Sestak Closes on Specter, Endorsed By Ned Lamont

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 13:15


Big momentum from the Sestak campaign!

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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%.

    And speaking of Ned Lamont, he will endorse Congressman Sestak on Monday:

    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!

  5. 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:

    Sestak 38.9%--37.2% Toomey
    Toomey 43.0%--41.8% 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!

Joe Sestak's campaign website
Joe Sestak on Facebook
Joe Sestak on Twitter
Joe Sestak on Act Blue

Chris Bowers :: Sestak Closes on Specter, Endorsed By Ned Lamont

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Specter Has Major Trouble! (4.00 / 2)
Specter is MUCH weaker than his showing in 2004 of course. Then he was running as an incumbent Republican. He's NEVER run as a Democrat before. And he's having to tack violently to the left to have any chance of survival. But, given his history nobody believes he has ANY principles at all.

All Republicans and Republican leaning independents now hate him even more. Democrats are skeptical. He's caught hanging in the middle with no passionate base of committed supporters.

Democratic primary voters have no history of supporting him and have never voted for him before. There's no reason to think they will if given a choice in the matter.

Thus, the ONLY way I think he survives a primary is if Obama is able to force Sestak out of the race by leaning on his financing and making sure that no major Dem organizations endorse him.

That ain't happening. So if Sestak can get enough financing together to run a decent campaign, then Arlen is gone.

He can't even pull a Lieberman, since Republicans now hate him. They will be united behind their candidate. And there aren't enough Independents for him to win a 3 way race.


To those people who were pessimistic or hostile when Specter switched parties, (4.00 / 2)
and argued that we'd gain little and possibly lose some caucus discipline (such as there was) through his switch:

what do you think of the fact that Specter is now considered a guaranteed yes vote on cloture, and a probable yes vote on the underlying bill, even if it includes a strong public option?

I realized Sestak's primary challenge has influenced his behavior, which is why I strongly supported the idea of a primary challenge.

But had Specter not switched, we'd be at 59 votes and dependent on either his Republican vote or Snowe's to pass a bill (without using the nuclear option, that is, and as Chris has noted, the Dems would rather pass a weak bill with Snowe than a strong bill with the nuclear option).

I think we got a lot out of his switch.  But many people were against the idea of the Dem establishment's allowing him to switch and offering their assistance in any future primary in exchange.

I realize that we wouldn't be getting such reliable votes without a primary challenge, but we also wouldn't be getting such reliable votes if he hadn't switched at all, no?  They were both necessary elements to getting these votes in this session of Congress, by my lights.

But what do the people who were against his switch entirely think?


well in fairness whats happening now was always the dream scenario (0.00 / 0)
As soon as he declared I thought that if we could mount a credible primary challenge against him it would absolutely be the best of both worlds. All of a sudden we have Specter tripping over himself in a dash to the left (I frankly cannot BELIEVE the stuff he has been saying about demanding that the PO be robust, just talk but still)- which will be incredibly important in the next year, and then come november of 2010 we have sestak as a senator- not bad at all.

My question is what happens when Obama starts to campaign for Specter, or if Sestak's numbers are great by the beginning of next year will the administration reconsider its full-throated support?


the funk can move and the funk can remove- dig?


[ Parent ]
To expand on that (0.00 / 0)
I think what the liberal base was objecting to was if Specter switched AND he was the guaranteed nominee, with no primary challenge.  And that was what it looked like it was going to be before Sestak starting making noises, as the entire Democratic establishment was going to bat - and clearing the field - for Specter.

I don't think any liberals would have objected to Specter switching AND a strong liberal primary challenge to not only pressure him but replace him, as we have now.  As casper put it, that's indeed the "dream scenario".

I do think the threat of losing the primary is what's holding him in line, though.  If Sestak wasn't challenging him Specter would have zero pressure to vote for cloture; he could freely flout the Obama administration and they would have no means of reprisal, unless a strong minor party liberal runs in the general.


[ Parent ]
"dream scenario" (0.00 / 0)
More DLCers in either House is a nightmare to me as a progressive lefty. The DP is too anti-progressive now, and needs FEWER DLCers, Blue Dogs, and their fellow travelers, not MORE.

[ Parent ]
Will he pull a Joe (0.00 / 0)
If he loses can he win as an independent like Holy Joe did ?
I guess not but perhaps with Obama's support...

He legally can't (0.00 / 0)
He'd have to start running as an independent now, which is actually I think the smartest way to go for him.

[ Parent ]
Well he can't do that *now* (4.00 / 1)
he'd look truly ridiculous then.  It would only have made sense to run as an independent from the beginning, rather than switching to the Dems back in April.

But he polled that option extensively, and press reports were that the polling did not look good.  There were just not enough moderate voters to get to 40% of the vote in a three-way contest.  He needs either the Democratic or the Republican ballot line to be re-elected.  At least, that's what he concluded in April.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, that's what I meant, from the beginning (0.00 / 0)
I did not know that he had polled the independent candidacy option.

The thing is, running as an independent would seem to make a lot more sense than running as a Democrat, since he can use the Lieberman strategy to peel off enough moderate, disaffected Republicans (granted, a shrinking portion of the electorate) and moderate Democrats who've supported him before to eke out a win.


[ Parent ]
Cheerleading for DLC candidates. (0.00 / 0)
Just what parts of DLC philosophy attract you? NAFTA? Deregulation, privatization`and the rest of the neoliberal schtick? The imperial foreign policy? Expanding military budgets? Opposition to single-payer? More corporate welfare? Bailouts for banksters?

Of course none of us likes that stuff (0.00 / 0)
In fact, it still pains me that Specter is at least nominally more supportive of single-payer than Sestak is.  But make no mistake: if Specter is reelected he will automatically go back to being a centrist/conservative pain in the ass.  With Sestak, not only do we get someone who started out further to the left, but we gain momentum for our side and serve notice to the Democratic establishment that the base can and will decide against them.  Not to mention that since Sestak will likely get the support of more liberal Democrats and Specter the more moderate/conservative, a Sestak victory would represent a liberal victory and a Senator Sestak will owe his position to the liberal wing of his party.

[ Parent ]
"That stuff" = DLC positions. Sestak chooses to affiliate with them. (0.00 / 0)
If a DLC win is "momentum for our side," I'm not on that side.

The DLC naming its think-tank the "Progressive Policy Institute" is much like the Russian fascist Zhirinovsky calling his party the "Liberal Democratic Party."


[ Parent ]
I know what you mean (0.00 / 0)
but there are problems with letting Specter win the primary, and, for better or worse, the only way to keep that from happening is for Sestak to win.

The problems with Specter winning are

1. Legislative: A primary challenge-free Specter can vote however he wants, and you can be sure that what he wants is far more right than the most DLCish of the DLCers, and far more right than how Sestak would vote.

2. Political: If Specter wins, the media story the next day is that moderation and a candidate's persona or whatever can and will triumph over liberal politics; the media will not focus or even mention Sestak's own moderate stances (that are nonetheless still far to the left of Specter's).  It'll be a blow to liberalism in general and liberals taking on the establishment in particular.  Just as Lamont's win in 2006 has empowered Sestak, a Sestak loss in 2010 will demoralize/deflate the campaigns against Lieberman, Nelson and Carper in 2012.

I understand and agree that normally electing centrist Democrats over Republicans is hardly worth it.  But this is not a usual centrist Democrat vs. conservative Republican race.  It's a somewhat liberal Democrat vs. a moderate Democrat/Republican, and the media is going to be closely watching this so they can disseminate their spin.  This is a real chance to, if not move the Senate to the left, to strike a blow at the hated DLC (which I'll bet is much more enthusiastic about Specter than about Sestak).

Now there is an argument that we should let Specter win so that when he retires in 2016 a real liberal can run.  While I'm receptive to that argument, I worry about a Specter win for the reasons I outlined above.


[ Parent ]





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search