Well said (4.00 / 1)

Well said, Chris.

I also think it is hard to draw many conclusions, despite what he said in his press conference, and despite my general dislike of him.  It must be hard for someone to look at their their entire career as wrong.  But, despite the bluster, his voting patterns may shift.

I think the best thing for Sestak to do is simply wait and see.  

(As for Torsella, given his close connections to Rendell, I really can't believe he stays.)

---

by: Dan U-A @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 22:58:45 PM UTC

Why shouldn't Torsella stay? (4.00 / 3)

If only as a hedge.  Specter is old and cancerous.  Torsella stays as token opposition just in case Specter's health fails or the public turns against him, but doesn't campaign aggressively as long as Specter seems likely to win.  If Specter looks weak, then Torsella can claim he was the first one willing to oppose Specter and that everyone who played the "wait and see" game were political opportunists with no real principles.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 23:19:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, but you know Neil Oxman would love this race. (4.00 / 3)

Here's a message worth testing for a mythical "other" primary challenger:

Same as always, the boys' club got together and decided who's a good Democrat, welcomed him into our party with open arms, promised him there would be no primary challenger.

Did they care about what he did to Anita Hill?  No.
Did they care about his support for John Roberts? No.
Did they care about his support for Samuel Alito?  No.
Did they care about his consistent votes to restrict a woman's right to choose, and come between a woman and her doctor at the most trying time of her life?  No.

Well, I say those same men can't come between the Democratic women and men of Pennsylvania and their right to choose on Election Day who gets to represent our party for the next six years in the Senate.  I say that the voters of this state have the right to choose a loyal Democrat who'll stand up for women, stand up for labor, stand up for the people -- because that's what I've done my whole life.  I've never had to doubt what party I belong in ...

Think there's a woman in our Commonwealth who'd roll with this?

---

by: Adam B. @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 23:24:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed. (0.00 / 0)

I think anyone with a lot of money could really hurt him, and have a great chance to win.

Not just on choice, but how about on the Patriot Act, how about on the Bush economic plans, etc etc etc.

You need money, and be willing to deal with the weight of the party, including maybe the President personally, telling you to stay out.

Thus far, I see Sestak as the only person who would, given his own history and (for better or worse) stubbornness, be willing to do it.  I don't love what I have seen out of him thus far, but, he at least is, you know, a Democrat.

Be interesting...

---

by: Dan U-A @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 23:35:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And (0.00 / 0)

Think there's a woman in our Commonwealth who'd roll with this?

Not really.  But maybe I am being dense?  It is not just a woman, it is a woman with money, who won't feel squeezed by Ed and Obama.

---

by: Dan U-A @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 23:36:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two women I can think of (4.00 / 2)

... one who has the money, and has recently left public service; the other who could probably raise it from the EMILY's world.  Both SE PA, and both names you and I know well.  

I don't think either has the derring-do for this task, however.

---

by: Adam B. @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 23:45:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One a Rep and the other a former State Senator? (4.00 / 1)

Cause if so, I doubt it.

But I guess, for Allyson, it depends just how ambitious she is.  I honestly think she would probably win one on one if she raised the money.  

Flood the SE PA market with ads, and she would have a shot.  

But... I just don't see it.

---

by: Dan U-A @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 00:00:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Indeed, that'd be the pair (0.00 / 0)

And I think both are too play-by-the-rules to do this, but yes, I think Allyson Schwartz could win this primary one-on-one.

---

by: Adam B. @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 00:04:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Primary ALL of them ALL the time. (2.67 / 3)

Even our wonderful lion - who I voted for several times back when I was a resident of MA - voted with that idiot hatch for that bullshit NCLB act ----

yet MORE unfunded bullshit from a bunch of fucking consultatns who do NOT work in classrooms AND who have NO idea what a teacher's job is like ... but ... just like GM or the finance business or hte health care business, these highly credentialed policy consultants, who are doing fuck-all that is useful, manage to keep employed making a good living.

look at what this inside baseball we all wanna be james-carville grima-wormtongue has got us in this pathetic ass party ...

in the state of WA. we don't get REAL democrats against our two pathetic chickenshits, murray or cantwell, cuz everyone is too busy playing grima and dissing anyone who'd run.

ugh.

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

---

by: seabos84 @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 23:37:08 PM UTC

Sigh (0.00 / 0)

Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 23:49:43 PM UTC

What about a 3rd party progressive campaign in the general? (0.00 / 0)

This situation, a state that supported obama with essentially two republicans slated to run for the seat in the general, is our best shot of a 3rd party progressive winning a Senate seat.  We should think about funneling our money towards a progressive in the general rather than waste the money in a primary that the dlc dems and the dscc will be heavily tilting towards specter.  Let specter make a specter ... and a sphincter ... of himself and then let the reps, and some of the dems, split their vote on either republican and clean up the rest.  It's not that far-fetched of a scenario.  

If we could win a seat in the Senate that could be something that we could at least gain some leverage from.

Z  

---

by: Z @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 23:58:25 PM UTC

Too risky (0.00 / 0)

Because the GOP nominee won't be Toomey; a more reasonable (or at least electable) Republican will seize this opportunity.

---

by: Adam B. @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 00:06:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No. (4.00 / 1)

If it's a third-party challenger, than labor by and large will not support the challenger.  Labor needs to be included in the anti-Specter coalition in order for the challenger to have a shot of winning.  

---

by: telephasic @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 00:27:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

America is structurally incapable of electing a third party (0.00 / 0)

progressives do best when they strike, and cost the establishment money.

We don't have the money to elect anyone, so we have to cost them money.

My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 00:40:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And they shout from the mountaintops, "Thou shall not be a viable 3rd party!!" (0.00 / 0)

Dogma .... always dogma, never a Plan B from the "open"left when it comes 2 this issue.  And U find yourself stuck playing the same tired game by the same tired rules becoz U refuse 2 consider that U may have 2 change them 2 win.  

I think most of U R much more democrats than U R progressive which is partly Y the democratic party is not very progressive at all.  U get played by the dems similarly 2 how the religious right gets played by the republicans.  Y should they bother 2 represent U when they have your money and votes coming in essentially by direct deposit?  Since progressive netroot organizations were formed can U point 2 much ... anything ... that the democratic party gave in 2 U about that U truly believe was due 2 your organization?  How much headway have U made within the democratic party?  How many progressives 2 blue dogs have been elected since U started funneling your money into the party?  Have U or have the dlc dems made the most progress in gaining power?  What democratic coalition in congress did obama meet with last?  Has he met with them at all?  

But it's not fair on my behalf 2 B so harsh becoz it is certainly not all of U, just the vast majority of U that think?/feel this way.  And of those people, I think that there is a fair amount of U that R so democrat-centric that U think that if someone suggests a 3rd party movement that they R really a mole trying to divide and take away power from the "their" precious party.  

Z

---

by: Z @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 03:02:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's is a historical fact (0.00 / 0)

The founders created a winner take all system with a cruddy electoral college.  

So third parties never do well.

Lefties change things through street activism like the Labor Movement and MLK.


My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:34:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What does the electoral college have to do with the price of tea in china? (0.00 / 0)

Isn't this discussion about a seat in the US Senate where the Electoral College is not at all a factor?

Third parties are subject to a number of ballot access obstacles that hinder their cause, campaign financing systems which are difficult for those with "previously credible associations (ie major party)", and a variety of local and federal statues that just make it challenging.

The biggest problem is that the "established" third party orgs are unwilling to get together and work together to increase their access/opportunity.  After spending time with big players in a few of these Party orgs, I have determined the only way we will get solutions is from within.

But as I posted in another thread...a 3rd party bid is increasing the degree of difficulty for no reason at all.  It is the equivalent of being told you need to do a single flip dive and instead trying five flips through a ring of fire in to a pool filled with sharks....with frickin laser beams on their heads.

If you go at Specter in a primary, he has his 6mil+ party backing, you attack from the left, while he tries to figure out how to get turnout for a Democratic Primary in support of him.  There is a good chance that there will be at least one competitive primary on the Republican ticket, preventing significant crossover action in support of Senator Specter.  Should you defeat Specter in the primary, you are almost guaranteed full party backing in the General Election.

The other route, you are fighting a 3way race, with Specter staking out the center ground, and maximizing his "advantage of incumbency", he will be able to pull enough votes from Republican loyal supporters and moderate Democrats to likely eclipse opposition on both sides, with a fair chance that the Republicans will, if not nationally, locally opt to back Specter over their own nominee (like Lieberman in 06).  Fear of the scary liberal outweighs the shame of defection.  

Additionally, you are now taking on Specter's deep pockets, the DNC, DSCC, etc and the GOP's money behind their nominee...for a full spectrum General election.  Higher turnout = higher cost and more challenges... and predicting three way races is a great deal like predicting special elections...you are better off betting on who will be carrying the football for the winning touchdown in super bowl 52.  (Which I know will be a losing bet no matter what you choose, because the game will be won with a field goal kicked by Ray Finkle.)

Take Specter out in the primary and be done with it.  Simple, cost-effective and oh so satisfying.

---

by: mp @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 05:05:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

the primary isn't necessarily effective either (0.00 / 0)

because of machine politics.

The electoral college biases against third parties because they can't win states or go national.

My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 05:37:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, you are right. (0.00 / 0)

We should all just grin and take big bites of whatever shitburger we are served.  Why try to change things when we can allow the mysterious powers that be rule our worlds and tell us when we should be happy and who we should support?

---

by: mp @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 16:29:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I believe things can change (0.00 / 0)

but only through direct action and protest.  That is history.  Most Americans are just too lazy for it.

My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Sun May 03, 2009 at 17:51:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

IF he keeps voting like a Republican, then he would be vulnerable to a primary challenge. (4.00 / 3)

Which is why he won't do that.

I think Specter will be right around where Ken Salazar would have been.  Somewhere near Tom Carper.  And very significantly to the left of the Nelsons and Mark Pryor.

And while we would probably have gotten a much more reliable vote installed in 2011, another Tom Carper in 2009 is a great trade to my mind.  I don't want to bet on the future, politics can change very quickly, war terrorism and economic collapse are all possible, and psychologically I'm placing my bets on the 111th Congress, not the 112th.  I prefer a bird in the hand to two in the bush, right now at least, and Specter just gave us a bunch of critical votes in this Congress that we were not gonna be able to get as long as he was trying to beat Toomey in a primary.  

I'm happy.

And I still support a primary challenge, for leverage, although I don't expect to see anyone with a real career to lose, like Sestak, take the plunge.  I don't expect Specter to make the mistake of voting in a way that would give Sestak an opening that a rational man would bet his career on.  (Unless you think EFCA alone is enough.)

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 00:02:15 AM UTC

I agree with this (4.00 / 1)

While we would have likely picked up the seat in 2010 against Toomey, there was always a slight possibility that Toomey could have done something really stupid and imploded.  Specter would probably have spent the next year voting against every one of our bills just to be safe though.  If Specter had been re-elected as a Republican, he would have taken that as validation that all he had to do was just move towards the right to keep winning.

It is SO much better to have him now, making sure he shores up his left flank, supporting at least most of our agenda (all party switchers have historically shifted ideologically as well).  I don't want to have to wait until after the mid-terms to hope to get things done, I want them done now while Obama is popular and the field is still tilted in our favor.  For all we know we could pick up another 6 Senate seats next year, but we might not.  The political winds can change quickly.  Let's get some legislation passed in this congress, rather than banking on the future.

That said, keeping the threat of a primary challenge against Specter should ensure that he remembers what party he's in now.

---

by: Skaje @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 01:29:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]