Since the last update on November 4th, a few new polls have resulted in some minor alterations to the overall Senate forecast:
California has tightened up a bit, but that is because of polls that fell out of the average, not because of any new polling showing Republican improvement.
Connecticut remains at "solid Republican," but the rise of Linda McMahon in the Republican primary almost moves it to "lean Republican" or even "toss-up." A second poll will be needed for confirmation before a change is made, however.
Delaware moves from "lean Republican" to "toss-up"
Illinois moves from "toss-up" to "lean Republican
Ohio has slipped a bit closer to Republicans.
North Carolina has new polling, but remains in the same position as the last forecast.
All of these changes actually make no change in the overall forecast. Now, as with two weeks ago, the most likley outcome if the election were held tomorrow is a Republican net gain of four seats.
However, the election is not held tomorrow. It will be held in 50 weeks, making this prediction by Nouriel Roubini all the more worrying:
Based on my best judgment, it is most likely that the unemployment rate will peak close to 11% and will remain at a very high level for two years or more.
If that is the case, Democrats will be lucky to only lose four seats.
A wave of new polling has come out this week, and the Pollster.com trendline tells the story. Sestak is gaining on Specter:
Currently at 44.1%--26.5%, the trendlines show each of the campaigns moving in only one direction: Sestak is up, while Specter is down. Other important takeaways:
Specter well under 50%. Specter has not reached 50% since before Sestak officially entered the campaign. All five of the polling organizations to survey the primary since July show Specter under 50% among Pennsylvania Democrats. A majority of Pennsylvania Democrats have not embraced him, and about 12% have actually stopped supporting Specter since his party switch.
Sestak will continue to gain. The only reason Specter is even ahead at all is because of his higher name recognition. Among Pennsylvania Democrats who know both major candidates, Sestak already has a narrow lead (see here and here). As such, the longer the campaign continues, and the higher Sestak's name recognition becomes, the more Specter's lead will erode.
Sestak does better among likely voters: Even aside from Democrats who know both candidates, the two polling organizations which survey likely voters show Sestak closer to Specter than the ones which survey registered voters. Rasmussen shows Sestak within 4%, and back in August Research 2000 showed Sestak within 15%. This average gap of only 9.5% compares favorably to the average gap of 24.3% across the three polls surveying registered Democratic voters. It is also reminiscent of Ned Lamont performing 10% better among likely primary voters in Connecticut than among registered voters.
Sestak better positioned than other major primary challengers. Sestak is already doing better than other recent, major primary challenges against Senate incumbents. Consider:
In 2004, Specter led Pat Toomey 52%-20% across the three polls taken on the campaign between November 2003 and February 2004. Specter went on to win, but only by 2%.
In 2006, five months ahead of the Republican primary in Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee led Steve Laffey 56%-28%. Laffey eventually pulled into a dead heat, before narrowly losing the primary by 4,000 votes.
Also in 2006, Ned Lamont trailed Joe Lieberman by 46% only three months before the primary. Lamont went on to win the primary by about 3.5%.
U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, trying to knock off a veteran Democratic incumbent senator in the primary, will get an endorsement Monday from somebody who succeeded in doing just that: Connecticut's Ned Lamont.
Lamont defeated Sen. Joseph Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic primary, largely by running against the Iraq war and Lieberman's support of the Bush administration's war policy. But Lamont did not win the general election. After losing the nomination, Lieberman ran as an independent in the fall, defeating Lamont and the Republican nominee.
Score!
Sestak outperforms Specter in the general election. Lamont may not have won the general election, but Sestak looks well positioned to do so. According to Pollster.com, Sestak does better against Republican frontrunner Pat Toomey than Arlen Specter:
It is hard to imagine how these numbers improve for Specter, given that he is so well known across the state. Sestak, by contrast, is not only already leading, but has significant room for growth.
I like the way this is going. If you haven't already, join Joe Sestak's campaign!
Third quarter fundraising numbers are slowly trickling in. I am pretty sure they will show no Congressional candidate in the country has more than Arlen Specter.
And you know what? Even though I am working to elect Joe Sestak here in my home state, that's fine. This is because Joe Sestak has already won the campaign.
Sestak's victory may come as a bit of surprise, especially to those at Arlen Specter's $10,000-a-plate fundraisers that shut down the entire Senate. But Joe Sestak is already voting in the Senate by proxy, via Arlen Specter. Sestak's primary challenge has caused Specter to come around to the point of view of the majority of the Democratic Party) on every major issue since he entered the race.
With Mike Castle set to run for Senate in Delaware, Republicans have rounded out an excellent season of candidate recruiting for them. Their current strength in not only Delaware, but also Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois and New Hampshire is the result of top-tier recruiting efforts. By contrast, Democrats have seen their chances in a number of campaigns--Arizona (Napolitano), Kansas (Sebelius), and North Carolina (Cooper)--take serious blows due to failures to snag top tier recruits. The situation in reminiscent of 2006, when Democrats held the upper hand in Senate recruitment, and used it to make significant gains that year.
Here are some possible reasons to be optimistic, despite this forecast:
Rasmussen, which skews significantly toward Republicans, is over-represented in current polling averages.
A shift of 5% across the broad in these campaigns, some of which can already be accounted for in Rasmussen's over-representation in these averages, would bring Democrats even in the forecast.
Republicans are not within 15% of any other potential pickups, so it can't get much worse for Democrats.
For the next year, the two biggest factors in Senate campaigns will be the outcome of primary elections, and the state of the economy. More than ever, it is clear that Democrats will take a real electoral hit if there is not a significant electoral turnaround.
Current 2010 Senate Outlook: Net Republican Gain of 3-5 Seats Republican-Held Seats Democratic Pickups: 1-2 (Ohio, and possibly Missouri)
Keep an eye on Florida as well, if Republican Governor Charlie Crist faces trouble in his primary against Marco Rubio. Texas may also have a special election for Kay Bailey Hutchinson's vacated seat.
Democratic-Held Seats Democratic Losses: 5-6 (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware and Nevada, plus one or two of Arkansas, Illinois and Pennsylvania)
(Barbara Boxer's seat in California, Russ Feingold's seat in Wisconsin, Patty Murray's in Washington, and the open seat special election in Massachusetts are some other campaigns to watch.)
Notes:
*= Faces primary, but heavy favorite
**= Faces serious primary challenges, but only candidate for which general election polling is available.
***= Not an announced candidate at this time
--Illinois is rated behind Pennsylvania, despite the better polling average for Republicans in Illinois, because there is only one recent poll of Illinois.
The forecast is based entirely on polling conducted after May 31st.
A new Quinnipiac poll in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary shows Congressman Joe Sestak not only gaining significant ground on Senator Arlen Specter, but ahead among Pennsylvania Democrats who have enough about both candidates to form an opinion.
479 total registered Dems (MoE = +/- 4.5%) among whom 163 registered Dems (MoE = +/- 7.7%) that have an opinion about both Specter and Sestak.
(If registered Democrat) If the 2010 Democratic primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak, for whom would you vote?
All Democrats (July numbers in parenthesis)
Specter: 44% (55%)
Sestak: 25% (23%)
Democrats who have heard of both candidates
Sestak: 43%
Specter: 39%
The subset of 163 Democrats who know both candidates was sent to me, by request, from the Quinnipiac polling institute. So, I guess that makes it an Open Left exclusive!
By the end of the campaign, Specter's name ID advantage will have significantly dissipated, if not disappeared entirely. When that happens, it will be advantage Sestak.
The last day of the third fundraising quarter of 2009 (whoa, time really flies!) is this Wednesday, September 30. Our Democratic candidates for Senate need to make as big a fundraising splash as possible in the third quarter to help refute the growing conventional wisdom among the traditional media pundits that 2010 could be a Republican year.
Please, please, please consider making a contribution today to our Democratic candidates for Senate via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page. I've set some lofty, pie-in-the-sky goals that, if we were able to meet them, I'd be wonderfully surprised and gratified and blown away by your generosity.
Democrat
Currently At
Goal
Distance to Goal
Robin Carnahan
$681
$1,000
$319
Paul Hodes
$780
$1,000
$220
Joe Sestak
$758
$1,000
$242
Charlie Melancon
$193
$400
$207
Please click on over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and make a contribution to help stop ongoing Republican obstruction in the Senate. Every contribution makes a real impact whether it's $100 or $25 or $10 or, well, any amount. Want to rebel against multiples of five and contribute $63 or $39 or $27, knock yourself out!
Remember, the fundraising quarter ends this Wednesday, so please contribute today if you can. Thank you SO much!
A wave of new polling over the last week has prompted an update in the Senate forecast. The overall seat change prediction remains the same, with Republicans netting 2-3 seats resulting in a Democratic caucus majority of either 58-42 or 57-43. The two category changes are Arkansas moving from "toss-up" to "lean Dem," and Colorado moving from "lean Dem" to "toss-up."
The recruiting phase of the 2010 elections is nearly over. With the exception of the two special elections (Massachussetts and Texas), the remaining holdout on the recuriting front is Delaware. In the first state, much still hinges on whether Beau Biden and / or Mike Castle ends up running, the major candidates. the latst indications seem to be that Beau Biden is, in fact, running.
Primaries are the next stage in the Senate picture. Here are the best case scenarios for each party:
Democrats: In Delaware, Biden runs, Castle does not; Paul is the Republican nominee in Kentucky; Norton is not the Republican nominee in Colorado, Crist is not the Republican nominee in Florida; Hendren is the Republican nominee in Arkansas. This would result in a forecast where Democrats net 0-1 seats.
Republicans: In Delaware, Castle runs; Grayson is the Republican nominee in Kentucky; Norton is the Republican nominee in Colorado; Crist is the Republican nominee in Florida; Baker or Coleman is the Republican nominee in Arkansas. This would result in a forecast where Republicans net 3-4 seats.
Of course, beyond primaries, much still depends on the overall political environment. If a good health care bill passes and a real economic turnaround are on the way by the spring or summer, then Democrats could very well net seats no matter the outcome of primaries. However, it is possible that everything could go wrong for Democrats in terms of primaries, recruiting and the political environment, thus resulting in a Republican net gain of 6-7 seats.
Current 2010 Senate Outlook: Net Republican Gain of 2-3 Seats Republican-Held Seats Democratic Pickups: 2 (Missouri and Ohio)
Russ Feingold's seat in Wisconsin, and Patty Murray's in Washington, are two other campaigns to watch.)
Notes:
*= Faces primary, but heavy favorite
**= Not an announced candidate at this time
***= Faces serious primary challenges, but only candidate for which general election polling is available.
The combination of today's jobs report and the less-than-great polling picture in the House has left me thinking that that large netroots email and blog organizations should consider a serious change in allocation of resources for the 2010 elections. Instead of raising money almost entirely for challengers, as we did in 2004, 2006 and 2008, perhaps we should focus more on making sure that the incumbent Democrats who are defeated in 2010 are not the Democrats we really like. A strategy of lose the bad Democrats, but keep the good ones.
Good Democrats in either swing or Republican leaning districts who I would like to protect include Representatives Tom Perriello, Eric Massa (yeah, I know I have ragged on him before), Alan Grayson, and Senator Russ Feingold. Even Democrats like Representatives Brad Miller, Phil Hare, Raul Grijalva, Betty Sutton, Chellie Pingree and Senator Barbara Boxer might face some trouble. It seems to me that keeping these members of Congress around is a more prudent allocation of resources than taking a chance on candidates who, even if they are lucky enough to take away open and / or blue seats from Republicans, might not end up being all that great once they are in Congress. We know who the better Democrats already are--isn't it better to keep them than to take chances on new ones?
Now, I'm not saying that we should abandon all offense. Republican-held blue seats, open seats, and lightning rod seats (the leadership and Michelle Bachmann loud mouth types), can and should be vigorously challenged. Plus, we should keep hitting primary challenges as hard as possible, in as many seats as possible. However, it is just that if we lose 20-30 seats in the House, and 4-5 in the Senate, wouldn't it be a lot better if we made certain those seats were overwhelmingly the Democrats we find most annoying, rather than the relatively few members of Congress who both understand our community and are willing to work with it?
If such a strategy was successful, it is possible that we wouldn't even lose that many votes on key issues. We could also create a storyline where the Democrats who lost were mainly those who let the base down the most. It won't be easy, and it will take a change in thinking, but shouldn't we be working just as hard to keep the Better Democrats we have as we should to create more Better Democrats? As long as we keep our champions, then we won't really lose any ground, no matter the partisan seat distribution in 2010.
Open Left's Senate forecast for August shows Republicans picking up seats for the first time since, well, ever. Although the 2-3 seat Republican gain I forecast is a far cry from the 6 seats Arlen Specter thinks Republicans will gain, it still allows us to maintain our inglorious title as the most favorable to Republicans among all forecasters.
While I must sound like a very boring broken record at this point, almost everything still depends on the state of the economy. There isn't a huge amount of recruiting left to be done, so changes in the campaigns from this point forward will largely depend on the national political environment. If the economy starts to improve in the Spring of 2010, then Democrats should at least draw even, and possibly even gain seats. If the economy does not improve, it is possible Republicans could ring up a 5-7 seat gain.
The fate of health care reform represents another major factor. If health care reform either fails altogether, or only an extremely weak reform is passed, expect Democratic turnout to drop sharply. This happened in 1994, too. New Jersey and Virginia should make good test cases for just how serious the threat of lowered Democratic turnout actually is.
This forecast is based entirely on polling. In the 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections, simple poll averaging proved as effective in predicting the final margin as any other methodology (as long as there were two or more polls in the final week, and as long as the outcome wasn't a foregone conclusion of 20% or more).
Current 2010 Senate Outlook: Net Republican Gain of 2-3 Seats Republican-Held Seats Democratic Pickups: 2 (Missouri and Ohio)
Russ Feingold's seat in Wisconsin, and Patty Murray's in Washington, are two other campaigns to watch.)
Notes:
*= Faces primary, but heavy favorite
**= Not an announced candidate at this time
***= Faces competitive primary, but general election polling not available for other candidates.)
Political analysts predict Democrats will lose six Senate and 20 House seats next year, said Specter. He said likely Republican nominee Pat Toomey, a former congressman who is president of the anti-tax Club for Growth, has raised a lot of money for the Senate campaign.
"It's going to be a tough general election," Specter said.
Lose six seats in the Senate? What political analysts are saying that? Here are the four major election forecasters who have published complete Senate analyses for August. On average, they actually show more Republican-held seats threatened than Democratic-held seats:
Cook: 6 Republican-held toss-ups or leans, 5 Democratic-held toss-ups or leans
CQ Politics: 8 Republican-held toss-ups and leans; 5 Democratic-held toss-ups and leans
Rothenberg: 6 Republican-held toss-ups or leans; only 4 Democratic-held toss-ups or leans
538: 5 Republican held seats among top 12 campaigns; 7 Democratic-held seats among top 12 campaigns
Rather than predicting a Republican gain of six seats, as per Arlen Specter, these four forecasters average slightly more Republican-held Senate (6) seats as potential flips than Democratic-held seats (5).
Thanks for the pep-talk Arlen. "The party is screwed in 2010, so choose me or be even more screwed." It is always fun when party higher-ups decide to become concern-troll, Village pundits in a attempt to cajole Democrats into accepting the status-quo of powerful institutions.
"I am very concerned about one-party rule in Washington," Specter says in the spot. "That's why it's so important to elect Chris Hackett to Congress. With Chris Hackett, we'll have a check against massive Democratic control. And that's vital for our country."
Perhaps Specter talking about substantial Democratic losses in the Senate is simply his fear of "massive Democratic control" coming to the surface again.
While glimpsing at my blackberry during vacation, I was eager to put up a new Senate forecast upon arriving back in Philadelphia. Senate forecasting isn't the biggest news right now, but all of the developments over the past three weeks made this an essential piece of housekeeping.
The current forecast shows no net partisan change in the Senate, as Democratic gains in Ohio and Missouri are offset by losses in Connecticut and Delaware. Further, the number of close campaigns is increasing. As the chart below shows, about a handful of campaigns on both sides could also potentially switch. Due significantly to better candidate recruiting, Republicans have a slight advantage in the number of close, potential pickups they have created.
The complete forecast, including colorful charts, more causes for Republican improvement, and implications for ongoing legislative fights, can be found in the extended entry.
As of today, we are more than one-third of the way between the 2008 and 2010 general elections. In order or this arbitrary milestone, here is a look at the 2010 Senate picture.
The charts have been expanded to account for competitive primaries, and hopefully to provide greater clarity. The overall forecast, showing a net Democratic pickup of one seat, has not changed. The methodology, focusing only on polls, has also not changed.
2010 Senate Outlook: Net Democrat Gain of one seat, for a total of 61 Republican-Held Seats Democratic Pickups: 3 (Missouri and Ohio, plus either Kentucky or New Hampshire)
(Russ Feingold's seat in Wisconsin, and Patty Murray's in Washington, are two other campaigns to watch.)
Notes:
*= Not certian to enter campaign yet
**= Faces primary, but no polling for challenger
***= All Pennsylvania polling taken May 15th or later
****= There is no polling in Arkansas for Lincoln against any of the three announced Republican candidates. So, polling on Lincoln vs. other candidates, who are probably equally unknown, is listed instead.)
North Carolina and Nevada are listed at the bottom of their respective tables because, while the incumbents in those states appear vulnerable, no potential candidates are polling particularly close at this time.
As reported in numerous outlets, Joe Sestak is on the brink of challenging Arlen Specter in the 2010 Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary. Here is what Sestak said yesterday:
"I personally have made a decision that I intend to get in this race with one other item," Sestak told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room. "I haven't ... had the time to sit down with my eight-year-old daughter or my wife to make sure that we are all ready to get in."
So, as long as his family agrees, it appears Sestak is in. In the extended entry, I provide my full assessment of Sestak's chance.
A new Connecticut poll this morning from Quinnipiac shows incumbent Democratic Senator Chris Dodd improving his position for re-election quite a bit. Dodd's prospects are still very much uphill, but they are an improvement none the less:
Quinnipiac, May 20-25, 1,575 RVs, MoE 2.5 (March numbers in parenthesis) Simmons: 45% (50%)
Dodd: 39% (34%)
Dodd: 41% (37%)
Caligiuri: 39% (41%)
While these numbers are still very much uphill for Dodd (it is never good for an incumbent to be around 40%), there are come factors working in his favor:
Rob Simmons has $20 in the bank. That isn't $20K or $20M, but $20.00. Simmons failed to raise money during what should have been a great time to build a warchest.
The economy will be better in 2010 than in 2009. By this time next year, the economy will likely be growing again, jobs will probably be returning, and health care reform will have been passed.
Two of the most important advantages held by challengers are absent in Connecticut. Simmons is not raising the money to define himself (53% of voters don't know who he is), and by next year Democrats should be taking credit for an economic recovery largely based upon the stimulus package and other recent policies. As Senate banking chair, Dodd will be able to take credit for many of those policies, himself.
Overall, reports of Senator Dodd's demise appear to be premature. In fact, rather than the general election, he might actually face more trouble in the primary from businessman Merrick Alpert, who right now only trails Dodd 44%--24% among registered Democrats. Alpert can self-finance, and is a veteran opposed to the American military presence in Afghanistan. With nearly two-thirds of Democrats now sharing that position, Alpert might have a real shot. A 20% advantage in a primary one year out is not much of an advantage at all.
The situation in Connecticut is clearly fluid. Just as Dodd'd general election prospects improve, the real possibility of losing in the primary emerges. This far out, it is difficult to make an assessment with any accuracy, but no matter what the future holds for Connecticut, it now appears to be the most interesting Senate race in the nation (again).
This week's Senate forecast update is the best one for Republicans all year. However, that isn't saying much, since I currently forecast Democrats to make a net a net gain of one seat, for an overall total of 61. Further, that is the forecast even if all of Representative Mike Castle, former Governor George Pataki and former Senator Jon Sununu all run in Delaware, New York, and New Hampshire respectively. If all three were to decline, then Democrats would be forecast to net 3-5 seats, for an overall total of 63-65.
In short, even after Charlie Crist announced in Florida, and Roy Cooper declined to run in North Carolina, Democrats still have the upper hand in the 2010 Senate picture. That might change, but only if Republicans can not only score the recruits I listed above, but also find top challengers in Colorado and Nevada. One other worrying point could be Arkansas, that is if you actually care whether Blanche Lincoln wins or not (I don't).
Here is the detailed forecast:
2010 Senate Outlook: Net Democrat Gain of one seat, for a total of 61 Republican-Held Seats Democratic Pickups: 3 (Missouri and Ohio, plus either Kentucky or New Hampshire)
(Note: Senate elections where there is no polling showing the incumbent party ahead by less than 10.0% are not examined in detail. Pennsylvania included due to expected popular demand.
*= Faces primary, but currently the heavy favorite against other announced candidates
** = There is no polling in Arkansas is not for Lincoln vs. Hendren, so previous polling on Lincoln versus other candidates is listed in its place.)
Notes on how to read the chart in the extended entry.
One ray of hope in the Florida Senate campaign is that the poll showing Charlie Crist ahead by 21% also showed him with 88% name recognition, compared to only 25% for Meek. It is possible that as Meek's numbers rise as he closes the name ID gap. Unfortunately, it is also possible that Crist will have much more money than Meek, and be able to define him in any potential advertising war.
Here is the latest Senate chart. With Florida removed from the equation, Democrats are now projected to gain only one seat:
2010 Senate Outlook: Net Democrat Gain of one seat, for a total of 61 Republican-Held Seats Democratic Pickups: 3 (Missouri, plus two of Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Ohio)
(Note: Senate elections where there is no polling showing the incumbent party ahead by less than 10.0% are not examined in detail. Pennsylvania included due to expected popular demand.
*= Faces primary, but currently the heavy favorite against other announced candidates
** = There is no polling in Arkansas is not for Lincoln vs. Hendren, so previous polling on Lincoln versus other candidates is listed in its place.)
The only Republican incumbent who appears to be threatened is Richard Burr in North Carolina (although it is possible that David Vitter might find himself vulnerable, too). Depending on recruiting, Republicans might end up with more legitimate pickup opportunities than Democrats in 2010. Should Republicans score a "moderate" wave of former Governor George Pataki in New York, Representative (and former Governor) Mike Castle in Delaware, Representative Mark Kirk in Illinois (although that looks increasingly unlikely), and if former Representative Rob Simmons in Connecticut (he faces a primary and hasn't raised any money), then they will be projected to win seats in 2010.
Perhaps we are running up against the limits of how many Senate seats one party can have these days. Notes on how to read the chart in the extended entry.
For those who didn't get to see the drama unfold in real time this week, I thought I'd compile a brief summary of the major points to keep everyone up to date (minus the blink-and-you-miss-it appearance of Tom Ridge).
Quite a bit has happened to the Senate picture since the most recent update back on April 13th. Here is the latest forecast, based entirely on polling information. The chart could change quite a bit depending on which candidates end up running:
2010 Senate Outlook: Net Democrat Gain of two seats, for a total of 62 Republican-Held Seats Democratic Pickups: 4 (Florida and Missouri, plus two of Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Ohio)
(Note: Senate elections where there is no polling showing the incumbent party ahead by less than 10.0% are not examined in detail.
*= Faces primary, but currently the heavy favorite other other announced candidates
** = There is no polling in Arkansas is not for Lincoln vs. Hendren, so previous polling on Lincoln versus other candidates is listed in its place.
*** = Pennsylvania included despite not meeting the "less single-digit incumbent party poll lead" requirement due to the high level of interest and state of flux in the election there.
Details on how to read other aspects of the chart can be found in the extended entry.)
Key changes since the last forecast in the extended entry.
I met Joe Sestak in 2006. He came to speak at Haverford College, which sits right on the border of Pennsylvania's Montgomery and Delaware Counties. The latter had been represented in congress by Republican Curt Weldon for the last 20 years, but Joe fought to change that. Wearing blue jeans and an obnoxiously vibrant collared shirt, Sestak did not look the part of a true pol as he stood at the front of a small lecture hall. What prevailed upon us in that meeting though was Joe's sincerity and concern for the people of Philadelphia's western suburbs. He spoke plainly and at length about his personal commitment to restoring competence to the military appropriations process and to extending the public health privileges that his family enjoyed to all Americans. We who met Joe that night were relatively unsurprised when, despite early skepticism, he defeated Weldon by 7 points.
Born in 1983, I have never known a Pennsylvania politics not dominated by the unique, wishy-washy leadership style of Senator Arlen Specter. As a kid, I knew him as the guy who would call in occasionally to the local sports talk radio station and walk his dog through my East Falls high school campus (an entitlement which, needless to say, no other Philadelphian enjoyed). Since that time I have gotten to know the man better as something of a political coward--championing desperately needed progressive reforms and then voting against them, and apologizing for when not scripting Bush administration legal policies in the Senate. No, it came as no surprise to me when Specter decided that the Republican electorate in PA was no longer entitled to gauge his performance.
A New Democrat, Sestak is less progressive than I and I'm sure many of you. For the first time though, I see the very real potential for Arlen Specter to be replaced by a legislator who actually stands for something and respects the wants and needs of his constituency. So what else could I do but my best to ensure that Rep. Sestak does indeed decide to fight this time? If you feel the same, I encourage you to join our new Facebook group, Congressman Sestak, PLEASE challenge Senator Specter, share your opinions on our wall, email your support to the congressman and amplify the voice of Pennsylvanians no longer content to concede to the personal ambitions of a man whose opportunity to lead has so long been squandered.
Official description:
Joe Sestak is a United States Congressman representing the 7th District (Delaware County) of Pennsylvania. A Democrat, Sestak is a retired Navy Vice Admiral and the highest-ranking former member of the Armed Forces to serve in the Congress.
In 2006, Sestak challenged 10-term Republican Curt Weldon for the 7th District seat in Washington. Weldon, a Delaware County institution, had won re-election in 2004 with 59% of the vote in spite of Presidential candidate John Kerry's 53% winning tally in the district. Still, Sestak was able to raise funds beyond Weldon's in 2006 and win the election by a 7+ point margin. Since his election, Sestak has actively served on the House committees on Small Business, Education & Labor and Armed Services, earning Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's designation as the most productive freshman congressman.
Sestak has made indications that he may seek election to the United States Senate seat currently held by Republican Arlen Specter. Specter has recently thrown that bid into question by declaring that he now is in fact a Democrat.
So what kind of Democrat the Keystone state inherit in Specter? He ardently supports the death penalty. He has voted against the Brady Bill, background checks at gun shows, the ban on assault weapons, and trigger locks for handguns. In 2006, an amendment written by Specter in to the USA PATRIOT act allowed the Bush administration to appoint United States Attorneys without confirmation by the Senate or limits on their terms. He voted for cloture on the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007, then voted against the bill. In 2009 he has vowed to not vote for cloture on the same. This exemplifies a long history of voicing tacit support for progressive measures and not voting for them in congress. Still a representative of a large blue-collar constituency from Philadelphia, Specter has recently showed more interest in investigating the destruction of "Spygate" tapes by the NFL following the New England Patriots' defeat of the Philadelphia Eagles in Superbowl XXXIX.
The longest-serving Senator in Pennsylvania's history, Arlen Specter will represent the state for a 30th year in 2010. Now 79 years old, Specter is seeking re-election to a 6th term. His decision to switch parties in April of this year represents his desire to do so, facing a strong Republican primary challenge from his right and voicing no future policy ambitions to endear him to either side.
Always the fighter, Joe Sestak has appropriately wondered aloud about what exactly Arlen Specter is fighting for, aside from his establishment status. If he is to be re-elected, it is possible that Specter will earn the very powerful charimanship of the Senate Appropriation Committee, though it is unknowable to anyone what Democratic measure he might champion there. What is widely understood about Specter is that he is loyal to no one and bafflingly unpredictable. Sestak has meanwhile sought to make the most of his deep personal commitment to armed service personnel and the people of Pennsylvania, notably through his stance on accessible and affordable health care, which Arlen Specter has shown no meaningful signs of supporting.
So this is our choice, Pennsylvanians! The Washington establishment has rallied around Specter, but it will ultimately be our responsibility to choose a Democratic candidate to face anti-tax pitchfork-wielder Pat Toomey. If you would like to see Pennsylvania represented by an energetic agent for change, and not the original proponent of the single-bullet theory, please join our group, email Joe and let him know that it's time to fight again.
