Why Specter bailed: Credit the PA voters-don't blame Toomey

Submitted by Ironman on Wed, 04/29/2009 - 20:10

The DC insiders are in a mood from bemused angst to irrational frustration over Arlen Specter's decision to switch teams in the middle of the game. Much of the ill will is based on the theory that Specter's hand was forced by the likes of Pat Toomey and various fi-cons who ran him out.

While this makes for a good story, it is fundamentally flawed. Specter's apotasy on fiscal conservativism did seal his fate; but a close reading of poll results indicate that it wasn't a cabal of conservative power brokers that doomed Arlen Specter, it was an uncontrollable revolt of the Republican peasantry.

I'm a numbers guy and the March Quinnipiac poll is pretty conclusive in my book.

Specter was polling at only 27% in the ballot test for a Republican primary, and Toomey was at 41%. But Toomey only had 26% statewide name recognition among Republicans.

So 1/3 of Toomey's vote against Specter were folks who didn;t have an opinion about who he was.!

That isn't a vote ginned up for Toomey, or even a vote for his agenda. It's a pure repudiation of Specter.

Specter's favorable/unfavorable ratio deteriorated badly from November 2008. That's the stimulus vote. Pure and simple. 53% of Republicans in PA decided Specter didn't deserve another term.

So, how exactly is this Pat Toomey's problem again?

Had Pat Toomey not run, some lesser known Republican candidate would have found this dry kindling and lit the same fire under Specter. Think about Ned Lamont, or Al D'Amato.

The British SAS has a mantra --"Who Dares, Wins".

Had Jim Gerlach or Pat Meehan or Tom Corbett jumped into this race ahead of Toomey, they might well be the GOP nominee-in-waiting. But they deferred to seniority, unwisely in retrospect. They --or some other less conservative candidate--might oppose Toomey. The DC GOP would be well advised to quit while it's behind and let Keystone State Republicans sort this out.

The Beltway GOP is irrelevant as per Scott Rasmussen.

To be relevant in politics, you need either formal power or a lot of people willing to follow your lead. The governing Republicans in the nation’s capital have lost both on their continuing path to irrelevance.

"Yeah, it's a traversty the actual voters we represent don't appreciate the great talents of Arlen Specter and want to vote for a fiscal conservative, and let "electability" be dammed"

If the Beltway Republicans screw around here any more, they will only make matters worse and embarass themslves.

Besides, my read on the Q poll is to the extent Specter has support among non-Republicans, it's awful soft---his re-elect and "hard" ballot tests aren;t great. Think "liked, not well liked". He may not hold up well over the next 18 months.

I saw what happened to Joe Lieberman once a Democratic challenger put him on trial for supporting the Iraq war. Think this won't happen to the pro-war Specter in a primary?

96 % of PA Democrats viewed George W. Bush unfavorably before the 2008 election.

Who endorsed Specter in 2004?

What primary is Specter running in again?

I dunno. Why can't Toomey or another competent Republican beat Joe Sestak or that Torrella dude?

Here's some advice to our party "leadership". How about backing candidates your members actually want to vote for?

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Ironman's blog
Login or register to post comments

Comments

Specter was a RINO Opportunist, now just an opportunist

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Wed, 04/29/2009 - 20:38.

Here's the ultimate reality - Specter abused the GOP. The battered Republicans were ready to kick him out of the house, and he decamps, the ultimate political opportunist ... You are right - the ONLY thing that got him to move was the polling results, he'd have stayed Republican if it could get him re-elected.

If the beltway Republicans are fretting over this - they are out of touch. Most Conservatives say "Good riddance, thanks for leaving, about time" or "who'd notice the difference?"

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/04/thank-you-arlen-specter.html

Pat Toomey, the conservative who ran against him in 2004 and is running again, responded: "For our campaign, not much changes."

That says it all IMHO.

You Democrats want him? Go ahead keep him.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/04/specter-of-opportunism-jumps-s...

I would add that dinosaurs like Specter, Byrd, Kennedy, Lautenberg and few others should be put into forced retirement anyway. Its horrible how these guys cling on to power. They are poster-geriatrics for Term Limits.

Kennedy continues to KICK ASS,

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 10:03.

and that's your side voting him for tops in bipartisanship!

(note to Ironman: somehow Dodd managed to get on both the most partisan and most bipartisan lists.)

Orrin Hatch on your side, for being 'bipartisan' without being moderate.

Byrd is a nutty old rules lawyer, I could see him going, but he continues to do wonders for a hard luck state.

What has Lautenberg done ever?

If you're a Dem, the Club For Growth is GREAT!

Submitted by skayne on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 02:19.

No staunch conservative can win PA. See Philly, Philly suburbs, Pittsburgh. Conservatives get slaughtered in all 3 areas, and the rest of PA isn't enough to bring you back. Now, a moderate, like a Tom Ridge, can win the state. A moderate, like Specter, who's always won the state. A staunch conservative gets slaughtered, see Rick Santorum.

This will be like the umpteenth time that a Club For Growth primary produces a devout conservative. It will also be the umpteenth time that candidate gets slaughtered in a blue state.

The Club For Growth has done a great job getting more Dems into the House or Senate. They haven't done a very good job getting a conservative in.

hmm, did you read this post?

Submitted by Ironman on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 05:47.

The Republican rank and file turned on Specter. Blaming the "Club for Growth" is like blaming the guardrail when the car goes off the road.

Also, BTW, the "slaughtered" Rick Santorum won twice statewide. I think his job performance in his final term--including endorsing Specter-- might have been more relevant to his drubbing than his philosophy per se.

Now there is some fine twisted thinking

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 09:15.

I think his job performance in his final term--including endorsing Specter-- might have been more relevant to his drubbing than his philosophy per se.

Santorum was defeated in the GENERAL - not the primary - by a whopping 18%. The idea that his endorsement of Specter, who won his race by 11% in 2004, played a part is just ridiculous.

A good place to start in reforming the right would be to acknolwedge that there is such a thing as an objective realitity - you can't just make it up to suit the way you wish things were.

It's sadly common

Submitted by Liberally Conse... on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 11:03.

To think that staunch, down-the-line conservatives make up 60% of the population, and the trick is to get them out to vote.

They're 25%. Less in PA. And their numbers are shrinking. You're doing it wrong.

you know what santorum means, right?

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 10:05.

this ties into how the creative class wins the democrats elections.

The Club for Growth

Submitted by thirdeblue on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 06:46.

The Club for Growth can/does also stand for all those voters would support such a candidate over an actually electable one. It would be like liberals voting in large margins for an unelectable candidate like Ralph Nader or Gavin Newsom in Ohio and wondering why they can't win elections. Or the only electable Democrat switches to a Republican.

Unlike what you might like to believe, the Democrats get quite a bit from having Specter switch, although it is probably more of a negative to Republicans than a plus for Democrats. If Specter thinks he's going to obstruct EFCA or obstruct health care reform and win a primary in Pennsylvania than he really is a moron. He doesn't have to VOTE for them, as long as he just votes for cloture. The Democrats will be more than happy to pass legislation 54-46 over and over and over again.

he voted for more money to health care in the stimulus

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 11:48.

didn't take much armtwisting either.

I live in PA

Submitted by skayne on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 06:50.

He won twice statewide when the state had a different makeup. The dem id advantage in PA is now 1.1 million voters. There's 1 million independents. 3.2 million repubs. If you only appeal to the base, you have to get almost all of them to come out and win 75% of independents, while at the same time hoping the Demcocrat can only turn out about 80% of his base. Impossible.

You can't win independents in the state being a staunch conservative. That's the reality. Specter barely beat Toomey in the primary- i.e., the base. He killed in the general election.

The opposite is true for Santorum. He handily won his primary, and he got killed in Philly, the Philly suburbs, and Pittsburgh, in the general election. Staunch conservatism can't win those areas. I am a PA resident. I know. He lost those areas by about 500 to 600 grand in votes. Game over.

You also fail to realize the Club For Growth's record. They've ousted, or weakened repubs in many states, which led to the seat becoming democratic.

PA didn't dramatically change demographically

Submitted by Ironman on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 07:04.

The state has had slow population growth for decades and little in-migration. Party registration shifted to the Democrats. There are some reasons for that---disdain for Bush, hot Dem primaries for various offices--et al. But Santorum got 45% of the vote in metro Philly just 9 years ago.

And Specter in '04 won by about 10 points. Not quite "killed". Here's the breakout http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/PA/S/01/epolls.0.html A Dem who ran stronger in WPA than Hoeffle would have been a real challenge for him.

You still haven't dealt with my main point; which is that rank-and-file GOP voters turned on Specter. Based on the Q poll, almost half of his 2004 voters were no longer in his camp. If he couldn't hold his own moderates, why was that Toomey's fault?

incredulous

Submitted by skayne on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 09:44.

You don't consider an election were you beat your opponent by over 10 points a killing when your opponent has like a 700 grand advantage in party ID during 2004? And Bob Casey won Philly county by almost 300 grand in votes! 45 percent in the surrounding area is death for a candidate.

Specter didn't lose moderates. Moderates left the party and became dems. That's part of the constituency in PA. There are far more people who are dems than repubs. He has to take into consideration their views or they will vote him out. He has to worry about the whole state!

Conservatives think he's only supposed to consider their views. Like i said, if that were the case, a dem would have had that seat years ago.

Still, he was there for repubs on crucial issues. He voted for the war and all the subsequent funding bills, he voted for all the tax cuts, he voted to confirm Roberts, practically all the important things to conservatives.

You people need to realize that the GOP proposed their own stimulus plan. It was more expensive then the dem's plan. It was all tax cuts, no job creation. People without work and no employment insurance aren't paying any taxes. How were they going to pay for that?

Naw I think a "killing" is more like 20-25 points

Submitted by Ironman on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 17:54.

Specter only ran 5-6 points ahead of Bush against a relatively weak opponent. That's good, but not shocking.

For the record, I know folks who worked for Specter in '04. He's far from the worst senator we've elected and he's been rather effective over a long run. on a lot of issues.. But the post-GWBush GOP has moved hard line on fiscal issues. I just don;t think Arlen fully appreciated how deep the change has been. The other point is Specter is in his last lap. The PA GOP at some point needed to confront his replacement. The timetable just got advanced.

slowpopulationgrowth?

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 11:51.

no. wrong. bad.

population LOSS. Specifically centered in Western PA.

This is why we don't have a Western PA Senator anymore. The powerbase just isn't there.

"A dem who ran stronger in Appalachia" would be necessarily weaker in philly, where the votes are.

Still cling bitterly

Submitted by bronden fresar on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 08:27.

"rank-and-file GOP voters turned on Specter"?

So, the extremists turned on Specter. You say that, as if its a good thing. You prolly believe with all your dear little heart that Palin would make a better president than Obama, instead of being about 53 times worse. And 34 times worse than bush.

The moderate goppers switched to the Democrats, like 200.000 of them re-registered. That is huge. Specter simply went with them.

You're asking, why blame Toomey? while you forget the bigger question, because you don't see the larger issue, which gives me hope:

Why da F=== couldn't Specter hold on to moderates? Because the Repubs became RepuKKKes, so to speak. Because Bush is still loved by the RNC, they didn't distance themselves from him, not soon enough. There WERE Republicans who were critical of Bush, yet real conservatives, who were REAL about fiscal conservatism. They all got booted out, silenced, killed off, promoted away, kicked to the private sector.

You people still haven't got a clue, you still cling bitterly to your vindictive, mean, bleachy white conservative ideas. You STILL don't see everything that is wrong with those. Good riddance to Specter? Good riddance to you!

I mean, "why blame Toomey?" Who GIVES A FLYING EFFING RATS ASS???

Dignity, sir

Submitted by Liberally Conse... on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 12:40.

You're a guest on a conservative website. As a guest, don't be condescending and self-righteous. If you have an argument, say it. If you have liberal memes to spout, please say them where adults aren't talking.

LibCon,

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 13:02.

he's making valid points, imnsho. so maybe you're being offended at his tone... ;-)

at any rate, he's hardly offtopic, and he's contributing specific points to the discussion.

It's more of his language

Submitted by Liberally Conse... on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 13:56.

And his point is a pretty popular one that many people on this website, myself included, have been making. It's the fact that this is probably another guy who made an account a couple days ago, and his contribution to the discussion is nothing new, thoughtful, or refreshing, just the same thing I read on the Kos comment section yesterday, complete with the biases of Republicans that a few days on this website will temper.

Yes, I read Kos, I like to see what both sides think of current events. That being said, if I tried to make a moderate conservative comment there, it'd either get deleted, or I'd face the full fury of the echo chamber. So, I don't think a call for civility is asking much : ).

I agree. thanks for bothering to explain more fully.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 14:21.

for all that I swear a lot, I try to be a pinch more reasonable in listening first, speaking second ;-)

hopefully OP will read this and understand some of the mistakes he's making. on the other hand, he posted the thing on SwineFluConspiracy, so I doubt it.

Guest?

Submitted by bronden fresar on Fri, 05/01/2009 - 08:15.

Wait, if I wasn't a progressive, I wouldn't be a guest? If I said what you wanted to hear, I wouldn't be a guest?

Where DOES this 2nd-class-citizenship thinking come from? Oh wait ...

BTW. the swine flu thing was a question for arguments AGAINST any conspiracy. Instead, I get more xenofobia and circled-wagons thinking.

What all this declaring of "you're a guest, so you don't count" does for you, is give you an excuse not to address my points, which are:

1. Nobody cares about why Toomey should be or should not be blamed. how is playing the blame game gonna get you anywhere. But i will sit and watch it, its a good show.

2. The question shouldn't be why Specter couldn't hold on to the moderates, the question should be: why couldn't McCain and/or Santorum?

okay. now you're being slightly clearer.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 05/01/2009 - 08:57.

2. is NOT what you said, and you were being an arse.

What you came across as saying is "why can't you guys be moderates" -- which is what EVERYONE else has been saying. Except for all the stupidheads (hehe. please, I'm just being silly, chemjeff-don't-kill-me).

So you said an old argument like nobody here had said it before. Which just a little bit of reading would have told you that's not the case. LibCon got a trifle annoyed at that, which is understandable.

And your question on the swine-flu made you look like a conspiracy theorist. That's mostly because it was your first diary, and lacking any other way to figure out who you were... well, you jumped the gun in assuming who's on here, and I jumped the gun (probably) in who you were. So we're even.

McCain ran way way right, and ended up alienating Florida and New Hampshire, who both said "we like Mccain" -- not the gop in general.