Determining which members of Congress would have voted against the health care reform bill if the Stupak amendment had not been included is actually pretty easy:
House Whip James Clyburn said that the Stupak amendment netted ten votes:
"It was not 40 votes that we were trying to get with this amendment it was 10 votes. And that's the fact," Clyburn said on MSNBC. "This language took us across the threshold of 218, but it was 10 people. It wasn't 40 people as has been reported."
On July 1st, 26 House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi threatening to vote against the final bill unless the Stupak amendment was included. Of those 26, nine ended up voting for the bill:
Republican Joseph Cao also indicated he would have voted against the bill if not for the Stupak amendment.
Viola. Clyburn's ten votes are pretty easy to find.
There were 220 votes for health care reform in the House, and 218 will be required for passage on the conference report. So, in order to pass health care reform in the House without the Stupak amendment language, Democrats will need to replace as many as eight of these ten votes.
The best place to find those eight new votes would be from the 16 members of the House who voted against both the Stupak amendment and the final bill. These members thus opposed the bill for reasons that had nothing to do with the Stupak amendment:
It's a motley group that includes both conservatives from ultra-red districts (like Edwards and Minnick) and Progressives who ostensibly voted against the bill as the remnants of the Progressive Block (Kucinich and Massa). Perhaps the most notable feature of this group is that ten out of the sixteen members are in their first-term, compared to only two out of ten in the group that voted for the bill only because of the Stupak language.
These are the lists we have to work with to pass a health care bill without Stupak language, and with a public option. Off-hand, the easiest eight might be Kaptur (Progressive), Murtha (leadership), Boyd (primary challenge), Kissell (threats from donors, doesn't raise money well), Kucinich (Progressive, often faces primary challenges), Massa (Progressive), Murphy (never actually had to win a primary, still might face one) and someone.
It is a small enough group, and features enough members of either blue or purple districts, that primary challenges could potentially do the trick. I am not actually in favor of running primary challenges against people who voted against the health care bill, voted against Stupak, and co-sponsored Medicare for All, but there still should be enough blue and purple districts to get this done either way.
Thank you for contacting my office regarding a proposal to amend the Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I appreciate hearing your comments on this important matter.
In 1996, the Congress passed and the President signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I supported the passage of this legislation. This law has two important facets. First, the law defines marriage for the purpose of the Federal government as a union between one man and one woman. Second, it provides that no state or local jurisdiction may be forced to recognize a legal union created in another state or jurisdiction, if the definition of that union is contradictory to their own.
The legalization of same sex marriage in states such as Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts has led many citizens to believe it is necessary to amend the United States Constitution in order to protect traditional marriage. Although I support traditional marriage as defined in DOMA, and although I appreciate the goal of the proposed amendment, I do not believe it is necessary to amend the Constitution at this time.
I believe this is an issue most appropriately addressed at the state level, and most states are working hard to protect marriage. Indeed, nearly every state has enacted statutory or constitutional protection for traditional marriage. Furthermore, DOMA ensures those states will not be forced to recognize unions created in the handful of states with legalized same-sex marriage. Therefore, I believe it is premature to amend our founding document at this time.
Thank you for contacting my office regarding proposals to amend the Constitution to protect traditional marriage. Rest assured I will keep your thoughts on this issue in mind if the Senate considers this issue or any related issue. Should you have any further questions, please contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
The blogger who posted this letter, Hedo, has confirmed to me over email that this letter was received on September 22nd.
Arlen Specter is engaging in some of the more absurdly bald-faced flips that I have ever seen a candidate engage. He does not care about policy or ideological consistency--only about getting elected.
This all might be tolerable if Specter was simply saying that he was representing the majority wishes of his constituents. However, he keeps claiming that these about-faces are based on principle. Again, if Specter were to admit that his highest principle is getting elected, I would agree with him.
Imagine if every conservative Democrat had a primary challenge like Arlen Specter. Would there even be any question about passing the entire Obama administration agenda?
Reward good behavior--support Joe Sestak. The second Arlen Specter no longer faces a serious primary challenge, the second he no longer cares what progressives think.
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.
Rand Paul is in a reasonably close primary for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Kentucky. According to the two polls on the campaign, he trails Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson by an average of 13%. With the money bombs that the Paulites will send his way, with the teabaggers looking to become a force in Republican primaries, and with the general anti-establishment mood in the air right now, he could really win that nomination.
Given this, as a progressive, I have to wonder if there is a good reason why I shouldn't be contributing to Rand Paul's campaign for Kentucky Senate. My quick analysis suggests that such a contribution would be for the good of the cause.
First, if Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination for Kentucky Senate, current polling indicates that it would improve the chances of the Democratic nominee to win the campaign. In every poll, Paul performs worse than Grayson against both potential Democratic candidates.
Second, if Rand is anything like his father--and he certainly seems to be--then even if he were to win the general election, he would defect and vote with Democrats more often than any Republican Senator outside the state of Maine. On the votes that matter, Rand Paul's father, Ron, votes with progressives more often than any other Republican in Congress-- except for Rodney Alexander who was a Democrat until mid-2004 (Ralph Hall, third among Republicans who vote with progressives, was a Democrat until 1995). With a lifetime progressive crucial votes ranking of 23.50%, Paul even leaves supposed Republican moderates like Mike Castle (15.40%) and Mark Kirk (10.30%) in the dust. Paul towers over life-long Republicans when it comes to voting with Democrats.
Grayson, by contrast, would just be another drone in the Republican Borg collective, who we could count on for exactly zero votes of any importance. Paul would legitimately be much, much better than Grayson.
Hell, even the Democrats who might win would probably only be reliable on 50-70% of the most important votes, which is only about twice as many as we would get from Rand Paul. Further, we wouldn't have spend massive amounts of DSCC money, or water down legislation even before it reached the floor, to appeal to / defend Rand Paul's seat. We would get his 25% progressive voting record for free.
Not that I am saying I would work for Rand Paul in the general election. Just that I am saying I don't see why I shouldn't become a Rand Paul activist in the Republican primary. This is a Republican primary where the two main potential outcomes have a clear difference in quality for progressives. Whether or not he goes on to win the general election, Rand Paul securing the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky is a win-win for progressives. Why shouldn't I be working to make that happen?
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.
Would Progressives Primary Obama if He Compromises on the Public Option?
I have rarely met a primary challenge that I didn't like, but I can answer this question in one word: no.
It is not that I haven't considered primary challenges to a sitting Democratic President. Back in 2007, when Matt Stoller was floating Eliot Spitzer as a potential 2012 primary challenger to whichever Democrat ended up in the White House, I thought it was a good idea. Until his disastrous flame-out, Spitzer had just the right combination of qualities for a primary challenger to a Democratic President:
Doesn't play nicely with the Democratic leadership;
National political figure already elected to a major office;
Anti-corporate, populist and progressive.
Other than Eliot Spitzer, Russ Feingold, who had already declined to run for President, is the only other Democrat to fit these characteristics. So, even without Spitzer's flameout, no matter who had ended up President, there was an extremely-thin bench for credible potential primary challenges to sitting Democratic Presidents. Unless your name is Kennedy and the year is either 1968 or 1980, those are very difficult candidates to find. Before the Kennedy's, you have to go all the way back to Huey Long.
However, the way the 2008 election ended up turning out, a potential primary challenge was ruled out even slightly before Eliot Spitzer was no longer viable. The identity politics at play in the 2008 Democratic primary, combined with the equally identity-based and viscerally bigoted reaction to Obama from much of the Republican base, created a political environment that had rendered a primary challenge to either a President Obama or a President Clinton impossible.
Given the make-up of the Democratic base, and given historic nature of the first African-American or first female President, any primary challenge would have blown the Democratic coalition to shreds. Further, given the vicious identity-based attacks that have been throw at President Obama--attacks that would have been just as vicious had Clinton become President--the political environment was going to remain polarized and Democratic approval for a Democratic President was always going to be sky high. For example, check out Obama's incredible--and stable--numbers among Democrats:
In addition to the near total absence of credible challengers and the potential destruction to the coalition, there is simply no base of Democrats to use in a primary challenge against President Obama. That would have been the case for President Clinton, too.
There isn't going to be a primary challenge in 2012. Instead, a combination of Congressional primary challenges and the Progressive Block is the best short-term strategy available to increase progressive influence in D.C.
The unfolding story of the Democratic nomination process in the Minnesota 6th Congressional district is a "teachable moment" in progressive politics. From TPMdc:
The Democratic field to go up against Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is now shrinking, with 2008 nominee El Tinklenberg announcing that he has dropped out of the race in order to avoid a messy Democratic contest.
This could be a sign of the party circling around state Senate assistant majority leader Tarryl Clark, who got in the race in the past couple weeks. The other remaining Democratic candidate is Maureen Reed, a former University of Minnesota regent and 2006 Independence Party nominee for Lt. Governor, who raised a significant sum of money before Clark got in.
It is difficult to imagine a better anecdote to describe why so many Democratic elected officials are not responsive to the Democratic base.
Instead of the nominee in the Minnesota 6th being determined by the local Democratic voters (or, in Minnesota, DFLers), it has instead been determined by fundraisers.
Given this, if Maureen Reed goes on to defeat Michele Bachmann, who will she be more accountable to--the local Democratic voters, or to the fundraisers? Structurally speaking, the answer is clearly the fundraisers.
That Democrats ever convinced themselves primaries were a bad idea was one of the worst defeats to progressive politics in recent American history. Exchanging Democratic primaries for Democratic fundraising contests goes a long way to making Democratic elected officials unaccountable to the Democratic base, but very accountable to large donors.
All Democrats, all progressives, and really all Americans need to stop thinking that primaries are a bad thing. Since primaries are elections, such a belief is literally the same as thinking that elections are a bad thing.
If we voluntarily give up on primary elections, then we are voluntarily giving up on the concept of government that is accountable to the American people. The broken market for Democratic primaries, which does seem to be rebounding a bit of late, is one of the main reasons why the Democratic Party--or at least a significant percentage of Democrats--often appears to be more like yet another extension of Wall Street than like a real alternative to Republicans.
Speaking moments ago to a large and animated crowd of union organizers and health reform advocates in a brewing house just North of the Capitol, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) said he supports a public insurance option.
"Schumer has it right about having a public component," Specter said.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has taken a lead role on negotiations over the public option in the Senate Finance Committee, and earlier this year proposed a compromise: the committee's health care bill should include a public plan, he said, but one that competes on a level playing field with other insurers.
Specter's flip-flop simply must be the result of the increasing pressure he is feeling from Sestak. As such, progressive activists should be happy that our strategy of pressuring Democrats through primaries is validated, right? After all, this is a pretty clear example of a success for that strategy.
However, I'm finding myself depressed by this success. I got the "make them do it" blues, and here is why
The concept of making Democrats vote for more progressive legislation through primary challenges is predicted on the notion that we are dealing with people who are fundamentally self-centered, power hungry, and morally flexible. We believe primaries can pressure certain members of Congress into changing their minds on important votes because some members of Congress care more about keeping their job than about the legislation they pass. In other words, we are banking on members of Congress being power-hungry and immoral.
When we actually succeed in flipping votes on important issues through primary challenges, we should pat ourselves on the back for developing a successful political strategy. However, it is also very depressing because it verifies that the members of Congress who flipped their votes are, as I said above, self-centered, power hungry, and morally flexible. In addition to verifying that we have a successful political strategy, it also verifies that we are dealing with people who care more about acquiring personal power than about the impact their decisions have on real people.
So yeah, its great that a primary has forced Specter to flip his position on the public option. However, I also find it very depressing that a man who has represented me in the Senate for the past twelve years (I moved to Pennsylvania in 1997) seems to care more about maintaining personal power than about the people he represents. He only did the right thing because he is worried about losing his job.
(Via Swing State Project) According to a report in The Hill, a state legislator in Pennsylvania has introduced a bill to make the Pennsylvania primary open (that is, any Pennsylvania registered vote can participate), instead of the current closed format (that is, only Pennsylvanians who have registered as Democrats can vote). The Hill argues that such an open primary would benefit, and is the work of, Arlen Specter:
Such an approach could feasibly help Specter (D-Pa.) win the Democratic primary, too, as he prepares for a challenge from the left from Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.).
The timing could be more than coincidental.
When The Hill sat down with Specter before his party switch, he talked about opening up the primaries in Pennsylvania to independent voters, in the name of helping him defeat a conservative primary challenger. He acknowledged he was contacting state legislators in hopes of doing just that.
While it is highly likely that this bill is being introduced in the hopes of benefiting Specter, and that the pro-Specter Democratic leadership of the state had a hand in introducing the bill, the overall effort is flawed from the start. This is because polling shows clearly that an open primary would benefit Joe Sestak, not Arlen Specter:
Specter is much weaker among Independents and Republicans than Democrats. Among registered Democrats that self-identify as Independent or Republican, Joe Sestak already leads 46%--39%, according to the detailed GQR poll on the campaign (PDF, page 12). Further, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll on the campaign, Specter's favorability among Republicans was only 18%, his favorability among Independents was 46%, and his favorability among Democrats was 70%. Given these numbers, it is hard to imagine how introducing more Independents and Republicans into the electorate would actually help Specter. Pennsylvania Republicans hate Arlen Specter, and they will come out to vote against him en masse in the primary if given the opportunity.
Specter loses if he appears to be trying to win at all cost. Here is one of the two money quotes from the GQR polling memo (page 4):
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
If Specter has already acknowledged that he tried to make an open primary to save himself electorally, then any legislative attempt to create an open primary will only reinforce statewide opinion that Specter is acting mainly to save his own job. As the GQR poll shows, no message could be more damaging to Specter's re-election chances than that (expect, possibly, when people learn that Joe Sestak exists, given that Sestak leads 52%-44% among Democrats who have heard of both candidates.)
So please, by all means, make Pennsylvania an open primary. As a Sestak supporter, I can think of few moves that would do more to help defeat Arlen Specter.
President Obama has nominated Republican Representative John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army. It is not exactly thrilling that yet another major national security position in the Obama administration has gone to a Republican. McHugh scores pretty low on military matters according to progressive punch, and his DW-nominate score hovers around a not-moderate 0.3. After Democrats retook Congress in 2006 largely because of Iraq, and after President Obama won the Democratic nomination significantly because of his early opposition to the war, it gives me a warm feeling for Republicans to still be occupying so many key national security positions.
Anyway, my complaining about Obama's appointments never seems to get anywhere. I'm sure that by appointing McHugh, Obama has somehow made a super-progressive move.
One ray of hope is that the NY-23, which covers much of the "hump" in northern New York State, will now have a special election. With a PVI of R+1, it was won by President Obama, and is actually slightly more favorable for Democrats than the NY-20, where Democrat Scott Murphy won a special election two months ago. McHugh himself proved unassailable, even during two consecutive wave elections for Democrats (he won by a little over 20% in both 2006 and 2008), but the seat is now clearly winnable.
However, I also worry that many of the same problems that appeared in NY-20 will be repeated in NY-23. Four months ago, Scott Murphy was selected by local party leaders as the Democratic nominee without a primary election. Murphy then immediately promised to apply for membership in the Blue Dogs once he entered Congress. Progressives were thus completely shut out from the process right at the start. Will the same thing happen in NY-23?
In the NY-23, as with other special elections taking place right now, as many progressive grassroots organizations as possible need to make it clear that they are not going to give money to any Democratic candidate who refuses to rule out joining the Blue Dogs when entering Congress. All progressive criticisms of the Blue Dogs are cancelled out and rendered utterly ineffective if we continue to funnel hundreds of thousands of small donor dollars to Blue Dog candidates. In fact, if the progressive grassroots are donating to Blue Dog candidates, it makes no sense for any Democratic candidate not to attempt to join the Blue Dogs. If Blue Dog membership can open small donor doors, and corporate PAC doors for you, then why would any Democratic candidate not just promise to try and join the Blue Dogs?
Further, we need to start making noise about the need for a primary election, and fight back against the plutocratic meme that such elections are too expensive right now. The day when our elected officials declare that we can't afford to hold new elections is the day that the American experiment in democracy ends once and for all. It is an offensive, terrible argument to make. There needs to be a primary in NY-23, and we need to be loud about the need for one.
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).
Democratic primary: Republican polling out Public Opinion Strategies shows Specter leading Sestak 57%-20% in the Democratic primary. While it may seem strange to hear me say this, these are not terrible numbers. This week will be the all-time peak for Specter's popularity among Pennsylvania Democrats. If 57% is the best he can do, without anyone really making the case against him from a Democratic perspective, then he is vulnerable.
Now, these are not great numbers for Sestak, either. While he would likely receive the lion's share of undecideds due to his low name ID, I had been hoping for him to be within 20% of Specter. Had that been the case, then he would have been virtually assured of victory in the event of a primary challenge. While these numbers show that he could potentially win, they also show it would be far from a slam dunk. The relative difficulty of this campaign versus winning re-election in the increasingly Democratic PA-07 might cause him to think twice about running statewide.
Republican Primary: The same poll shows Tom Ridge ahead of Pat Toomey in the Republican primary 60%-23%. While the gap is the same as the Democratic primary, the 37% deficit here is worse for Toomey than for Sestak. After all, Toomey has already won 49% of the vote in a previous Pennsylvania primary, so a 37% deficit for him is based less on name ID and a favorable week for his opponent, than it is for Sestak.
"There's still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner."
Not only is Specter still voting with Republicans, he is still make public statements on their behalf during elections. What a great deal for us so far.
I asked Sestak what those issues were beyond EFCA, and he proceeded to list just about every major item on the Democratic agenda: Economic security for Pennsylvanians--Specter voted for the Bush tax cuts; health reform--which Specter helped derail in the 1990s; education--reducing costs, and increasing quality so that Pennsylvania doesn't compete with Florida for the honor of being the oldest state in the union; the environment; and national defense--Specter voted, of course, for the Iraq war.
But according to Sestak, even if Specter moves in the right direction, the more important question is whether or not he'll actually stick to those new positions going forward. If Specter's re-elected, he'll be senator (potentially) until 2016, and Sestak worries he won't be reliable over time.
Sestak is already offering a campaign-style argument in interviews. That is a pretty strong indication he will run.
If Sestak does run, he would be wise to wait at least another few weeks. First, he needs to clarify his position on a public health care option, which so far he has not supported. Second, he needs to see if Tom Ridge will run, and avoid being swamped by the media frenzy that would accompany such an announcement. Third, he needs to wait for the honeymoon Specter is feeling among Pennsylvania Democrats to wear off a bit, which normally takes a minimum of three weeks. Fourth, we all need to hear more about Joe Toresella (what are his positions? will he stay in the campaign much longer?), as a divided primary field against Specter would probably make a challenge more difficult. All in all, he would be wise not to announce before Memorial Day.
As hot as the campaign seems right now, the primary is still a year away. As such, there is still plenty of time to let the field settle before deciding on the best course of action.
Joe Sestak's primary challenge to Arlen Specter becomes more likely with every passing day. First, consider consider how Sestak's public statements on a challenge have evolved in just the last six days:
Before Specter got in the race, Sestak said he had no intention of attempting a bid for the Senate. After Specter made his switch that all changed. First Sestak criticized Specter for lacking principles. Then said he'd wait to see what Specter stands for before making any decisions. Then Friday he said he was "thinking about getting in" to the race. Now he tells Greg "[i]f [Specter] doesn't demonstrate that he has shifted his position on a number of issues, I would not hesitate at all to get in."
If we are at the point where Specter can only avoid a primary challenge unless he changes his position on "a number of issues," then a primary challenge is all but a foregone conclusion. Consider Specter's public unwillingness to change:
After vowing not to support cloture on the Employee Free Choice Act in his first day as a Democrat, and then voting against the Democratic budget in his second day as a Democrat, Arlen Specter has now, in his third day as a Democrat, voted against the housing bankruptcy reform legislation known as "cramdown."
He also continues to oppose a key Obama nominee, and is against a public option for health care reform. No Democrat, not even Evan Bayh or Ben Nelson, has acted against the Obama administration this often, and certainly not on this number of major pieces of legislation.
If Sestak doesn't challenge Specter at this point, it will likely be because he decides it is not viable, rather than because Specter actually changes his positions. In that regard, Sestak would probably receive support from the the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and much of the netroots. However, he would still be going up against a massive array of Democratic Party leaders, including President Obama. Also, Specter currently has a sky-high, 80%+ approval rating among Pennsylvania Democrats.
It is a tough call for Sestak, but at the very least he is doing progressives a service by keeping his threat of a primary challenge so open and public. If Specter actually is going to start acting like a more reliable Democrat, there is a much better chance that he will do so with the sword of Sestak hanging over his head, then with the primary path cleared for him. As he revealed in his partisan switch, Specter clearly wavers when under threat of defeat.
There is conflicting information indicating whether a primary challenge to Arlen Specter is viable in Pennsylvania. Here are the pros and cons:
Pro Back in December, a Daily Kos / Research 2000 poll of Pennsylvania found Arlen Specter getting crushed among self-identified Democrats. Chris Matthews led Specter 76%-16%, Patrick Murphy led Specter 61%-18%, and Allyson Schwartz led 60%-18%. While none of those Democrats appear likely to run, that is still an eye-opening deficit for Specter against pretty much any Democrat. Keep in mind that Pennsylvania's partisan registration and closed primary system means that only registered Democrats can vote in a primary election.
Perhaps most importantly, the primary would take place in the Spring of 2010, right toward the end of the main legislative sessions. If, as in 2009, Arlen Specter casts the majority of his early 2010 votes against President Obama's legislation, he will look very bad on the campaign trail.
Con March polling from Quinnipiac shows that Specter has very high approval ratings among self-identified Democrats in Pennsylvania: 71%-16%.
It is likely that Specter's support for the stimulus package, which was highly publicized, along with his highly publicized switch to the Democratic Party, both has and will continue to boost his image among Pennsylvania Democrats. By contrast, Specter's opposition to important Democratic legislation, such as the budget, health care reform, and the Employee Free Choice Act, have not been highly publicized. Specter's current media image is probably that of a very pro-Obama Democrat right now, which would make him popular among Democrats.
Further, Specter has lined up promises of financial and campaign appearance support in the event of a hotly contested primary from President Obama, Vice-President Biden, Governor Ed Rendell, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and probably Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey. He will have an all-star lineup of support surpassing even that enjoyed by Joe Lieberman in 2006.
Overall: Wait until mid-June It is difficult to draw any conclusions without direct primary polling. Further, polling produced in the next week or two would be heavily skewed in favor of Specter, given the short-term euphoria that always follows events such as these. We will have to wait at least another month or two before relevant data can be collected.
If, two months from now, polls show Specter ahead by lopsided, 20%+ margins against Representative Joe Sestak, then we will probably know very quickly that a campaign isn't viable. However, Specter will also be the subject of intense media scrutiny going forward, and every time he opposes the Obama administration will be heavily publicized. This could mean a quick erosion of his numbers of the next couple of months.
So, it is best to wait and see where the situation stands in June. Specter will have a honeymoon with Democrats over the next two or three weeks, but if he keeps opposing most of President Obama's agenda, he should expect a wave of media coverage that will anger many Pennsylvania Democrats, and make a primary challenge against him quickly viable. As such, it is important that Representative Joe Sestak publicly stay open to a possible run for at least another two months.
I decided to run for the United States Senate from Pennsylvania for one simple reason: I believe we need new leadership, new ideas, and new approaches in Washington. It's become obvious that the old ways of doing business might have worked for the special interests, but they haven't worked for the rest of us.
Nothing about today's news regarding Senator Specter changes that, or my intention to run for the Democratic nomination to the Senate in 2010 - an election that is still a full year away.
His campaign has hired The Campaign Group to handle media strategy. The company is run in part by Neil Oxman, a longtime Democratic political consultant who has worked extensively with Gov. Ed Rendell dating back to his days as Philadelphia Mayor, and more recently helped elect Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. Finance Director Michelle Singer has held the same job under Rendell. Campaign coordinator Rebecca McNichols was Senator Bob Casey's political director during his successful election in 2006. Communications director Mark Nevins has worked for the presidential campaigns of U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Interviewed on MSNBC, Joe Sestak just said he still might run against Specter.
He wants to see what Arlen Specter stands for. This is hugely important. Time to see what Arlen's plans are. If Sestak is sincere about this, he is doing us a huge favor.
Everyone needs to keep in mind that Specter is significantly to the right of Ben Nelson. This is way, way beyond even Lieberman. Replacing him even with a New Democrat like Sestak would create roughly a 50% shift in voting habits, according to Progressive Punch. No other Democratic primary in the entire country has the same potential for offering even close to such a large shift to the left in voting habits.
Update: Specter just said that he won't invoke cloture on Employee Free Choice. So much for the theory that he would vote against the bill, but allow cloture.
Capitol Hill sources tell NBC News there had been active discussion between senior Democratic leadership and Arlen Specter for about three weeks.
NO DEM OPPONENT PROMISED: 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."
NO CHAIRMANSHIP ON THE TABLE: Sources say Specter will not be given a chairmanship during this Congress, the 111th. For now, "chairmanships were not on the table" as a part of the party switch negotiations.
So, here is how I understand things:
We get no new votes on legislation from Specter
Democrats are given no opportunity to challenge Specter in either the primary or general election, thereby locking all of his bad votes into place even though he is in a blue state.
So, we not only get no new votes, but we lose the ability to challenge those votes. Apart from the image of total Republican fail, this isn't a good thing at all. Not only do we have to deal with Specter's voting record, which is worse than any other Democrat in the entire Senate, but we are denied the opportunity to even challenge him.
I like sticking it to Republicans. But I am also pretty pissed right now. We need to run a primary challenge against Specter anyway, leadership be damned.
That's the message to Pennsylvania Democrats from state Democratic Party Chairman T.J. Rooney, who on Monday said that, if things seem quiet, it's intentional.
"Our goal in 2010 is not to have a primary," Rooney said. "Our goal is to come together as a party and, in the meantime, let the other side beat the tar out of one another."
In making this proclamation, Chairman Rooney is relying on a longstanding bit of Democratic conventional wisdom. Namely, that closely contested Democratic primaries hurt Democratic chances in general elections. The problem with this theory is that there is no evidence to support it. In fact, a quick survey of the eight most closely contested Democratic Senate primaries in 2006 and 2008 shows that the winners of those primaries actually did pretty darn well in the general election (note: only campaigns where the general election was decided by 10% or less were examined):
Wins (Five)
Maryland 2006 (Cardin vs. Mfume)
Minnesota 2008 (Franken vs. several)
Montana 2006 (Tester vs. Morrison)
Oregon 2008 (Merkley vs. Novick)
Virginia 2006 (Webb vs. Harris)
Losses (Two)
Georgia 2008 (Martin vs. Jones)
Kentucky 2008 (Lunsford vs. Fischer)
Other (One)
Connecticut 2006 (loss, but not to Republican)
How is going 5-2-1 possibly evidence that contested primaries hurt Democratic chances in close Senate elections? Further, as a I discuss in the extended entry, polling from these campaigns immediately before and after the Democratic primary also indicates that the contested primaries were a clear benefit for the eventual winner.
