With Parker Griffith handily losing the Republican primary in Alabama's fifth congressional district last night, both members of Congress who switched parties in 2009 have now been defeated in primaries in 2010 (two weeks ago, Arlen Specter was handily defeated by Joe Sestak). Politico is likely correct to argue that this will likely have a chilling effect on party switching in general:
The upshot of the resounding losses by Specter and Griffith is that, at least in the near-term, it may be more difficult than ever to woo party-switchers. That's because implicitly or, more often, explicitly, a flip is made contingent on the basis that the new party will support the switcher.
That can mean securing a plum committee assignment, clearing the primary field, guaranteeing financial help and extending endorsements.
But if none of that adds up to persuade voters to renominate their convert, what's the point of jumping?
No one should be surprised at voters rejecting politicians who backstab their old friends in an attempt order to keep their job. There is little reason to trust politicians like that.
Still, two other examples in recent years--Joe Lieberman in connecticut and Charlie Crist in Florida-- suggest that it may be possible to still thrive if they leave their current political party, just as long as they do not join the opposing political party. First, in becoming Independents, they can skip primaries altogether, thus avoiding the wrath of base voters who are less likely to embrace a formner political opponent. Second, polling in these two examples suggests that the key to Crist and Lieberman was maintaining a decent base of support in their old party, something which cannot be done if they had overtly joined the other team.
Former partisans who become Independents require coalitions of Democratic, Independent and Republican voters in order to survive. These coalitions are tenuous, however, because different groups in the coalition like the politician for different, often conflicting, reasons. In order to maintian these coalitions, it is necessary that voters read what they want to read into the politician, something which becomes far more difficult when the politician explicitly joins a new team.
For example, in 2006, Joe Lieberman won re-election by 10%. In order to do this, he successfully built a short-term coalition that gave him received 70% of the Republican vote, 54% of the Independent vote, and 33% of the Democratic vote. This same coalition also allowed him to maintain positive approval ratings during 2007. However, the coalition began to collapse in mid-2008, when Lieberman endorsed John McCain for President. At the time, Quinnipiac found that Lieberman lost much of the center-left support of his coalition:
"Sen. Lieberman's approval rating has dropped below 50 percent for the first time in 14 years of polling, with nearly two-thirds of Democrats giving him low marks, probably because he is campaigning for Sen. John McCain," Dr. Schwartz said.
By the end of 2008, Lieberman's approval rating collapsed to a record low:
Connecticut's U.S. Senators get their lowest approval ratings ever, a negative 38 - 54 percent for Sen. Joseph Lieberman...
"Sen. Joseph Lieberman appears to be paying a high price for his embrace of Sen. John McCain in the presidential race. This is the highest disapproval rating in any Quinnipiac University poll in any state for a sitting U.S. Senator - except for New Jersey's Robert Torricelli, just before he resigned in 2002. Among those who say they voted for Sen. Lieberman in 2006, 30 percent now say they would vote for someone else if they could.
By embracing McCain, Lieberman lost most of the remaining Democratic and Democratic-leaning Independent portions of coalition. He explicitly picked a side, and his Democratic support disappeared.
Similarly, in Florida Charlie Crist is receiving most of his new support from Democrats. The Pollster.com trend chart in Florida shows that presumptive Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek has experienced a collapse in support since Crist switched parties five weeks ago:
However strong he looks now, Crist's position is tenuous, for the same reason as Lieberman's. If Crist were to announce that we would caucus with Republicans if elected to the Senate, then his support among Democrats would collapse and his campaign would effectively be over. At the same time, if he were to announce that he would caucus with Democrats, then he would lose a decent amount of his commanding lead among Independents, as the Republican-leaning Independents in that group would switch to Rubio. That would also likely put Rubio in the lead, likely for good, as long as there was a Democratic nominee to oppose Crist.
In short, like Specter, Griffith and Lieberman, the worst move Crist can make right now would be to explicitly state which team he would join the the United States Senate. As such, it isn't a surprise that Crist is refusing to provide any clarity on that matter. Once he does, his campaign is probably over, because it longer seems possible for a true party switcher to survive the wrath of the voters.
In 2006, Democrats took back control of Congress because of public outrage at George Bush and the War in Iraq. But we should remember it almost didn't happen - until August, when Ned Lamont proved that Democrats can galvanize that energy to beat an incumbent Senator in a primary. Tomorrow, Pennsylvania Democrats will be asked to dump ex-Republican Arlen Specter - and in Arkansas, conservative Senator Blanche Lincoln also faces a primary challenge. And just like Joe Lieberman, the Party establishment is circling the wagons in both states - with President Obama shooting a radio ad that claims Lincoln "took on big insurance companies" to pass health care. A new poll shows that voters prefer Democrats over Republicans, which suggests that 2010 may not be the nightmare everyone fears. But it also showed that voters hate incumbents. If Democrats want to avoid a bloodbath in November, Specter and Lincoln must be defeated.
The final Quinnipiac poll of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary shows Jose Sestak leading Arlen Specter by a single point. While a one point lead is far from a blowout or a sure thing, what is significant about this poll is that there are now exactly zero polling firms showing Arlen Specter ahead. Here are the final polls from the six pollsters to conducts surveys of this campaign in May:
Across these six polls, Sestak leads by 3.2% on the mean, and 2% on the median. The 15-day average I use for other forecasts shows Sestak up 2.6%.
None of those leads make Sestak anywhere close to a sure thing. However, Specter is only competitive in this primary due to his ongoing advantage in name ID, an advantage which averages 20% across five of these six polls (excluding F & M). That means Specter still has a big advantage among low information voters (who have still never heard of Sestak), and as such will need high Democratic turnout to win (since these low-information voters are less likely to vote). With Democratic turnout sharply down in primaries do far this year, that ain't too bloody likely.
I expect Sestak to win as this point, and to become the first Democrat to defeat an incumbent backed by Obama in a primary. Admittedly, Specter's party switch made this campaign far more winnable than any of the other primary or legislative campaigns when progressives staked out a position to the left of the administration, so it may not really be a breakthrough moment yet. From the very beginning of the campaign, Sestak was always ahead among Pennsylvania Democrats who had heard of both candidate, and he held a 2-1 lead among Pennsylvania Democrats who thought Arlen Specter switched parties to win re-election. In the environment, Sestak did exactly what he had to do to win: run a grueling slog of retail politics and fundraising to gather up just enough ground supporters and resources in order to raise his name ID and run ads of Specter saying he switched parties to win re-election. It wasn't easy to do that with the entire Democratic establishment working against him, but on the eve of the primary it seems likely that he has pulled it off.
On April 28th, 2009, the day he left the Republican Party, Arlen Specter was losing the Republican primary to Pat Toomey. The three most recent polls showed Toomey ahead by an average of 6.7%, and the two most recent polls showed Toomey ahead by an average of 17.5% (Franklin and Marshall, showing Specter up 15%, is a sucky pollster).
If there were some sort of Independent primary, Specter would also be losing that. Specter's favorable ratings among Independents in Pennsylvania are 30% favorable, 58% unfavorable. Pat Toomey is at 32%--9%, and Joe Sestak is at 31%--18%.
There is talk about this being anti-incumbent year, rather than just a pro-Republican year.. Well, there is no possible better test of that thesis than this primary. Arlen Specter is the ultimate incumbent, but the people of Pennsylvania don't much like him anymore. If the establishment, including Organizing for America, can pull this off for him anyway, then maybe this is just a pro-Republican, pro-conservative year, and not an anti-incumbent one.
Last night on Hardball, Arlen Specter said that he knew his days in the republican party were numbered after his stimulus vote:
"When that vote came up on the stimulus, I knew it was the end of my association with the Republican Party. "
This is a flat-out lie. Far from demonstrating a principled or conclusive break with the Republican Party, Arlen Specter's actions from his stimulus vote until his party switch demonstrate par excellence that Specter acts based on polling and to save himself, not on principle..
Specter stuck around in the Republican Party for eleven weeks after the stimulus (stimulus first passed on February 10th, Specter switched on April 28th). After the vote, he went out of his way to try and appeal to Republicans by qualifying his support of the stimulus and shifting hard to the right on a variety of issues. It was only after polling revealed none of those efforts would save him in the Republican primary that he switched the the Democratic Party. And, even before he switched, he secured a promise of support from the Democratic leadership in the event of any possible primary challenge.
None of this is hard to prove. Specter's own statement on switching parties said that he talked to Republicans and watched polls for weeks after the stimulus vote, and only later concluded that a schism had occurred (emphasis mine):
Since [voting for the stimulus package], I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable.
At his press conference the day he switched, Specter reiterated that his decision to switch was gradual, not a schism, and it was based on polls (emphasis mine):
"The decision has been reached gradually as I have traveled the state in the last several months," Specter said. "And specifically, I got my own poll results back last Friday--late last week, [Specter switched the next Tuesday] and consulted with my campaign managers, and had a long discussion with Joan and my son Shanin over the weekend, and came to a decision over this past weekend."
Specter is flat-out contradicting himself when he says that he knew his days in the Republican Party were over when he voted for the stimulus. He stuck around for eleven weeks, looking at poll numbers, and only "gradually" came to that conclusion.
During those eleven weeks, switching parties was not the only decision Specter made based on polls. As he saw polls coming in showing him well behind Pat Toomey for the Republican nomination, his voting habits shifted hard to the right in a last ditch effort to appeal to Republican voters. Last year, Nate Silver showed that Specter shifted from voting with Democrats 58% of the time in 2009 before a March 25th Quinnipiac poll showed him trailing Pat Toomey in the Republican primary. After the poll, Specter only voted with Dems 16% of the time:
Specter did not give up on appealing to the Republican base after the stimulus. In addition to the broad voting measurements Silver offers, during the eleven weeks that he remained a Republican, Specter found time to announce that he would vote against card-check (even though he voted in favor in 2007), that he was reintroducing his 20% flat-tax proposal (which slashes taxes for the wealthiest 5% and raises them for everyone else), to vote against Elena Kagan for Solicitor General, and to block Dawn Johnsen.
And then, lest we forget, even after his vote in favor of the stimulus, Specter bragged about cutting $100 billion from it, and said he wished the entire package had just been tax cuts. This is all still on his website.
We were able to cut out $100 billion from the package and include 35% in tax relief in the overall bill. My preference would have been John McCain's proposal, which I voted for, to have the stimulus package of $421 billion in tax cuts alone. I voted for the Reagan tax cuts back in 1981 and that would be the best course, but in a legislative body you don't have exactly your own choice.
"I was impressed with the position of the United States Chamber of Commerce which was for the bill very solidly. The Chamber of Commerce, obviously, is a very conservative, Republican organization which has its hands on the economy and what's happening to many, many businesses and they were for it. All factors considered, I thought that action had to be taken.
"I voted for it with reservations, as I have commented."
Specter went on to bend over backward to trying to qualify his position the stimulus to Republicans. He emphasized that he cut money from it, would have preferred all tax cuts, that he supported the Reagan tax cuts, sides with the Chamber of Commerce, and still had reservations anyway.
Finally, even when none of these efforts worked,, and Specter still trailed Toomey by gaping margins, before he switched parties Specter first secured a promise from the Democratic leadership that they would support him in any potential primary challenge he might receive:
Specter was promised that the Democratic Party would fully support his candidacy as a Democrat and would not back any other Democrat seeking the seat. "In money and message," the party will be behind Specter. Any other Democrat who intends to run will "not have the blessing of the party."
None of this is really a surprise from a Senator who, back in 2006, did this:
Prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he [Specter] went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage.
Arlen Specter is one of the most all-time self-serving politicians. Even his claim that he was the deciding vote on the stimulus ignores that there were 61 votes for the stimulus when it first passed the Senate, which allowed Ted Kennedy to stay in the hospital during the vote on the conference report.
If Democrats were to nominate this man, it would reflect extremely poorly on our own party. Surely, Democrats stand for more than just staying in power. Hell, by nominating Specter, Democrats would show they aren't even very good at staying in power, since Joe Sestak performs 5% better against Pat Toomey than Arlen Specter. This is hardly a surprise, since Specter's self-serving actions are now on display for the whole state of Pennsylvania to see, and voters do not typically react well to politicians who only look out for themselves.
Three new polls this morning show, on average, the Pennsylvania Senate primary exactly tied. Quinnipiac shows Specter up 2%, F & M shows Sestak up 2%, and Muhlenberg shows an exact tie.
Worth noting about these polls:
All are among likely primary voters. Quinnipiac has the largest sample size, with 945. Muhlenberg 407, and F & M has only 150. No matter the differences in sample size, the similarity between the three polls suggests the campaign is a toss-up.
Sestak has the strongest support, according to Quinnipiac:
Specter's support is slightly weaker than Sestak's as 34 percent of the incumbent's voters say they might change their mind, compared to 25 percent of the challenger's backers.
Specter would benefit from higher turnout, as he leads among all registered Demorats, according to F & M:
But the poll also shows Mr. Specter ahead 38 to 29 percent among all 404 adult Democrats surveyed if the likeliness of their voting was not considered.
Democratic turnout in primaries has been low in 2010, so this is small comfort for Specter.
While the trend in the ttacking poll suggests that Specter has stemmed the Sestak surge, Sestak still has room to grow:
Specter remains better known than Sestak, with a 50 - 33 percent favorability. By comparison, Sestak gets a 42 - 10 percent favorability, with 46 percent saying they don't know enough about him to have an opinion.
Sestak will surely become better known over the final week. It will, however, be difficult for him to maintain his better than 4-1 favorability rating. Those two trends--likely rising name ID, but a lower favorable ratio--might cancel each other out.
Polling over the next few days will provide further clarity, or lack thereof, on the campaign. One thing is for certain, however: there is no way that Specter could have won this campaign without all the endorsements from party officials and establishment progressive institutions. In a straight up match against Sestak, without any endorsements, Specter loses. This campaign is struggle between the rank and file of Pennsylvania Democrats, and their "leaders."
Today in Pennsylvania Senate news, Arlen Specter has gone on the air with an ad featuring President Obama:
The deciding vote, eh? This ad reminds me of the ones that Specter ran six years ago. Rick Santorum also liked Arlen Specter, when he cast the deciding vote on the Bush tax cuts:
And, Specter ran an ad nearly identical to the one he is now running with Obama, featuring George W. Bush:
The Pennsylvania primary is an interesting test case that will help provide answers to many political questions:
Can the powers that be can hoist any candidate they want onto their constituents? Really, its pretty impressive to get the entire political establishment of both parties to try and defend you from your own constituents. It is doubtful that there is any current member of the U.S. Senate that the institutional status quo loves more, and has done more to support, than Arlen Specter.
Do voters actually like bipartisanship or not? Over the final week, Specter will simultaneously be featured in ads showing him with Bush and with Obama.
How much sway does Obama really have in Democrtic primaries? If Obama really can move votes among Democrats, Specter's ad today really should be a sort of trump card that wins him the primary. But, if Sestak is able to pull it out, don't expect fear of the White House to sway many prospective primary challengers anymore.
Today's tracking poll shows Sestak up 4%, down from 5% yesterday. Also, Specter has twice as much money to spend in the final week as Sestak. This campaign is far from over, and you can help out at Joe Sestak's website.
The first poll on the Pennsylvania general election for Senate since Joe Sestak began rising in the polls is out. It completely destroys the idea that Arlen Specter is more electable than Joe Sestak:
This campaign is being looped into a general "purge" narrative of hard-core ideologues dumping incumbent Senators in primary (or some such whining). However, on a purely pragmatic level, at this point, it would be electoral suicide for Democrats not to nominate Joe Sestak for Senate in Pennsylvania. If Specter is able to come back and pull this primary out, Democrats will start in a big hole. By comparison, with Sestak, they are only 2% behind in a Rasmussen poll. Given that Rasmussen has had a roughly 6% "house effect" in favor of Republicans this year, it is likely that Sestak is now leading in the general election against Toomey.
Sestak has gained 9% on Toomey over the past month, while Specter has lost 2%. And really, why wouldn't Sestak have also made up ground in the general election during a period when he gained in the primary? His gain has come almost entirely because of positive bio ads (the negative ads have gotten the attention, but the positive bio ads have gotten a lot more airtime) that have significantly raised his name ID and favorable rating in the state. Specter, by contrast, is extremely well known, and people's minds are made up about him.
Returning to whining moderates for a moment, let me get on a rant to the pundits talking about primary "purges": stop pretending that the incumbent Democrats who have found themselves in trouble primaries are principled "moderates" in any way. Could it be more glaringly obvious at this point that Arlen Specter is an opportunist who seeks mainly to save his own job? Can you please try and remember that Blanche Lincoln systematically lied to virtually every Democratic constituency (see here for women, labor and health care advocates, then see here for African-Americans) before those groups started recruiting a primary challenger? And can you recall that Joe Lieberman flip-flopped on perhaps the biggest progressive grassroots advocacy campaign of the past decade just to beat progressives for the sake of it?
The fact is that the progressive base is neither large enough, nor powerful enough, to defeat incumbent Democrats in primaries just on the basis of abstract ideological disagreement. We can only beat conservative and moderate Democrats in primaries when those Democrats also happen to be wankers. And while the Senate is full of wankers, Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln have acting in particularly wankerific fashion over the past few years. We progressives wouldn't have a shot in any of these campaigns if we were dealing with principled politicians who let you know where they stand and / or who actually put their constituents above their own careers.
The lies, the flip-flops, the glory-seeking, the vindictiveness, the cynicism--without all that, progressives would not have a chance to beat Democratic incumbents in primaries. At least for right now, we can only beat the wanker conservatives.
No Democrat voted "no" but Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) who switched from Republican to Democrat roughly a month after the vote cast a "no" on Kagan.
So naturally, when asked about Kagen's confirmation today, Arlen Specter warmed about Republicans obstructing Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court:
Now that President Obama has nominated solicitor general Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, believes the Republicans he used to side with might try to mount a fillibuster.
Specter says he expects there will be "a fair amount of Republican obstructionism" to the nomination:
"The atmosphere in Washington is worse than I have ever seen it with gridlock. I think we have to be prepared for a real battle."
Cough.
It is also reported that Arlen Specter did not blink when making this statement. Further, high ranking officials in the Pennsylvania Democratic Party immediately praised Specter's unblinking reversal on Kagan as yet another sign of his political genius and electability. Because, you know, like, voters really dig this sort of thing.
In a related development, John Kerry doesn't know if Arlen Specter is Swiftboating Joe Sestak, but he can totally vouch for Arlen Specter's character either way. Because Arlen specter is s stand-up, straight-shooting kind of guy.
The two polls show very different favorable numbers. Morning Call puts Specter at 52% favorable, 35% unfavorable, while Rasmussen gives him 67%--31%. For Sestak, the numbers are 55%--14%, and 63%--22%. Essentially, the two candidates are running even in terms of favorable ratings, but Specter has higher name ID and higher unfavorables (by about 15% in each case).
If Specter is going to have any shot in this campaign, he is going to have to drive up Sestak's negatives. However, this is going to be very difficult:
Sestak is more electable than Specter The first attack Specter will use will be to argue that he is more electable than Sestak. Problem is, this simply isn't true. Even before Sestak's surge in the polls, he needed 68.2% of the undecided vote to hit 50.1% against Pat Toomey (17.4% of 25.5% undecided), while Specter needed 75.5% (10.5% of 13.9% undecided). Given that the general election polls used for those numbers were all taken before Sestak gained 25 points on Specter in the primary, it is highly likely that margin, which was already favorable to Sestak, is much more favorable to now. It is just flat wrong to say that Specter is more electable.
Democrats will not appreciate attacks against the military record of another Democrat The most memorable negative attack of the 2004 Presidential campaign were the Republican slanders against John Kerry's military record. Attacking Joe Sestak's military record has been the most common negative approach Specter has taken in this campaign. He is directly making these attacks "himself" over Twitter (three of his last four tweets have been to this effect), and has even run paid advertising using this attack. This is the sort of attack that Republicans have usually employed, and as such it is extremely hard to imagine how this sort of Swiftboat attack is going to appeal to Democrats. If anything, it will backfire. At a time when Sestak is running ads showing Specter with Bush, this could well just disgust Democrats and reinforce Sestak's attack.
Kagan could keep pressure on Specter The main attack Sestak is using against Specter is an ad featuring Specter saying he switched parties to win re-election, and George W. Bush saying that Specter is with him when it matters most. The major news story for this week will put Specter in exactly that box, as he voted not to confirm Elena Kagan for Solicitor General last year when he was still a Republican. As such, any move Specter makes in response to the dominant news story will reinforce that narrative. He is either still a Republican when it matters most, or he is an opportunist who only cares about re-election.
Specter's vote against Kagan is already the dominant news story on him today. In the middle of this news story, how trying to pivot to an attack on Sestak's military record will appeal to Democrats is impossible to imagine. This is just a terrible, terrible situation for Specter.
Now, with all that said, Sestak is still only ahead by 5%, and riding a pretty big wave of new, which often means movable, supporters. Maybe there will be something that Specter can come up with over the next eight days that will turn this around for him. Get involved in Joe Sestak's campaign, and let's close this one out:
At 10 a.m., eastern, today, President Obama is expected to announce that he is nominating Solicitor General Elana Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. While I do not have strong feelings about Kagan, I do believe in providing context to major news events, and hopefully that is what I can accomplish in this article. Here goes:
Ideology. Justice Stevens is widely regarded as the leading liberal voice on the Supreme Court. Kagan is considered to be more moderate and, as such, if she is confirmed, the court, on net, would shift to the right. Glenn Greenwald wrote the definitive article in this line of thinking four weeks ago. However, as I explain below, it does seem likely that any left-wing pushback against Kagan would probably only help her confirmation.
Demographics. At only 50 years of age, Kagan would be the youngest Supreme Court Justice. Also, Kagan would only be the fourth woman to serve on the Court ever, and it would be the first time in history that three women have served on the Supreme Court. Further, Kagan is Jewish, which means that there would be no Protestants on the Supreme Court for the first-time ever (currently six Catholics and two Jews).
Experience. Kagan has never been a judge, and would be the first Supreme Court Justice in 40 years without any judicial experience. However, all-time, one in three Supreme Court Justices have had no judicial experience. Further, it is unlikely that her lack of judicial experience will translate into an effective attack against her lack of qualifications, given that she clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, was Dean of Harvard Law School, and Solicitor General of the United States.
The Republicans who voted "yes" on Kagan last spring include: Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar.
Does this finish off Specter? To take a side track for a moment, the biggest loser in this fight, at least in the short-term, has to be Arlen Specter Last year, when he was still a Republican, Specter actually voted against Kagan. Now, with eight days until the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, and with Joe Sestak surging into a 47%-42% lead as of this morning, Specter faces an extremely difficult double-bind that aims right at the heart of the case against him. If Specter comes out in support of Kagan, then he looks like an opportunistic flip-flopper trying to appease Democratic voters and win an election. If Specter sticks by his vote from last year, then he just looks like a Republican. With Sestak blanketing the Pennsylvania airwaves with a devastating attack ad to this effect, Specter is in a world of hurt.
Potential roadblocks. Returning to Kagan, nomination fights like these are usually won or lost within the first 48 hours, making the next two days crucial no matter where you stand on Kagan. For a negative storyline to develop around her, typically it will require both Republicans and some Democrats to be making the same argument (such as the "crony" argument over Harriet Miers.) Here is a quick run-down of the expected attacks:
She taught with Obama at the University of Chicago. I anticipate the main attack against Kagan to try and replicate the Harriet Miers "crony" narrative. Kagan has no judicial experience, but did teach with President Obama in the early 1990's at the University of Chicago. Not sure how well this will stick, as Kagan is highly credentialed--far more so than Miers. However, combined with the attack below, there might be some problems.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute, according to the financial disclosures she filed when President Obama appointed her last year to her current post. Kagan served on the Goldman panel from 2005 through 2008, when she was dean of Harvard Law School, and received a $10,000 stipend for her service in 2008, her disclosure forms show.
A spokesman for Goldman Sachs did not respond to requests for comment Monday.
The advisory panel met once a year to discuss public policy issues and was not involved in any investment decisions, Justice Department spokesman Tracy Schmaler said.
While it is unclear exactly what being on this panel actually means about Kagan, even tenuous Wall Street ties like these might well hurt her in the confirmation fight. If there is some way that these ties combine with a whiff of cronyism, then Kagan opponents might have something, even if both those lines of attack are a bit tenuous on their own.
Diversity problems. Kagan had a pretty poor record on diversity hiring while she was at Harvard, although, unfortunately, it may not be out of the mainstream for top flight law schools. Any successful progressive opposition to Kagan would have to incorporate this critique. At the same time, it is difficult for me to imagine a progressive coalition defeating the fifth woman ever nominated to the Supreme Court, and the first African-American President, over diversity issues.
Kagan is too far to the right. This won't work. Not many Americans care about abstract ideological positioning, and Republicans won't parrot this talking point. If anything, such opposition would probably help Kagan's confirmation, by making her look moderate, or something. If progressives want to stop her from being confirmed, the absolute least effective attack will be going after her for being too far to the right.
Kagan is a blank slate. Hard for me to fathom how not knowing where a potential SCOUTS judge stands is going to light a fire of opposition to her. I say this both because of my experience on the Roberts confirmation fight, and because the general population doesn't demand clear issue positions from pretty much any electoral candidates, much less SCOTUS candidates.
If you want to beat Kagan, I believe the best line of attack is going to incorporate some combination of her never being judge, having previous connections to Obama, and having more recent connections to Goldman Sachs. Even if you want to defeat her for more ideologically-oriented, left-wing reasons, the core of opposition to her will be Republican, and the opposition will need to at least somewhat be on the same page.
Personally, I don't anticipate doing much in regards to this fight. There may well be reasons to worry about Kagan, but ultimately they seem vague. In fact, Greenwald's case against Kagan is grounded in the vagary surrounding Kagan, given how sparse her views are, how Kagan was largely silent during the Bush years, and how there are candidates with much clearer records. Further, while Kagan is likely further to the right than Stevens, perhaps even significantly so, but I have no confidence that Kagan's defeat would lead to President Obama nominating someone like Diane Wood.
Vagary just isn't enough for me to man the barricades. I will keep an eye out, but there are plenty of fights to choose from these days, I am not very excited about this one either way.
With Joe Sestak erasing Arleen Specter's once 20-point lead today, Pennsylvania Democratic Party chair TJ Rooney gets his concern-troll on:
The chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party issued a stern warning to members of his party this week, declaring that nominating Rep. Joe Sestak over Sen. Arlen Specter could have "cataclysmic" consequences for the party's ability to hold the Senate seat this fall.
As polls show Sestak, a second-term House member from the Philadelphia suburbs, cutting Specter's advantage to single digits, Chairman T.J. Rooney told POLITICO in an interview that "if we want to keep this seat in Democratic hands, the only person capable of delivering that victory is Arlen Specter."
"I can't say, honest and true, if the shoe's on the other foot, that we'll have the same race in November," Rooney said. "The results could be cataclysmic."
Rooney logic: the candidate who lost a 20-point lead in one month is more electable than the guy who candidate 20 points in one month. Kind of feels like the logic used by the Black Knight in Monty Paython's Holy Grail:
It is also worth noting how Rooneyy's currrent brand of concern trolling differs from his concern trolling in January. Back then, Rooney expressed concerned for Sestak because Sestak wasn't making up any ground in the Senate campaign:
"Looking specifically at the poll numbers, Sestak has picked up no momentum," Rooney said. "He's actually fallen behind ... if Joe Sestak were to run for re-election to Congress, he'd win."
So, Rooney is concerned when Sestak isn't making up any ground, and when Sestak is making up ground. Rooney is very concerned.
Joe Sestak has a new ad up in the Pennsylvania Senate campaign. Unlike his previous ad, which was focused on his biography, this is an attack ad on Specter:
Here is a transcript:
Sestak: I'm Joe Sestak, the Democrat. I authorized this message.
Specter: My change in party will enable me to be re-elected.
Narrator: For 45 years, Arlen Specter has been a Republican politician.
George W. Bush: Arlen Specter is the right man for the United States Senate. I can count on this man. See, that's important. His a firm ally.
Narrator: But now...
Specter: My change in party will enable me to be re-elected.
Narrator: Arlen Specter changed parties to save one job: his, not yours.
One year ago, the first ever Specter-Sestak poll showed that Arlen Specter's perceived motivation for switching parties was the most important issue in the election.
Among those inclined to believe Specter switched because agrees with Democrats more on the issues, he trumps a potential Democratic challenger by 56 points, 74 - 18 percent. However, among those who believe Specter's primary rational was political expediency, he trails a generic Democratic candidate by 32 points, 28 - 60 percent, suggesting that should more primary voters come to believe that Specter won't be a Democrat when it counts, the race could dramatically shift away from him.
When more Pennsylvanians believe that Arlen Specter switched parties to win re-election, his chances of victory decline rapidly. That is a pretty easy case to make, since Specter said as much back when he switched.
This ad, which is backed by a large monetary buy, twice shows Specter himself saying that he switched parties to win re-election. Showing him with Bush and Paalin won't help much, either. In fact, the praise from Bush could easily cancel out Specter's ads with Obama's praise, since that just emphasizes Specter's self-interested sucking up to power.
Even before this ad, Specter was already in a lot of trouble. The four polls taken entirely since Sestak started running paid media average to 46.0%--40.8%. The rapid shift toward Sestak reveals what was always Specter's underlying weakness in the campaign: Sestak has long led among Pennsylvania voters who are aware of both candidates. Even without more Pennsylvanians believing that Specter switched parties to save his job, Specter still could have lost the campaign if Sestak's name ID rose high enough (which the bio ad and relentless campaigning is accomplishing).
Finally, that last point underscores how expected low Democratic turnout could doom Specter once and for all. Democratic turnout is way down in primaries this year, compared not only to 2008 but also to 2006 and 2002. Lower turnout is going to increase the percentage of news junkies in the electorate, and thus the name ID of Joe Sestak in the electorate. As such, it is entirely possible that Sestak is already ahead among the people who will actually vote. Current polling may be picking up a broader range of voters who are lower information, who don't know Sestak, but who won't show up on May 18th.
40 days from today - on May 18 - we will see two HUGE primaries for U.S. Senate. Even if you're not from either of these two states, these races impact Democrats across the country and, well, the entire country as a whole.
In Pennsylvania, Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak will try to upset Republican-for-decades Arlen Specter.
In Arkansas, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter will try to upset corporate lackey Blanche Lincoln.
These two races are tremendously important to defining who and what the Democratic Party is and what we will be fighting for.
If you can volunteer for these candidates (or encourage friends and family in Pennsylvania and Arkansas to do so), that would be amazing.
Of course, if you can help with a contribution to either or both via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page as soon as possible, it will make a big impact.
Polling shows that both Specter and Lincoln are at risk of - if not likely to - hand these Senate seats over to far-right-wing Republicans. (And, even if these two retain the seats, that's not much better on many key issues.)
Congressman Sestak and Lieutenant Governor Halter winning these primaries are critical to keeping these seats in truly Democratic hands. Your support can help make that happen! Please hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page right away to make a contribution - an investment in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to pull out an old expression - and show your support.
Thanks SO much for any support you can provide. 40 Days.
The wingnuttiest proposal from a Democratic Senate candidate this cycle is Arlen Specter's flat tax.
For fifteen years, Arlen Specter has supported a 20% flat tax proposal that would slash taxes on the rich and significantly raise them on working families. He introduced it as recently as March of last year.
While it was reasonable to assume that Specter had dropped this position now that he had become a Democrat, Specter's website is still promoting the plan and his campaign spokespeople are still defending his flat tax proposal today:
Rep. Joe Sestak opened a new front in his assault on Sen. Arlen Specter as his campaign criticized the incumbent's long-standing support for a flat tax to replace the current income tax system.(...)
Chris Nicholas, Mr. Specter's campaign manager, dismissed the criticism as "yet another negative attack from Sestak.''
"Because his attack didn't spell out any new approach on this issue, he must be endorsing the status quo, odd for a guy who keeps trying to tell us he's an outsider,'' Mr. Nicholas said. "Specter's flat tax would downsize the IRS and save all Americans time and money. Sestak should explain why he's against that.'
This article is from today. And from Specter's website, he adds that he would like to see the estate tax and dividend taxes permanently repealed in their entirety:
In March 1995, I introduced the first bill in the Senate that would create a Federal flat tax. This legislation proposes completely replacing current tax provisions with an across-the-board 20 percent Federal tax on the income of individuals and businesses. I also included provisions in this bill that would eliminate the estate tax as well as the tax on dividends. In the 110th Congress, I reaffirmed my commitment to reforming the Federal tax system by introducing similar flat tax legislation.
Now, I work for Joe Sestak, so take this with whatever grain of salt you want. However, no matter who the messenger is on this one, this is hard-core right-wing tax policy. It is coming from a Democratic Senator in Pennsylvania, and he is still promoting it on his Senate website, and defending it through campaign spokespeople.
Oh, Specter doesn't think the Christmas bombing subject should have been read Miranda rights, either.
And remember Specter coming out against the war in Afghanistan? Well, he hasn't introduced a single bill, or cast a single vote against the war, but he has since suggested that we pre-emptively attack Yemen.
This is some pretty right-wing stuff. If you don't think Arlen Specter will maintain a façade of supporting progressive policies once the primary is over, check out Joe Sestak. He is on Facebook and Twitter, too.
