Google Ads


Site Stats

PA-Gov, PA-07: Meehan Set to Run For Sestak's Seat

by: James L.

Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 4:15 AM EDT


Ruh-roh. From Roll Call (hat-tip: Johnny Longtorso):

Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan (R), who was running for governor of Pennsylvania in 2010, has begun making calls and telling supporters that he will run for the open 7th district seat instead, according to a GOP source in the Keystone State.

Meehan's campaign released a statement Friday afternoon announcing his departure from the gubernatorial race.

"Pat is more committed than ever to helping return Pennsylvania to a path of prosperity, and he is now seriously considering a run for congress in the Seventh Congressional District to fulfill that commitment,'' his spokeswoman said in a statement.

Meehan, as you may recall, previously squashed rumors that he was interested in running for Congress next year, but this looks like it's the real deal. (Perhaps he didn't really believe Sestak would go for the Senate race until he actually made it official.)

This is pretty bad news for Team Blue, as Meehan is the strongest possible candidate the GOP could put forward in this district -- and one with a very legitimate shot at turning this D+3 seat red. Before his stint as the Eastern District US Attorney, Meehan was the popular DA of Delaware County -- where the vast majority of this district's vote comes from. It remains to be seen whether the current GOP candidate in the race, local pharma magnate Steven Welch, will defer to Meehan, so the potential of a primary still exists here.

Democrats still have a very strong candidate of their own in Iraq vet/state Rep. Bryan Lentz (also from Delaware County), but state Rep. Greg Vitali, among others, is also considering it. While still boasting a GOP registration advantage, this district has taken a sharp turn toward the Blue in recent years, punctuated by Barack Obama's 56-43 win here in 2008. Still, if there's anyone who could successfully encourage voters to reconnect to their GOP roots, it's Meehan.

This race is now probably best considered a tossup.

RaceTracker Wiki: PA-07
James L. :: PA-Gov, PA-07: Meehan Set to Run For Sestak's Seat
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
PA-Gov, PA-07: Meehan Set to Run For Sestak's Seat | 106 comments
Wow
This is great news for us. We get a strong candidate in Sestak's seat, and a less complicated Gov primary! Now, if only we could get Gerlach to run for re-election...
Worse case scenario
Lose this seat and Sestak tears Specter to shreads yet Arlen still wins the primary and is DOA against Toomey. Why oh why can't people see the big picture?
Add to that...
We could subsequently lose Lentz's State House seat, making our already tenuous majority in the chamber narrower still.

I agree that this represents a seriously short-sighted judgment call on the part of Joe Sestak - were it anyone else, I might speculate that this most recent development might prompt the incumbent to abandon his narcissistic, kamikaze primary plans and un-retire from his House seat... but of course, it IS Joe freakin' Sestak we're talking about here.

The only saving grace in all this is that we'll have the GOP on the defensive nearby in PA-06. I like our odds at retaining at least one of them, though I'd feel better if had an actual elected official running as our candidate in the latter. Still, it's bad news for us every time it looks like we're playing defense in the northeast, particularly in any district that can so readily be construed as an exemplar of national political trends.

Male, 23, DC-At Large

[ Parent ]
Because
some people are not convinced that Specter is still not really a Democrat. They see his party switch as simple opportunism to avoid being primaried by Pat Toomey. Not being from PA, I really have no opinion on this matter. My focus is on OH's senate primary (if there is one).

Personally, I have a distinct feeling that Specter will not last the election cycle. His 79 years are showing, and I wonder if he has the energy to stick it out.

[ Parent ]
Exactly
Not only is Specter old, but he has a history of cancer.  With the Pennsylvania governor's race up in the air, we can't have a Senator not being able to serve the full term.  Add that to the fact that Specter isn't above switching back to the Republicans or becoming a DINO again.

As for the "We may lose the Senate seat!" sayings, I really doubt it.  Have anyone aired ads against Toomey showing how far right he is?

As for Sestak's seat: It's a seat in a blue district in which we too have a strong candidate.  It is not an automatic loss, a likely loss, or even a leaning loss.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
This isn't 2006
Santorum was elected in 1994 and re-elected in 2000 despite being far-right. It's dangerous to assume that Toomey is an automatic loser because of his ideology. He represented PA-15 from 1998 to 2004 -- a swing district, not a heavily Republican one.

As for PA-07, it doesn't matter if this is a blue district or not. The right candidate + the right national climate = seat in danger. Look at AL-02, AZ-05, IN-02, MN-01, NH-01, NM-02, NC-11, OH-16, PA-04, and WI-08 -- all Republican-leaning seats that we won over the past two cycles because of the perfect storm.

[ Parent ]
Nor is it 1994
Santorum is not a good comparison for various reasons.

1) 1994 was a wave year, and that was the only reason he beat Harris Wofford. Otherwise, he probably would have lost.

2) Santorum's electoral base was Pittsburgh, where he represented what was then PA-15 (Mike Doyle's district). That, plus the 1994 wave, was how he was able to beat Wofford.

3) Santorum's 2000 opponent, PA-4 Congressman Ron Klink, had little money/charisma/SEPA support and still held Santorum to a 52-46 margin.

4) PA has changed substantially since 1994, as SEPA has become bluer and less tolerant of extremists like Toomey and Santorum. That shift was a huge factor behind not only Obama's 11-point win but also Santorum's 18-point loss.

[ Parent ]
there a little more to Woffords deafeat
"One reason for Wofford's loss were his stands on controversial abortion and gun control legislation in the 103rd Congress.His support for a Federal ban on semi-automatic firearms cost him significant support throughout the stat"

Bob Casey appointed him to the senate under the condition that Wofford would support the Pennsylvania abortion control act. But when Wofford refused a personal plea by Casey to support an amendment similar to a provision in Casey's Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. Casey made it very clear that if Wofford opposed the amendment, the Governor would withhold his support in Wofford's next Senate election. Wofford supported the amendment, and was defeated in the 1994 election by upstart conservative Congressman Rick Santorum.

Male 21 Dem Ca's 1st  

[ Parent ]
Santorum's congressional seat
At least post-redistricting Santorum's congressional seat I would say was actually blue rather than swing. Judging by the Pres. numbers at Polidata. In 92' Clinton won it by 21.4%. That is compared to his roughly 9% win statewide. And Santorum still won by 22.6% that year, though i have no details about the nature of that race (his opponent could have been a crook for all I know). But his disrict did take a sharp turn to the right in '96 by going for Clinton 'only' by 13.1%. Compared to Clinton's roughly 9% win statewide. Santorum obviously wasnt the congressman then, though. Doyle was. Gore won the district by roughly 16% that year. Though who knows if Santorum could have hung on that long in that district had he kept running for re-election.  
[ Parent ]
Kind of hard to believe
That he represented such a blue district. And who maybe it was the same way pre-90s redistricting...who knows.
[ Parent ]
And if god forbid Specter were replaced by a Gov.
It could very well be that hes replaced by Meehan. Especially if he has to be replaced after Jan. 2013 (when Meehan's first term would end). Meehan could very well be the most dangerous GE opponent in a Sen. race. Only downside to him is...he could get primaried. But god this is all just so speculative LOL.
[ Parent ]
Because
Specter isnt a Democrat.  I dont mind having a big tent party but Im not going to be used to further someone elses career.
[ Parent ]
The big picture???? LOL
You are talking about a puny worst case scenario, while totally ignoring the actual big picture.
[ Parent ]
Toomey
I know Toomey is considered a right wing loon but i think hes more of a tactical politician than an ideologue. So come Nov. 2010 he may not even be considered a 'fringe Republican'. People forget that he was once a pro-choice congressman. Not for long but still. He recently came out in support of Justice Sotomayor's confirmation...that could be a sign that hes moderating himself. So you could be right...Toomey could be a legit candidate come 2010.  
[ Parent ]
Eh
I partly agree, but his conservative record is just too extensive for the Dems and left-leaning interest groups to let him get away with that - the ads would/will be absolutely brutal.

Male, 23, DC-At Large
[ Parent ]
Oh dear
face palm Pennsylvania is turning into a major headache right now.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
In all fairness
When is Pennsylvania NOT a major headache for the majority party therein?

Male, 23, DC-At Large
[ Parent ]
PA
Thanks Sestak!  Because we really needed junk like this during a down cycle.

29/D/Male/NY-01
make the race about issues, not personality
That's how you win against a popular Republican in a Dem district. Also in our favor, Meehan will have to run on the same ballot as Pat Toomey, who can't possibly be popular in PA-07.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12
and here is what I was afraid of
This is exactly what I was afraid would happen.  

Sestak just launched himself into an expensive senate bid and I give him roughly a 60/40 chance to actually beat Specter.  

Meehan vs Lentz is going to be a very expensive race and ranks a toss up.

and the possibility of losing Lentz's seat rates a toss up too unless the GOP drops the ball.  

This is exactly why Sestak shouldn't have run. I will not be at all surprised to have a bloodied Arlen Specter and be down a U.S. house seat and a PA house seat come November

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

Well
I can't really believe you prefer having Specter represent your party. He's an embarrassment as a person, and it's embarrassing for us for him to have a (D) next to his name. Automatically supporting assholes like him is why we're having such a hard time on health-care reform right now. We're chock-full of machine-backed insiders who only care about preserving the status quo and their own financial and political interests. Beating Specter here will send not only Specter and the PA democratic party a message, but a message to the national party as a whole.
[ Parent ]
Uh...
I believe Specter is NOT the problem when it comes to health care.  Did you see the townhall he held with Kathleen Sebelius where they were mightily booed by those right-wing protesters?  People like him are NOT what's causing the problem with health care reform right now.
[ Parent ]
Actually, yes
We have enough democrats to pass health-care reform. I didn't say the problem was solely Specter, but rather politicians like him: conservatives wearing the (D) label. If all democrats would support HCR we wouldn't need any of the crazy tea-bagging birther republicans. And while Specter maybe be pro-health care for the time being (it's hard to tell with him) you can bet your shorts that the only reason for it lies precisely with Sestak's primary challenge.
[ Parent ]
I agree
The Republicans can no longer be blamed for the failure to pass progressive legislation.  Or at the very least, blame can no longer be placed solely on them.  We have a filibuster-proff majority in the Senate and a sizable majority in the House, which is much more of a tyranny of the majority to begin with.  The only things we don't have the numbers to do alone are amend the Constitution and override vetoes.  The problem has been that our majorities are weighed down by conservadems and corruptodems (who are sometimes/often one in the same), coupled with ineffectual leadership.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Worth it, frankly
We'll probably pick up PA-06, anyway.  
Yeah, no brainer positive all the way around
Worst case a moderate Republican gets in, one term before reapportionment.

More likely we have a good fight in the district, and the best candidate's ideas wins.

Best scenario Sestak sends Specter into retirement, and we don't have to worry about his multiple issues (whoring to the right after the general, passing away with a Republican Gov in power mid-term, whoring to the right after the primary to really marginalize Toomey, etc etc etc).

[ Parent ]
I cannot believe all the crybaby comments
in this thread.  This is Arlen friggin' Specter people, who voted for Samuel Alito and just about everything else Bush threw at him without batting an eyelash.  You think Specter's going to keep voting with the Dems when there is no electoral incentive to do so?  Me neither.

Joe Sestak is a hero for taking him on.  Did he knowingly leave a vulnerable house seat?  Yes.  But this is not about whether electoral geeks get to put one extra House seat down for the Dems in their election spreadsheets in 2010.  This is about whether my one-year-old daughter lives in a better country than I did when she is 20 and 30 and 40.  Joe Sestak is doing his part to try to make that a reality.

What Joe Sestak is doing takes real courage, the kind that most people do not have.  It is in many respects similar to Barack Obama's decision to run for President.  He may lose, and the Dems may lose his House seat and a State House seat.  The whole thing may fail miserably, but don't attack this man from trying to remove Arlen Specter from office.  He will be a hero in my book if he does so, even if he loses to Toomey.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

Thank you!
   Lots of whiners in this thread.  Sestak is my congressman, and while I'm not thrilled by the possibility of being represented by Meehan, I think it's great he's challenging Specter.  I will actually have a say in who the Democratic nominee will be!  What a concept.
  Besides, isn't the possible loss of House seat worth it to put a liberal Democrat in the Senate?  Aren't most of our problems in the Senate and not in the House?  
  I think people are underestimating Bryan Lentz.  He's a tenacious politician.  

24, Male, GA-05
[ Parent ]
Sestak is not a liberal Democrat
Unlike Specter, he is actually a Democrat, but I would classify him as moderate, about where Patrick Murphy is.
[ Parent ]
I would describe Sestak as mostly a party line Democrat
Not really a moderate and not really a liberal.  Patrick Murphy is not a bad comparison, but I wouldn't really call him a moderate either.  Kind of the same animal as Sestak.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
It is worth it for one reason
the pressure from Sestak may force Specter to vote for health care, cap and trade, and EFCA, all for which Specter's vote may be the decider.  And if these things pass, it is worth whatever the resulting political outcome may be.


[ Parent ]
It already is moving Specter's votes
Nate Silver at 538 did a great analysis of it.  Specter has been a loyal Democrat since Sestak expressed interest.  He was not before.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
Excellent comment!
I think you summed up my own feelings on this perfectly.
[ Parent ]
HEAR HEAR!!!!
...
[ Parent ]
I'm in the pool of many who agree here.
Specter's voting record switched from a moderate conservative to a moderate liberal after his party switch, which makes sense, GOP has nothing to wave over your head or pressure you with, whereas now Democrats have that going for them.  But because of a primary challenge, shifting again to a liberal Democrat shows how it's nothing but political posturing.  If Specter wins the primary he will shift back to being a moderate Democrat, posturing for a general election against Toomey.  We need people representing us with principles, and I'm sure Pennsylvania feels the same way.  
[ Parent ]
The shifting ideology doesnt bug me too much
Im not going to fault him for shifting his ideology, every politician does it (generally) and to me is simply part of our fucked up system that causes this.

What pisses me off about Specter is that he didnt switch to our party for what would be the perceived betterment of the people of Pennsylvania, he did it all for his own ego.  He is a politician in the worst sense of the word.

[ Parent ]
So basically you are all doing exactly what the GOP did?
Gotcha. I think Toomey is being underestimated in this situation. The primary is ripe for him to exploit when one on one he wouldn't have a chance.  
"We're" not doing anything.
Joe Sestak is making a primary challenge against a man who has been a pretty reliable Republican vote for DECADES.

Why should party insiders get to anoint such a person as the Dem candidate?  Arlen and his enablers are going to have to put on their big boy pants and earn the nomination.  That's good for the party and for the country.

Plus if the winner of this primary can't beat Toomey, it will be indicative of broader and more serious problems for Dems than the primary challenge.    

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
I can't believe you people
We've got the House by a 70 seat margin, and you all are worried about potentially losing one seat even though it's obvious that Sestak's challenge of Specter has put the latter in line?  Weren't all of you pissed off when Specter switched to our side, announced he wouldn't actually be voting any differently, but that didn't stop all the Democratic establishment from kissing his ass?  Were we really going to be stuck with spineless Specter for another six years, without so much as a primary?

I am glad Sestak is running.  With us having exactly 60 votes in the Senate, we need Specter to be as reliable a Democrat as possible, and the evidence is there that since Sestak started making noises about running, that has happened.

But I flat out don't trust Specter, not the way I trusted Jim Jeffords, or would have trusted Linc Chafee had he seen the light and switched.  I think one single House seat (in a district that is only going to shift harder to the left in the future) is worth it.

And no, Pat Toomey is not going to win in a state that Obama won by 10 points.  This is not the Pennsylvania of the 1990s.

Amen!
I too welcomed Jeffords' switch and would have welcomed Chafee's (and Jim Leach's) had he chosen to do so. Their voting records were, aside from 1 or 2 issues in Chafee's case, identical to those of Democrats in neighboring states.

Looking at the rest of the comments....Yikes! I haven't seen this site so split in a while.  

[ Parent ]
We have the House by a 40 seat margin, not 70
And we hold a lot of seats that we probably are not going to be able to hold in 2010.  This is just another bucket of water thrown on us in a cycle where our tank is slowly filling up with water and our heads are barely above it.  Pretty soon we will be using a snorkle.  What Sestak did isnt helping us.  
[ Parent ]
Specter
It seems to me that Specter was reflecting the views of his constituency by switching parties. Much the same way Dick Shelby of Alabama did in 1994. I don't remember him facing any kind of opposition. Same goes for Ben Nighthorse Campbell in Colorado. But no, the "big tent party" has to lay out the welcome mat for Specter with a nasty primary. Which leaves an opening for Santorum Jr (Toomey). I'm pretty sure there won't be anymore party switching after this.
Good
I'm glad our party isn't going to blindly accept soulless politicians who've spent the last eight years enabling a corrupt and evil regime and voted to confirm radical right-wing judges and who switched to our party solely to save his own ass.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Whatever dude
The party leadership supports Specter. The President has pledged to campaign for him. Sestak can't win but can certainly soften up Specter for Toomey. Not to mention help Repubs pick up both PA-07 and Lentz's seat.
[ Parent ]
hmm
Didn't the party leadership support Lieberman? And why is that a reason to not support someone? Do you only do what you're told to do? Frankly I'd prefer to have Toomey in the senate than Specter: yes Specter would vote with us on some things, but I think it's embarrassing that he can put a (D) next to his name but still do whatever the hell he wants and get all the support from the D establishment. At least with Toomey in the senate, people will realize how bat-shit crazy he is and we can get a real democrat in 6 years (if Sestak doesn't pull it off in 2010).
[ Parent ]
And in the meantime
A new right-wing senator is added who will make it a whole hell of a lot harder to pass anything in the senate. Congratulations, you've just cut off your nose to spite your face, well done!

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 ]
So?
Not much different than Specter, especially if he gets re-elected and no longer has to worry about electoral pressures.
[ Parent ]
Sorry, I think that's crazy
I'm rooting for Sestak, too. But Specter has been FAR from a reliable Republican vote, let alone some kind of fire-breathing conservative. There is considerable difference between him - even as a Republican - and right-wing extremists.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Well
I may have mis-spoke a little there. Yes I know Specter wouldn't vote nearly as right as Toomey would. My problem is - I'm a supporter of the whole 50-state strategy and electing conservative dems in conservative districts, BUT I think there comes a certain point where it's too much, and that's Specter. While Specter might provide a better vote than Toomey in the senate, I frankly just don't want Specter in the senate with a (D) next to his name, I think it tarnishes all of us. I view it as similar to (though maybe not quite as bad) as having someone like William Jefferson in our caucus who's corrupt and by extension makes the rest of us look bad. Specter is too spineless, wishy-washy, and self-serving for me to want him being the face of the democratic party.
[ Parent ]
THIS is get
n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
And that would be why exactly?
There have been planty of Democrats-turned-Republicans (Richard Shelby of Alabama comes to mind) and it hasn't tarnished the Republicans at all.

It amazes me how people are so shocked and disgusted by the fact that a politician, for political reasons, decided to make a very political move (which this what this boils down to). Incidentally, I like that you compare changing parties to bribery and corruption (and is now facing a prison term because of it) and how this somehow makes us look bad (apparantly being a big-tent party is a horrible thing).

I'm personally weary of Specter, but am willing to give him a chance to prove himself to his new Party (which is what we should be doing instead of doing what the GOP's been doing for the last couple of cycles and trying to do a purge).

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 ]
Weary of Specter
If you're weary of him now, how tired of him will you get in 6 more years in the Senate? Or did you mean that you're wary of him? I don't want to nitpick; I think you mean "wary," but I'm not sure.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Wary
I'm wary not weary (although that might not be true in the future :P)

Yeah, just ignore me and my lousy spelling :)

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 ]
Eh,
Harry Reid himself said a few years ago something like "Arlen Specter is always there for us except for when we need him."
[ Parent ]
Right
but he was a Republican, so it wouldn't have made any sense for him to have been a reliable vote for the Democrats. That goes no way toward proving that he was a reliable Republican vote.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
He was reliable when it mattered to them
Now he's our pol, which is fine as far as it goes. But Jeffords, the ladies from Maine, and Chafee were always much more likely to side with the Dems on an important vote.  
[ Parent ]
If you're right
then why was he essentially drummed out of the Republican Party? I submit that your perception is unduly affected by your political position. As a Democrat, you (and I) found it maddening how much Specter voted as a Republican. But Republicans never found him a reliable vote, including on things that were important to them - Bork being an obvious example, with the Recovery Act the latest - and even though he usual voted their way, his independent and critical voice was often irritating to them.

You have to imagine that lots of Republicans were as annoyed with Specter as many Democrats are with senators like Ben Nelson, and for much the same reasons.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
he was drummed out
because he was not generally trustworthy. Indeed, I agree with you that he was rather like a Republican Ben Nelson.

But here's the difference, we don't now have to choose between Specter and a Republican. We can get a real Democrat that WE choose. The risk is that we might end up with a Republican Senator at the end of the day. Frankly, I think it's a risk worth taking. Democratic leadership will object to this primary because they (correctly) believe that it will prevent future defections in their direction. But that's OK with me. I would like to see leadership disempowered in our favor.  

[ Parent ]
Defeatist dominoes
based on what?  That Pat Toomey suddenly has mainstream Pennsylvania views.  How does THAT follow?

Specter and Sestak could nude mudwrestle for a year and still be favored over Toomey.

More Democrats, then better Democrats, especially in blue states.  Not more Democrats, then whine about anyone else running for office.

[ Parent ]
Plus
the primary is in May (or was it April?). Even if there is a knock'em-down-drag'me-out fight, there's still time to patch things up. This isn't like Rhode Island, where the September primary leaves us (and the GOP, as Chafee found out) little time to recover from brutal primaries.

BTW, I would refrain from using Specter's name in the same sentence as "nude" and "mudwrestle" because it creates VERY disturbing images.

[ Parent ]
The comparison is not fair
Shelby didn't say that he was not a loyal Repub after he switched.  In addition Specter is nearly 80 and is a cancer patient, it is unclear whether he would survive another term.
[ Parent ]
There are very few Republicans left
representing Blue districts or states.  So far the '10 election looks like it will continue this pattern of removal, mostly via retirements and term limits.

It looks like Red districts and states are likewise going to generally replace their retiring and term limited moderate/conservative Democrats with Republicans.

Since elections seem to work in pairs, the '12 election will probably continue what the '10 election did.

The Democratic advantage is that the national shift in the electorate in their favor of around 1% per year seems to be continuing.  Republicans can trim off a lot of seats Democrats shouldn't be holding, but Democrats have states and districts tipping to them with unsatisfactory Republican incumbents.

So we're polarizing geographically.  And we're in strong psychological tension, a national war of nerves between two incompatible stances.  Wars of nerves end in one side unraveling, in it cracking and venting and raging piecemeal.  We've had the moderate Republicans go through that.  Now we're seeing the hardcore classical Right do that, in the form of warmongers and teabaggers and birthers and town hall disrupters, along with their internal purity purging.  That leaves the soc cons/Religious Right diehards.  Who will no doubt make their appearance and turn the public arena into their drama of cathartic rage in two or three years.

[ Parent ]
So what happens when in three or four years
after the economy recovers and Obama is reelected?  Does the Republican Party die and get replaced with a new party that takes in the Blue Dogs?
[ Parent ]
Possibly
I expect there will be some kind of fissure in the GOP that reduces it to a purely regional party while the more sane half absorbs some of the Blue Dogs (or their ideological successors).

Baystater: have you ever considered writing professionally? Your post has to be one of the most vivid and eloquent I've read on almost any online site.

[ Parent ]
I'm flattered :-)

I wish I could write well with enough consistency to dare that.

Maybe someday.  :-)

[ Parent ]
When? How about if?
I like your assumption, but it IS an assumption. The economy may not recover so fast, and if guaranteed national health insurance isn't passed, the economy worsens, and possibly some kind of dreadful thing happens in terms of security (especially internal security, such as, God forbid, terrorist attacks), all bets are off (though sadly, it's possible that a terrorist attack would be good rather than bad politically for whomever is in office - Bush in 2004, e.g., though I still doubt he actually would have won a fair election).

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
My guess is
they won't make much sense in '12 either and be all over the place.  I'd put my money on them running the Mittster (that's going to be fun).

At the national level they'll have to rejigger and become mostly an economic interest party.  At the moment they still think they can totally oppose serious social democratic institutions, i.e. stay free market absolutists.  But the viable long term niche looks to be that of being the party of criticism and reform of these institutions to higher efficiency.  I'm not sure how they'll make the leap, or when, but eventually they have to.

For now and for a couple more years the national GOP has to obey the Culture Warriors (the social con/Religious Right faction) in the GOP on abortion, gay rights, non-white immigration, racial integration, environmentalism, and a couple of other fairly old Culture War issues.  In five or ten years that should change as support for those issues cracks among soc cons.  They'll give up on a repetoire of issues and go over to a new set that still has a conservative majority.  And with that they'll reengineer their cultural image.  To the extent I can figure it out they'll shift from being a party centered on the white Christian male scion (and/or servant) of privilege to championing the nominally racially colorblind, fervently theist, gender assertive pseudo-entrepreneur.

[ Parent ]
How is this any different than the GOP today
championing the nominally racially colorblind, fervently theist, gender assertive pseudo-entrepreneur.

This statement above and

party centered on the white Christian male scion (and/or servant) of privilege

are the exact same to me, with the only difference that the second sounds slightly better.  And I don't think Democrats and independents are going to be fooled by this "new" GOP.

[ Parent ]
Democrats
don't have to be fooled. All it would take is to fool a few more percentage points of independents.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
The difference
is a social comfort zone for the younger and lesser versions of Michelle Malkin, J.C. Watts, Carrie Prejean, Marco Rubio and Rick Warren that are out there.  It will of course still remain a party principally of the Bushes and Cheneys and Dobsons.  And of frat boys and gals of all stripes and ages.

I'm saying they will enlarge their tent.  They won't really be less bigoted, just for practical purposes bigoted in different ways.  In ways that still have majorities in agreement.

I asked one social conservative blogger who is really anti-Islamic whether, if those votes would tip the outcome, he would go to the local conservative mosques and ask the people there to vote against gay marriage legalization or to ban abortion.  I've never gotten a reply, of course.  But I know it is "yes".

Those are some pretty concrete things they have to give up to remain relevant.  There is some real and deep discomfort among conservatives that their selfdefinition is becoming increasingly abstract and cerebral, increasingly personality  based rather than external identity and/or tribal.

[ Parent ]
I doubt this will work
The problem is that the youth are rejecting GOP values.  For every Carrie Prejean, there are 3 who support gay marriage.  

So if they want to be able to communicate with the youth, they have to drop opposition to gays.  If they do that, they lose their hard right SoCon base and any ability to win anti-gay bigots among blacks and Hispanics.  

Eventually the Repubs are going to have to actually moderate like they did in the 1940s, and as the Dems did in the late 1980s and 1990s.

[ Parent ]
How about this
Instead of pissing and moaning about what is at most a tossup now, like so many are doing, let's make Lentz a Netroots candidate and raise him some dough.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
Yup
Lentz is more progressive than Sestak anyway.
[ Parent ]
Making it win-win
Sestak better than Specter, Lentz better than Sestak.

[ Parent ]
Thank you
This thread badly needed that.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12
[ Parent ]
Question for you Democrats
Ive noticed alot of people on this thread upset over Sestak's decision to run against Specter in the primary. So I have to ask

Excatly why would you rather have Specter over Sestak?

Specter has shown himself to be nothing more than a political oppertunist. Hes not a loyal Democrat, at least in the sense that in the weeks leading up to his switch he was talking about how he was a loyal Republican. All of a sudden now hes voting straight party line. Hes done nothing great lately.

Compared to Sestak who has had a military background and has a pretty overall liberal voting record. I dont get it. If I was a Democrat, I would be pretty excited over rather having Sestak as our nominee instead of Specter.  

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

Opportunity cost
I think that most of the Democrats upset with Sestak believe that money could be better spent trying to win Senate seats in places like Kentucky and North Carolina, and some of them also fear that a divisive primary could make it more likely for Toomey to win the general election. A third point sometimes mentioned here and at DailyKos is that defeating a Republican turncoat in a primary will ensure that other Republicans like Senator Snowe won't consider switching parties. I don't agree with them on the first point, doubt the second one, and disagree with the third (Snowe is much more principled than Specter and if she switches, it would likely be on principle and not due to electoral need), but those are the main rationales I'm seeing here.

Thanks for your helpful perspective.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
Pretty much where I stand
Though I would add that it looks bad if people see Dems going down the same path as the GOP and purging moderates and that I'd rather not risk a marginal House seat in a down year.
[ Parent ]
I think it's worth the risk
People like to invoke the Republicans' push toward cohesiveness as a reason why they've lost.  It's not.  They lost because their ideas sucked (go it alone international policy, wars solve everything, the market is a benevolent, omnipotent god and we should give it free reign, etc.) and have greatly damaged our country.  Notice that the Republicans who've lost or almost lost span the spectrum of the party, from the very independent, such as Shays and Chafee, to the wholesale wingnuts like Muscrave and Santorum.

To me, the Republicans' strong cohesiveness allowed them to create a strong, coherent message and allowed them to deliver on their implicit and explicit promises.  It allowed them to get things done and convince the American people they should continue to vote Republican.  In the process, they have a satisfied base willing to donate, volunteer, and write.  

Our Party, on the other hand, can't get a coherent message out because it's having to try to placate a faction pushing it toward the same failed conservative policies of the Republicans, blurring the difference between the parties in words and actions, and giving the Republicans bipartisan cover for their actions and opposition to progressive policies.  I've seen a few Republicans invoke the Blue Dog opposition to healthcare a few times to bolster their own arguments.

If that makes the Democratic Party seem less inclusive on an ideological basis, then so be it.  The American people care a lot more about results than they do ideological inclusiveness.  If that means we have only 225 Democrats in the House, so be it.  I'd prefer to get the things our party promises explicitly and implicity done than be a party for everyone with no real identity.    

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Republican extremism causing electoral losses
People like to invoke the Republicans' push toward cohesiveness as a reason why they've lost.  It's not.

It clearly has been in certain cases where the Club For Growth pushed through candidates so extreme that, even in highly Republican district, the Democrat won. But the thing is, that's a big danger if the Democratic Party follows the wishful thinking of a lot of folks at Daily Kos to primary Blue Dogs in highly Republican districts; I doubt that there is such a strong risk in a statewide election in Pennsylvania, though I lack the expertise to be sure.

It seems to me that it makes some sense to have primaries - especially where neither candidate is anything close to extreme (Sestak is a mainstream Democrat) - in fairly strong blue constituencies.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
Agreed 100%

[ Parent ]
It's not so much that I'd rather have Specter over Sestak
It's that I don't see the risk of a divisive primary (really, I think this theory about primaries being wonderful for political parties is generally a faulty premise, after all there are plenty of examples where the exact opposite was true, you'd probably remember NM-Sen and MD-01 for the Republicans?) being worth it for someone who will probably wind up being only slightly more liberal than Specter (I've gotten into this argument before, but Sestak's DW-Nominate score is 0.287, when 1 is Very Liberal, that makes him moderate).

I'm also of the opinion that all politicians are opportunists anyways, that's why they're in that line of work to begin with (hell, running for public office requires a certain level of opportunism to begin with) so Specter being opportunistic just doesn't bother me all that much.

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 ]
Agreed
Must say I'm relieved not to be the only one who feels that way. As I'm sure people know I'm not one to fall into these chicken little scenarios usually.
[ Parent ]
Obama versus Clinton
Primaries are good for Democrats.  Citing two Republican examples is off topic at best.

Obama carried Indiana because of the primary with Clinton, and the greater attention paid to the state.

In the real world, people don't measure things on a "slightly more liberal" scale.  They look at people.  Specter is a no-principle whore.  If he votes for us, fine, but like Burris, that doesn't mean a better person(s) shouldn't run for the seat, especially since even a bloodbath primary will not lead to Pat Toomey looking like a viable candidate six months later!

This is a pure freebie, with the great benefit of keeping Specter in line for nine months.  

Additionally, the better people in the party overall, the easier it is to elect people in other states.

[ Parent ]
Where to begin?
Presidential primaries are of a different nature than congressional primaries, and regardless I have four different examples of competitive races where we got completely screwed over (1968, 1980, 1984, 1988) and not including the NY-23 election where we pretty much forfeited a seat to the Republicans because of a divisive primary.

There is nothing so fundamentally different about the Democrats and Republicans that primaries would be good for us but bad for them, so Republican primaries are fair game, and that's too bad if you don't like it.

Primaries cost money and when incumbents are involved, they usually cost party money (the DSCC and DNC are, at their core, incumbent protection rackets, much like the NRSC and the RNC) so this is not a freebie (and do you think that the Republicans won't use any line of attack that Sestak might come up with during the primaries, because if you do, then you're being naive).

Incidentally, Burris was appointed by Rod Blagojevich, who was subsequently removed from office by the Illinois state legislature for, among other things, trying to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder, how exactly is Specter remotely similar to Burris's situation?

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 ]
Indeed
"how exactly is Specter remotely similar to Burris's situation?"

How isn't he?  What argument are you making?  He's a Senator who votes mainstream all the time.  You are making the argument that primarying someone is a waste of money.

"There is nothing so fundamentally different about the Democrats and Republicans that primaries would be good for us but bad for them,"

Of course there is.  Just ignoring that Republican primaries are all about orthodoxy and ideology, while what we are talking about here is about two folks of vaguely similar politics.  Dem primaries, lie Clinton/Obama, are mostly about people, not large ideological divides.

"and do you think that the Republicans won't use any line of attack that Sestak might come up with during the primaries,"

Who cares?  Toomey loses.  Specter and Sestak are mainstream Pennsylvania, Toomey is not.  The winner of the primary has six months to heal from attacks, but whatever line of attack FAILS six months earlier is not something to even slightly fear six months later in the hands of Pat Toomey.

There is no logic to opposing a primary here -- including the notion that somehow Pennsylvanians will feel a desire to donate to Jack Conway instead of buy a new Wii if Sestak were to not run.

If this race was against Tom Ridge, or the Gov was guaranteed to be a Democrat for the next two terms, perhaps a case could be made, but the enormous upside of a primary here outweighs the miniscule risks.

[ Parent ]
Miniscule risk huh?
I'm not an "oh noes we're all doomed" type, but Toomey's been elected in a swing district in Pennsylvania (one that went for Obama by 13 points this time around which). Assuming that Toomey will win regardless of who our nominee is a mistake.

And you think that Democratic primaries have nothing to do with ideology generally? We just look at "people"? Because two primaries in IL-03 and MD-04 could've fooled me. You also could look at NM-Sen on the Democratic side, before Marty Chavez dropped out against Tom Udall, because there was plenty of ideology around that one.

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 ]
The Toomey who won in PA-15
ran considerably closer to the center than the one who challenged Specter and ran the Club for Greed.

I don't think Pat Toomey can win in 2010 in PA.  Period.

[ Parent ]
And you think he's incapable of moving to the center?
This is politics and he's, for all intents and purposes, unopposed in the primaries. He's already moving to the center now, while Specter and Sestak are moving to the left in order to placate the Democratic base.

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 ]
Burris
Taegan has a link that suggests he is having second thoughts about running. Yuk.
[ Parent ]
I saw that too
However, I doubt he actually will. He couldn't raise the money, and it's just going to get harder from here on out.
[ Parent ]
Whatever
If he breaks 15%, I'll be surprised.  
[ Parent ]
That sounds about right
Alexi G is dominating that contest, which is why Chris Kennedy is looking elsewhere for statewide office (if he runs at all).

I truly think Burris is just blowing smoke. He doesn't have the money to run in an expensive state like IL, let alone against a high-roller like Alexi.

[ Parent ]
One thing I have noticed
from my question above. Practically nobody thinks Sestak will actually defeat Specter. Many of people's reasonings include having lines of attacks Toomey would use against Specter in the general. Nothing about Sestak and him in the general election.

Interesting

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

I don't think he will
Pennsylvania is still a machine state and Specter will have the Rendell machine behind him (something which was of great assistance to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, btw).

The problem Sestak has is that if he beats Arlen Specter, then there's a decent chance that he gets labeled as being a radical who, like Toomey, didn't think Specter was ideologically "pure" (and I have little doubt that the Republicans would spread it, it's good tactics after all).

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 ]
The latter would matter against Ridge
or anyone else who is considered mainstream.  

Not against Toomey.  I really think Toomey is unelectable in the 2010 PA electorate barring major scandal or a national landslide.

[ Parent ]
I'd put it at 50/50 honestly
if health care and cap and trade do not pass by the primary.
The Democratic voters will be looking for someone to blame, and Specter's head will be the one they go after. If one or both passes the Senate, I think Specter will win.  

Also see which direction the labor unions go.  If Sestak gets the endorsement of unions, Specter may be in trouble.

But the biggest saving grace for Specter, IMO, are the some 200K Specter RINOs in Philly metro.  These were registered Republicans who voted for Specter and registered GOP but voted Democratic nationally.  They switched parties in 2008 to vote for Obama/Clinton, and stayed Dem.  It was the loss of these voters which caused Specter to switch parties because he had no chance against Toomey, and it is these voters who may put Specter over the top in the Democratic primary.

[ Parent ]
Why would they blame Specter?
Especially on Health Care, he's been pretty damn good on (right now anyways).

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 ]
Only if he is the deciding vote.
How would it hurt Specter if he voted for both, and they failed?  
[ Parent ]
If healthcare fails
Toomey is as good as elected.  Try getting Democrats out to vote after their hearts are crushed and stomped on with promise of healthcare reform being broken again.  
[ Parent ]
Health care is not going to fail
It might not be perfect but reform will pass in some form.
[ Parent ]
Really?
That is by far the biggest "chicken little" comment I've read so far. If progressives are in so much fear of having "their hearts crushed and stomped on", why aren't they fighting back?

Plus, it's pretty damn early to be making such blanket statements of hopelessness.

[ Parent ]
Check out Kos
That is the prominent voice there right now. And it is more depressing to me than the prospect of no public option.
[ Parent ]
No surprise there
I stopped reading Kos a long time ago. I simply got fed up with the chicken-littlism and blatant disregard for political reality there. Personally, I could care less what goes on there.

My bet is that we'll get something, but it will probably be through the budget reconciliation.

[ Parent ]
Which part is chicken little?
I would say getting no healthcare part is chicken little at this point, but Democrats voters staying home in droves everywhere if there is no reform isnt.  I believe that a good chunk(possibly as much as 10%-15%) of the Democratic base will simply give up on the party this time if reform fails again.  That point however, is moot, because I think we will get SOMETHING.  
[ Parent ]
Strangely
I think Sestak is probably stronger in the general but Specter is favored in the primary because he has the PA machine and the WH. Though I think it will be close and that makes it even harder for Specter in the general since half the Dems will stay home. Plus Sestak is done and his safe House seat is a tossup.
[ Parent ]
PA-Gov, PA-07: Meehan Set to Run For Sestak's Seat | 106 comments

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

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox