Google Ads


Site Stats

PA-Sen: Sestak Gains Ground After Official Launch

by: James L.

Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 5:53 PM EDT


Rasmussen (8/11, likely voters, 6/16 in parens):

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 47 (51)
Joe Sestak (D): 34 (32)
Other: 3 (4)
Undecided: 16 (13)
(MoE: ±5%)

Those are the best nums for Joe Sestak yet from any pollster. (Quinnipiac had Specter up by 32 points in mid-July.) Perhaps there's a bit of an announcement bounce for Sestak in effect here, but if these numbers are accurate, Arlen Specter has a lot to worry about.

Also interesting was this tidbit:

Among voters who favor the congressional health care plan, Specter leads 55% to 26%. However, among those who oppose the plan, Sestak leads 61% to 25%.

So, despite challenging Specter from the left, Sestak is gobbling up the early support of seemingly anti-public option Democrats. Go figure.

Rasmussen's favorability numbers have shown little movement since June; Specter's at 71-25 while Sestak's sitting on an implausibly high 54-23. (That so many people have an opinion of Sestak is probably due to IVR methodology.) Quinnipiac painted a much different picture last month, with Specter carrying a 45-44 favorable rating to Sestak's 23-7. UPDATE: Um, whoops. Sorry to realize this so late, but I was not making an apples-to-apples comparison between Rasmu's Democratic favorability numbers and Quinnipiac's favorability stats from all voters. My bad. Q's Democratic numbers: Specter was at 73-16 and Sestak was at a good-but-still-mostly-unknown 30-3.

(H/T: P-Wire)
James L. :: PA-Sen: Sestak Gains Ground After Official Launch
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

PA-Sen: Sestak Gains Ground After Official Launch | 75 comments
Annoying
I was a big fan of Sestak's until recently. It's not even necessarily his issues, it's his attitude. I know, most politicians running for office enjoy touting what they've done, but Sestak goes overboard. MSNBC cannot ask the guy a question without him rambling off some memorized talking point.

Seriously, someone could ask him how long he's served in the House and instead of answering, he'd spend a few minutes touting himself and then he might answer, that is, if they don't have to cut and go to a commercial.

It's very annoying. I know he wants to knock off Specter, and that's great, but he's going becoming one of the most annoying people that they interview.

Annoying or Not
Generally, that's a sign of a good campaign. That's staying on message regardless of what comes out of the mouths of under-informed airheads (let's face it, that's what a lot of the "news" anchors are when it comes to talking policy). For him, it's more important to get his point out than to let Chris Matthews and company define the debate. Though sure, I can see how you'd find it annoying.
[ Parent ]
Balance
I can understand what you're saying as well. It's just, Sestak, from the times I've seen him on MSNBC (the network I mainly watch, maybe he does different on other networks), is this extreme going on and on and on. Completely agree about staying on message and it being a good sign. However, the way he goes about it is very irritating. It's like he purposely goes above and beyond what's necessary.

Like I said, someone could ask him how long he's been in the House, and before he answers he'd mention his voting record, how he's a real Democrat, blahblahblah.

Also, the way he goes about doing it is getting stale. It's one thing to have your talking points and repeating them. It's another to sound like you're either reading them off something in front of you, or someone is feeding 'em in your ear.

He just seems completely different than he was in 2006.

[ Parent ]
Sestak is only
running because he wants to become a senator, not because he cares about whether Arlen voters conservative or liberal. I've had it with Sestak and his crazy military style of how he believes in running everything. In addition, this primay is an unnecessary waste of money. I hope Sestak looses and then is done with politics forever.
That's some high-quality discourse right there

[ Parent ]
And you know this how?
n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
No.
Sestak is running for the Senate because he wants to run for President in 2016, and he can't do it from the House.
[ Parent ]
Why not? Ron Paul did it.
On a more serious note, James Garfield did it and won in 1880.
[ Parent ]
And then he was shot 6 months later
The Curse of Garfield lives on today :P

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 ]
That's true.
   I think you're right about that.  He'd make a great candidate.

24, Male, GA-05
[ Parent ]
We could do worse!

[ Parent ]
Right.
   What a terrible thing it is to want to occupy the office one is running for...?!
  I'm not sure why people give a shit about his military personality.  As a Pennsylvania resident, I kind of want a hardass senator with a working-class background in DC anyway.  I don't want another person who quickly fits in with the pinky-up millionaires club that is the modern Senate.  

24, Male, GA-05
[ Parent ]
I'll try to explain these results
Arlen Specter has always been a Philadelphia and suburbs phenomenon. PA Dems are more liberal there, and that's his base.

But Sestak represents part of the Philly suburbs doesn't he?
PA-07 is basically Delaware County, right? I'd buy your explanation if he were a politician from the Pittsburgh area or something like that, but it's hard to believe that Sestak wouldn't have at least some base of support there.

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 ]
He may well
But you can look at historical election maps, Specter is strong in the SE and weak everywhere else. His first election is illustrative. As is, incidentally, the 2004 Republican primary. (There aren't that many votes in central PA).
[ Parent ]
But even so

His 1980 performance wasn't radically different from Reagan's, save for his performance in Philadelphia proper (but this isn't all that surprising, considering his first opponent was formerly the mayor of Pittsburgh) although I do grant you that his performance against Toomey (whose old district incorporated parts of the Philly suburbs) is pretty telling.



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 ]
Interpreting the health numbers
I wonder if it is accurate to assume that those who oppose the congressional health care plan are, in fact, opponents of a public option.

The question that Rasmussen asked didn't specifically mention a "public option."  The wording was quite vague:  "Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?"

Since this is about self-identified Democratic voters, it is quite possible that some of the Democrats opposing the plan could be single payer advocates. Similarly, other voters could support the public option but oppose the plan based on other provisions, funding concerns, deals with pharma, etc.

And the question is kind of meaningless -- will if I were polled I would answer "yes" , I would be wondering which Congressional Democratic plan they are talking about. The Senate HELP Committee Plan? Max Baucus's attempts to make a deal with Grassley et al? Kent Conrad's health co-ops? One of the 3 House committee bills? Ron Wyden's separate bill with Lamar Alexander and Bob Bennett? Dennis Kucinich's single payer bill?

Given the state of health care legislation these days, I wouldn't assume that Democrats who answered "no" to this question are against a public option.

All the HC polling is a mess
But it is indicitive of Dem messaging being so bad. They ask specifically about a public option? It usually gets towards a 2-1 margin in support. Ask about the "Obama health care plan" and support falls through the floor. Argh.
[ Parent ]
Although I dont know if we can really be blamed for this
people will believe what they want to believe and now we have the deathers.  The GOP is amazing at torpedoing our once popular legislation with their smear campaigns.
[ Parent ]
Problem is
the GOP is doing what the media know we'll gobble up. What will get a network more ratings on the evening news? A report about people airing their opinions peacefully? Or a report about the mob like mentality at townhalls where idiots scream "Socialism! Tyranny! Hitler! Stalin! Obama's a nazi!" Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if we hear on the evening news that the police had to open fire on several deathers. That'll really kill health care reform. Really, when this health care reform bill finally gets to the floor of the senate for a vote, there better be a lot of police in Washington D.C.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
I agree
It's a terrible question. As you say, there simply isn't "the" health care plan out there right now. And that's a big part of our problem - even if you want to support something, there's still no way to know what there is to support!
[ Parent ]
Which makes the idiots shouting "Read the bill!!!"
Even more infuriating.
[ Parent ]
Which one?
Is usually a good response, because as far as I know there are at least 3 different version (HELP's version, Senate Finance's version, and at least one House one [which could actually be three unto themselves). Of these, it will morph into two different bills in the House and Senate and will finally morph into the final bill which may or may not have anything in common with any of the previous 5-7 bills if it ever makes it to that point (don't you just love the Congressional system we have :P)

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 ]
I would say
the people opposed to the Congressional health care plan (whatever that actually is, seeing as how the Senate still hasn't gotten their bill together) are in a "throw the bums out" mood, so they'll vote against Specter regardless of the candidates' actual positions.
I think you are exactly right.

[ Parent ]
We've seen this phenomenon before.
   Remember how John Edwards ran to the left in 2008, but still got most of his support only from conservative, white Democrats?  The same thing is happening here.  Specter is an urban, Jewish Republican.  Is it really so surprising that grumpy, old, conservative, white Democrats will vote for the vice admiral over a pro-choice urban Jew?  It's identity politics again.
  This is a very good poll for Sestak obviously.  Sestak just needs to make his positions on issues known and he'll grab more left-wing support.  Specter is in deep, deep trouble.

24, Male, GA-05
More or less
The fight is going to be over the Philly suburbs. Specter has had decades to try and appeal to the union Dems out west, and they still don't like him.  
[ Parent ]
?
Remember how John Edwards ran to the left in 2008, but still got most of his support only from conservative, white Democrats?

No, I don't. I assume some opinion polls established that? Because Edwards was my #2 choice after Kucinich bowed out (Obama was my #3 choice), and I remember a lot of liberals like me supporting Edwards because of his forthright advocacy of single-payer (please correct me if I misremember this) and other pro-labor policies.

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

[ Parent ]
Conservative Democrats
It'd probably be better to say that Edwards got the support of a majority of Conservative Democrats, not a majority of his supporters were Conservative Democrats.

Edwards did have some issues that clearly separated him from the more conservative wing of the party, however, his populist appeal and ability to understand the suffering of people in the Rural South (where most Conservative Democrats reside) is why he was so liked by many of us.

[ Parent ]
Edwards was never a single-payer supporter
Kucinich was and possibly Gravel, but Edwards's plan was a lot more centrist, to the extent that Clinton pretty much copied it verbatum.

I always felt that Edwards was never as liberal as many of his supporters said, (interestingly enough, back in the day as an Obama supporter, I was more likely to get into big arguments with Edwards supporters than Clinton supporters).

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 ]
One wonders what the healthcare situation
would have looked like had "hillarycare" passed in the early 90s. But we digress.  
[ Parent ]
2004/2008
The thing about Edwards is he ran more to the left in 2008 than he did in 2004. During his 2004 run he was much more moderate and while he had the populism talk then, he seemed to be more vocal and more outspoken in 2008.

Also, some of the celebrities that supported him likely added to the assumption that he was extremely liberal.

[ Parent ]
When put that way, this is somewhat similar to the 2002 PA Dem Primary
Ed Rendell the urban Jewish Democrat versus Bob Casey, the less urban conservative Democrat.  Of course Casey wasn't Vice Admiral or from the Philly area too, but the comparison is somewhat striking.  

Also it's a good bet that many of these conservative Dems already voted for Specter when he was a Republican, picking him over conservative Dem Joe Hoeffel.  So it's not out of the question they may vote for him again.  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
It's a decent comparison
But I think Sestak and Rendell are stronger on one-another's turf than Casey was on Rendell's (or vice versa).

I think this will be a close, expensive, race.  

[ Parent ]
BTW
here's the Rendell/Casey map, and it's quite a map.  
[ Parent ]
Probably a good bet
Rendell smoked Casey in the Philly suburbs, winning 90% in some cases.  Somehow, I don't see Specter winning Delaware County (Sestak's home turf) with over 86% of the vote like Rendell did.  But something to keep in mind: there are a lot more Dems in the Philadelphia area now then there were in 2002.  Since many are former Republicans they may not be too hard on Specter for his switch.  

Also, I do think Specter could do fairly well in Western Pennsylvania.  Many of the Dems probably already voted for him while he was a Republican.  He'll probably do better than Rendell did (who lost by lopsided margins to Casey, though nowhere near as bad as Casey lost in the Philadelphia suburbs).  

All in all though I agree it'll be close.  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
You're missing the point.
     Conservative white Democrats have always hated Specter.  They supported liberal Hoeffel in 2004 because they are used to voting straight ticket Democrat and saw no reason to split their ticket for Specter.  Specter won because of wealthy, southeastern, pro-choice moderates.

24, Male, GA-05
[ Parent ]
Looking at the 2004 exit polls for Senate and POTUS it's hard to say
Specter did much less well among conservatives than Bush, 77% to 86%.  Probably some of those conservatives were Dems who backed Bush and independent candidate James Clymer (who got 10% of the conservative vote).  However, Specter also did less well among Republicans, winning 85% versus 89% for Bush.  Conservative independents probably help explain the discrepancy but I think at least a notable minority of conservative Democrats did back Specter.  Unfortunately the exit poll doesn't ask "are you a conservative Democrat" so we can't be sure.  

Of course Specter did win in 1998 by an even larger margin, winning reelection with 61% of the vote.  Probably a good bet he won some conservative Dems.  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
Also something to keep in mind: there aren't that many conservative Dems
In the 2008 Dem Primary in Pennsylvania, only 10% of voters were conservatives.  It's too huge a number to ignore but not enough to win it for Sestak alone.  moderates made up 40% and were Hillary's best group.  Specter has done fairly well with them as a Republican.  Of course Sestak should appeal to them as well, but on paper at least there is no reason why they'd prefer Sestak to Specter.  

I'm going to be fairly bold and predict Sestak does win a close primary.  But the reasons he does so will have less to do with identity politics and more to do with identity and more to do with Specter's lack of trustworthiness.    


21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
Disregard my post on the 2004 exit poll numbers
I stand by my point on 2008's primary, but I gave no idea what I meant to say about 2004.  It's pretty clear a lot of conservative Republicans voted 3rd party and I don't see any evidence conservative dens backed Specter in 2004.  Maybe 1998 but not 2004.  Guess I'm just tired.    

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
That's all right :-)
If I were posting at 1:26 AM, I'd be tired too.

Re 1998, I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, as Specter did not have a credible opponent. Six years earlier, he barely won 49-47 in the wake of the Anita Hill grilling, and I imagine that win was still do his ties in Philly than to any conservative Dems in SWPA.

[ Parent ]
I'll admit it probably doesn't mean too much except possibly conservative Dems don't utterly despise Specter
If they did they'd probably vote for a weak Dem over him.  Of course in 1998 he could have won everyone but conservative Dems (can't find exit polling info out there).  Still, I don't think on paper at lest they're necessarily in Specter or Sestak's camp yet.  

Also, conservative Dems probably aren't in to identity politics as much as was the perception in the 2008 primary.  Obama actually didn't do too bad with them, losing "only" 47% to 53%.  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
Hoeffel was a "conservative Democrat"???
That's not how I remember it.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, that part was pretty weak
Poor Joe. He's a decent person and a pretty solid Liberal. Not a great statewide candidate at the time, though.  
[ Parent ]
My bad...
I got him confused with Ron Klink.  Oops...  What was wrong with him as a statewide candidate?  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
1. He was running against Specter
instead of Toomey. Rinse and repeat. He actually underperformed in his home district in 2002 anyway, so he was fairly weak.  
[ Parent ]
I mean why was he so disliked overall in PA-13?
It was no surprise Hoeffel lost to Specter, but was there something that made him relitively unpopular is his district?

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
Well
his new PA-13 was very different from his old PA-13. The old one consisted of nearly all of Montgomery County, while the new one was split between part of Philly and part of Montco. Furthermore, in 2002, he barely fended off GOPer Melissa Brown by 51-48.

[ Parent ]
Klink was already talking about being Gore's Secretary of Labor
while he was still running against Santorum.

What a clown.

[ Parent ]
good for Sestak
Snarlin' Arlen has 100% name identity and has been around forever. Everyone knows who he is and whether they like him or not. Specter is now under 50% after attacking Stestak on his military record and voting. Given Specter's advanced age and past health problems, his lack of any core values except to save his political career and the tight governor's race, Sestak is the better choice. It is past time to retire Arlen Specter.  
Whoa Now
"Specter is now under 50% after attacking Sestak on his military record"

When has Specter "attacked" Sestak's military record? Don't give me the part where Specter criticized Sestak's missing votes in the House and equated that to a court martial, that's not an attack on his military record.

Saying Specter is attacking Sestak's military record is a fairly big accusation.

Yeah, Specter is aging and has health problems, but if that's part of your basis, will you be calling for Senator Byrd to step down? What about Senator Lautenberg or the two Hawaii Senators since they are getting up there in age?

[ Parent ]
Personally, I wish Byrd would step down
He's clearly incapable of satisfying even the minimal requirements of his job.  
[ Parent ]
Yes, Byrd for sure
I get Kennedy wanting to vote on the healthcare bill, but Byrd should retire.  If someone is elderly and doing the job, fine, but if not, be a statesman and step down.  The people of his state and the country deserve 100% representatives.
[ Parent ]
No, Imo
As a Republican, Byrd is one of my favorite Democrats. He has lived an amazing life and has been a great senator for WV. The man is a legend, and he wants to be in  the Senate until he dies. After all his years of service, I think he deserves to stay in the senate all of his life
[ Parent ]
Two separate issues
In addition to being a Senator, as the senior member of the majority party he also holds the position as President Pro Tempore of the Senate. As such, he is third in the line of succession to the presidency after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House. He is also paid $20,000/year more than other senators, and has a car and driver.

I don't care if he stays in the Senate, but he needs to resign as President Pro Tem; he has no business being anywhere near the presidency.

[ Parent ]
What did you think president pro tem means?
It's for the longest serving senator of the majority party. They happen to be some of the oldest as well.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
It's not just an honorary role
If he can't do the job he should step down.
[ Parent ]
Of course he wants to be there until he dies.
The man's got an enormous ego. You can't go 20 feet in WV without tripping over something named after him. But he's not showing up to vote for most of the year he's not doing his job. How not showing up for work is being a great senator - that I don't get. Maybe you mean he still throws money at the state. Which he does - but that seems odd for non-West Virginians or traditional (low spending, low deficit) Republicans to celebrate.

And the comment below is entirely on target - that he's nonetheless in line for the presidency reminds me that it's appalling the succession law wasn't changed after 9/11.

[ Parent ]
Specter had the balls
to question Sestak for being registered as an independent while he served in the military and not voting in some elections (PA is a closed primary system so independents cannot vote  in party primaries). Specter said that Sestak only changed his registration from independent to Democrat in order to run for office. He attacked Sestak's military service also by equating Sestak's missed House votes with being AWOL and deserving court martial. Using Specter's own analogy, Specter naked abandonment of his party party simply because he knew he could not win a primary is by his definition treason.  

Specter is a vile and desperate politician who will say and do anything to keep power. It is past time to retire Arlen Specter.  

[ Parent ]
Um
"He attacked Sestak's military service also by equating Sestak's missed House votes with being AWOL and deserving court martial"

Have you actually read the comment Specter made?

"When Congressman Sestak starts to throw stones, he lives in a big glass house," Specter said. "The guy has the worst voting record in the Congress from the Pennsylvania delegation. He's missed 104 votes this year. He talks about his military record. If he was still in the service, he would be a court martial, and he's been AWOL, absent without leave."

[ Parent ]
I am not saying Specter should step down unless he wants to
I am saying with his health problems and the potential for a Republican governor in 2010, it is a better proposition to go with Sestak who has received a lifetime 94% on his voting record from Progressive Punch versus Specter who gets a 38%. I am saying Specter is not trustworthy and will say and do anything to hold power. Senators have a right to serve if they are elected. I am not worried about Hawaii or WV because we will have either the law (HI governor must appoint a Senator from the same party as the former occupant in case of a vacancy) or where there is a popular governor running for reelection. I will NEVER say that Lautenberg needs to resign since he saved the seat for the Democrats when Torricelli was going down to defeat.  
[ Parent ]
HI
Really? I thought only WY had the "appoint senator from same party in case of vacancy," law.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Hawaii and Arizona do too.


My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Hate to say I told you so but...
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

Toomey 48%
Specter 36%

Toomey 43%
Sestak 35%


I'm suspicious
Rasmussen is notoriously funky this far out from an election, to say nothing of its undeniable R lean.

It's interesting to note that Sestak outperforms Specter against Toomey.

It's also worth noting that, looking at the data breakdowns, Toomey's support is incredibly soft. Run a series of ads highlighting his extreme views and watch those numbers plummet.

[ Parent ]
Also the timing probably
Health care is killing us. But it does mean this isn't the slam dunk with Toomey most think it is.
[ Parent ]
Not good, but it's a bit early

[ Parent ]
Exactly
The primary isn't for another 8-9 months (is it in April or May?) and the general election isn't for 14.5 months. While Rasmussen does get pretty accurate in the leadup to an election, its early numbers are almost always goofy.
[ Parent ]
non-Presidential PA Primaries are typically in May
Personally, I think Sestak has the potential to be stronger than Specter. His home district + Montco and Philly puts him pretty close to a win. But it's hard to see how this shakes out until after the primary.  
[ Parent ]
I agree
He better win this for any number of reasons.
[ Parent ]
Thanks
I'm never sure when some states have their primaries any more, given how many of them (mostly presidential ones) have moved around in the last few years.

BTW, who do you see performing the best in SWPA?  

[ Parent ]
At the outset, Sestak
He frankly has a better profile for the SW and Murtha country than Specter. Though both are pro-choice, which plays much better in the east.

As long as you can essentially tie the west and do well in the east, you can win. I do worry a little bit about the Lehigh Valley in the SE, because that's there Toomey is from.  

[ Parent ]
True about Lehigh
but I wonder how deep that support really is. He never won with more than 57% in any of his 3 elections (against lackluster opponents), plus he's been out of office for 5 years.
[ Parent ]
Being Dragged Down By Local Politics
While the national attention of Specter's town halls is dragging him down in this poll, I think the terrible shape of local politics is contributing.  Ed Rendell is battling it out with the legislature and it's not pretty.
[ Parent ]
Sounds like polling from Arkansas and Colorado will be similar
Fortunately, it's a long time until Nov 2010.  
[ Parent ]
PA-Sen: Sestak Gains Ground After Official Launch | 75 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