it that people seem to think that someone switching parties will have absolutely no impact on their voting behavior? Why do you assume that these guys, who are politicians, won't, in order to make their new base happy, start voting a lot more in line with the rest of the base?

Incidentally, I never heard any of this talk about "democracy" when Rob Andrews ran against Frank Lautenberg in 2008, in fact most of the time, it was bad-mouthing him for challenging him from the Right and about what a sleaze-bag he is. I can accept that you have good-faith reasons for wanting to primary Specter, but that really annoys me when people who want a primary challenge throw out "democracy" as being a principle reason as though the ones who aren't in favor of it in this instance are anti-democratic. Oh and for the record, I thought Andrews was a jack-ass for his primary challenge to Lautenberg.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
Now wait a minute.
Just because we criticize Andrews for being a machine politician, a DINO, and someone running a challenge based solely on ambition doesn't mean we're hypocrites for supporting Sestak now, it just means we've got our candidates we support and there are those we don't.  Andrews had every right to run and the voters every right to decide-and, an important difference between then and now, there wasn't such pressure from insiders for him to get out.

That aside, just because folks support a primary as part of democracy doesn't mean we're saying the people who don't are anti-democratic.  The people that sentiment are rightfully aimed at are the party bosses trying to get their preferred candidate a free ride without the voters having a say so.  Standing on principle for democracy is an admirable thing that no one should shy away from.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com


[ Parent ]
It may be that you're directing your ire towards "party bosses"
But when the party bosses cleared the field for Tom Udall in NM-Sen, I didn't hear anyone here talk about how Mayor Chavez (who, again, I opposed) . Of course Sestak has a right to stay in, if he wants to run and he believes that he can win, he can do whatever he wants, what I object to is throwing that "democracy" line out there and saying that it's directed at "party bosses" doesn't exactly help you out.

Party leaders care about two things, holding onto seats and increasing their numbers, and divisive primaries have a tendency of complicating things by forcing candidates to waste resources and rip each other apart. These party leaders weren't subverting democracy when they pushed out Chavez in New Mexico, and they aren't doing it now, and so I think it's still a bad-faith argument.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
As I recall, Chavez dropped out because the polls showed him getting his butt handed to him.
That said, you keep pointing back to these old races and saying no one complained then and while I can't speak for anyone else, I for one wasn't on swingstateproject back then.  But if you insist on pointing back, you should recall the Ohio and Pennsylvania senate races in 2006 where there were plenty of people mad at Shumer and Reid for intervention in those states primaries, and plenty angry at the party bosses for getting in between Lieberman and Lamont.

Primaries though, are good things, and often work out in favor of the eventual nominee, in contrast to the CW:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/...

Regardless of that, I still hold to principle, whoever wants to run should run, and the voters in the primary should be the ones who get to decide who the nominee is.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com


[ Parent ]
I don't think Bowers's point is really all that great
First of all, there are plenty of counter-examples which tend to disprove that point:

- NY-26, after a contested primary, Democratic nominee Alice Kryzan ended up losing by 15 points (and was pretty much written off after winning the primary).

- NM-Sen, the Republicans had a contested primary between Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce while Tom Udall went unopposed in the Democratic primary, Udall went on to crush Pearce 61-39 in the general.

- MD-01, the CfG-sponsered Andy Harris knocked off incumbent Wayne Gilchrest only to lose to Frank Kratovil in the general.

- RI-Sen (2006), Steve Laffey's primary against Lincoln Chafee is almost certainly what cost the Republicans that senate seat (with the Republican party being forced to blow a lot of money to defend Chafee when they could've spent money better in Maryland, Missouri, and Montana)

Second of all, what about the races where we didn't have a contested primary: NM-Sen, VA-Sen, NH-Sen, MN-Sen (I don't really care what Bowers wants to say, after Cirisi dropped out, that was not anything near a competitive race), AK-Sen, CO-Sen, and ME-Sen? Of those 7 races, we won 6 of them, and in 3 of them, we won by 10 points or more. If we would've gotten a top-tier field-clearer to run against McConnell in Kentucky we would've won that seat, I have no problem saying that much.

The whole "primaries are really wonderful for our candidates" might sound lovely and convenient for us, but really it doesn't stand up to the facts.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
Unfair
Plenty of us thought Andrews had every right to run, we just thought he was an asshole.

The complaints about democracy were, as I remember, much more linked to his behaviour with regard to protecting his own seat.


[ Parent ]
It almost always does have huge impact
Let me give you some former Ds to ponder:  Nathan Deal, Ben "Switchhorse" Campbell, Richard Shelby, Mike Parker, Virgil Goode, Bill Grant, Jim McCrery, Jimmy Hayes, Greg Laughlin, Billy Tauzin, Wes Watkins.  What do these folks have in common:  They were Dixiecrats who voted for us 40-50% of the time (perhaps more in some cases) and now vote that way less than 5% of the time.  For our sides, there are fewer comparisons (Carolyn McCarthy, Pete McCloskey, Mike Doyle, Loretta Sanchez, John Yarmuth), but each of these folks moved fairly far leftwards.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
There is zero logic to the idea
that Specter or Gillibrand will move left as Dem Senators from a blue state but Sestak won't.  

With Toomey not being challenged, this is the second best win-win of 2010.  Sestak wins, great, get rid of the old whore and beat Toomey.  If the old whore wins, he beats Toomey.

The ideal is Specter stays ahead in the polls the whole campaign, and thus behaves, but Sestak wins in the primary.


[ Parent ]
the dif is
sestak already represents a pretty liberal seat and had no challenger last cycle.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
No challenger?
   His challenger, Craig Williams, took 40% of the vote in 2008.

24, Male, GA-05

[ Parent ]
And it is a historically Republican area
It's not "pretty liberal" at all, certainly not for north of the Mason-Dixon.  By any measure he is in a more vulnerable position than Gillibrand was.

[ Parent ]
Why I was praying for Schwartz
If anyone was going to pull the trigger.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
Not really
His district is not that much different from Gillibrand's. In fact, Sestak's district is more favorable than Gillibrand's. Obama won PA-7 56-43, and Kerry won it 53-47. Obama barely won NY-20 51-48, and Kerry lost it 46-54.

Furthermore, with Sestak's district, we actually have Dems representing the area in the state legislature. No such luck in NY-20.


[ Parent ]
the dem held seats
are both in fairly Repub territory if I recall.  

it would be a bad thing to get them to run for this seat seeing as we baqrely hold the PA house as it is.  

Check out http://electioninspection.word... for the latest news, election results, poll analysis, and predictions


[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox