Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has decided to become a Democrat.
This strikes me as being bad news for the Republican Party more than it is good news for the Democrats. Back in January, I described a process which I labeled the Republican Death Spiral:
Thus the Republicans [...] are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative [...] their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base -- but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.This defection, coming at a time when historically low numbers of Americans are identifying themselves as Republican, would seem to be a manifestation of said Death Spiral. These problems, indeed, were particularly acute in Pennsylvania, where many of the state's more moderate Republicans had re-registered as Democrats to vote in the state's extremely contentious primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Thus, given an extremely conservative Republican electorate, Specter appeared to be an underdog against his extremely conservative primary challenger, Pat Toomey, and switched parties in order to increase his odds of survival.
But this is not necessarily an unmitigated win for the Democrats. Unlike Jim Jeffords' switch in 2001, this does not affect who controls the Senate Chamber. Rather, it merely nudges the filibuster math, which has always been somewhat fuzzy. While the Democrats will have a nominal total of 60 votes once Al Franken is seated, the Senate's fortunes will still be determined by a group of about a dozen moderate senators from both parties (including Specter), just as it was before.
The real question is -- how often will Specter's vote change as a result of this? Specter was already voting with the Democrats on some issues, like the stimulus, and he said in his statement today that he will continue to vote against the Democrats on at least one other high-profile issue, the Employee Free Choice Act. If he goes from voting with the Democrats 40 percent of the time to 60 percent of the time, that is not so terrific for them, particularly if the 60th seat raises expectations and lends credence to Republican claims about the need for divided government.
But of course, Specter can't be too cute about this, or he might have primary problems on the left. The Republican nominee is probably going to be Toomey, who will be an underdog against any sentient Democrat. Why should the Democrats settle for a Liberdem when they can probably get Pennsylvanians to elect a mainline Democrat along the lines of Bob Casey? Specter's cooperation on key issues like health care and cap-and-trade would now seem all but assured -- but then again, Democrats could perhaps already have expected such cooperation to begin with. Unless Specter becomes a fairly liberal Democrat (perhaps with one or two exceptions like EFCA) his party switch today is something which might have more symbolic than actual impact.
129 comments
I think people will find Specter far more willing to toe the line than he is saying. If he wants re-elected, he will support the president full force.
http://twitter.com/demtribune08
Given how much he will owe the Party if he is re-elected as a Democrat, I would be surprised if his voting patterns didn't change.
He was going to get destroyed in the GOP Primary to Pat Toomey. Even your Senator Ratings show he was the top incumbent in the US Senate that was most likely to lose in 2010.
This is a Great Day for the GOP, a liberal has found his roost.
This is a Good Day for the Dems as well, they got their 60 seat majority.
This should make both parties smile... :)
Thanks Nate-- I agree with Erikson, he is trying to sound tough to counteract the impression any turncoat gives of weakness. In reality he will have to toe the line at least until 2010 (at which point, when we pick up another few seats, he will become less relevant.)
(btw I haven't pressed f5 waiting for your post so many times since November!)
It is a psychological blow to the Republicans and a psychological boost for the the Democrats. That can translate into political capital. And Erikson is right, but also because Specter will no longer need to please the Republican right wingers.
Something that is good can not be "unmitigated". To mitigate something does not mean to reduce it or make it milder, it means to make it better. Thus, an "unmitigated disaster" is a disaster without redeeming features, but you can't have an "unmitigated win". Try "undiluted".
If Specter falls along Obama's side, Specter will increase his chances in Pennsylvania.
That said, there are plenty of conservative Democrats who would vote for Specter as a conservative Democrat.
As a person who lives in Harrisburg, PA, I know all about the politics of the state. This is a huge shift in the politics of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania. The national party may not be as nearly effected, but the state party suddenly shifted much further to the right than possibly ever before.
Also, it should be pointed out that Democrats *can* now invoke cloture, as they have 59 members in a 99 seat Senate.
FYI, DSCC has just indicated it will not support any primary challenges to Specter in 2010.
Bob Casey is more conservative than Specter on social issues.
Exactly, Juris, what committee assignments will Specter get and what will be demanded from him in exchange?
I suspect the biggest loser here may turn out to be Harry Reid, who soon (once Franken is seated) will have no excuse.
Ah and our other buddy Olympia Snowe has weighed in. I wonder if she will make the leap as well. Seems not as likely, though.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/28/snowe-calls-specter-move-devastating/
Re Pragmatus's DSCC post: Quid pro quo.
enodo...
The dictionaries seem to disagree with you.
With 99 senatuhs, cloture still requires 60 votes (59.4 votes, rounded up).
Specter may back the Union bill in a new form as his problem is its "current language":
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21806.html
"Labor leaders have been hunting for the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster on the bill. They’d found themselves about a vote short and had leaned heavily on Specter to close the gap.
Thus far, he has refused and, in a statement announcing his party switch, he said his opposition to the legislation would not change.
But Specter has always left some wiggle room in his position by opposing its current language and offering suggestions about how it might be improved. "
Oh man. I was in the shower when I heard this on the radio and HAD to look up what you had to say here. As always, you don't disappoint.
(I did a little dance of glee when I heard this. The tears will be delicious.)
But it depends. Is Specter's name stronger than his party affiliation? That is: Given that Toomey is pretty much the de facto Republican nominee for PA-III Senate, does Specter stand more of a chance against him than other Democrats? We know that Toomey's about as centrist as that Virginia guy named after the frothy mixture (Santorum), but while Specter is an incumbent, he's also just pissed off about half the state. (Okay, a quarter. Or a third. Something like that.)
Will the Dems even attempt to primary him? The Republicans were pretty much prepared to commit suicide, but it seems like the Pennsylvania Democrats have their stuff at least nominally more together. (That is, to say: They weren't threatening to cut their nose off to spite their face.)
Also, 2006 in Connecticut (which is a more liberal state will only be four years ago by Election Day 2010. They had Lamont to choose from. They went for the archetypal Lieberdem instead.
I think this is a pretty big disaster for the Democrats. The economy isn't going to be better by 2010 and while the GOP brand will also not be rehabilitated long term incumbents in any competitive race need to watch out. I can just see the ads against Specter now from the Toomey camp. The idea of an aging senator without the requisite principles to stick with a party, I imagine, will not play well in PA. In fact I think it cuts into the narrative that gave Specter all that success in the blue state for so long.
I REALLY hope a good Democratic primary challenger pushes Specter out of the way before he gets swept up in a "throw the bums out" wave that will hurt people just like him the most.
59 / 99 = 0.595959596
Rounds up to 60.
Chris I believe the dems declared that they would not primary against him in exchange for the switch.
What I heard on MSNBC during lunch, at least.
Harry, it's not good enough to "round up to" 60. You have to have *at least* three-fifths, and 59 is *less than* three-fifths.
Let's get real here, he is switching parties because he would not have survived the GOP Primary:
RASMUSSEN: Election 2010: Pennsylvania GOP Senate Primary
Pat Toomey
51%
Arlen Specter
30%
Some Other Candidate
9%
Not sure
10%
If Specter wins DEM primary, he'll route Toomey in the General Election.
If someone further left of Specter wins DEM primary, Toomey will be able to make it a very close race.
Box X is right. Has to be ABOVE 60%. 59 of 98 would do it, but no 59 of 99.
I am somewhat surprised that the Dems are willing to cede the line on EFCA when Specter would be a game-changer there. Then again, it would not surprise me if Specter were expected to thread the needle and vote for cloture but against the bill. In which case the Democrats can, if they get all 60 for cloture, lose 10 for the bill itself.
They will settle for a Lieberdem because it makes them look imminently reasonable, magnanimous and truly big tent. This will give cover for non-evangelical Repub voters to vote Democratic and lead to the absolute collapse of the Republican party in 2010.
I'm hoping for near 1934 numbers. At that point, Bayh, Nelson, Spector and Lieberman do not matter.
While Specter's move has little affect on the actual filibuster math, it does affect the power of threats to filibuster.
Keep in mind, republicans have not been filibustering as much as they have been threatening to do so. Under such threats Reed has been assuming that all of the republicans would fall in line and such threats could ultimately be successful. This has been a questionable assumption, but one has to hope that Reeds calculations will be shifted going forward. I would suspect that he will be much more willing to force the GOP to put their money where their mouth is.
Hell, if the GOP is forced to brow beat their members to filibuster repeatedly, it may just provide the impetus to drive Snow out of the party as well.
Happy to have Spector but he will have to be very careful. He might have just ended his career.
60 is nice but getting all the D's on the same page is like herding cats.
Next up - Majority whip and will the 60 mean anything?
We stil have DINO's (Lieberman and a few other DLC types) who are no more likely to toe the party line now than before the change - maybe they will use the idea of having 60 as a reason to continue being obstructionist and Rep-lite.
Times - they are a changing.
Perhaps he biggest change will be that Specter won't have to try to burnish his Conservative credentials now and will be free to vote his moderate views. Perhaps he will even feel pressured to vote a little more liberal to please the Democrats in the PA primary. As a moderate PA voter who joined the Democratic party last year to vote for Obama, I was sad that it looked like we would be losing Specter. I'm glad he switched, even if it was to preserve his political viability.
While he may not be changing his "positions" on issues (i.e., EFCA), I think he will do the conservative Dem thing on bills he opposes. Vote for cloture, but against the bill. No?
I can see this being his way of appeasing the Dem base while still being able to allege to the mass public that he hasn't abandoned any of his positions/scrupples. To R/D primary electorates, he has lunged leftward. To the general public and GA-only electorate, he is still same old "moderate" Arlen.
If the far RW of the party were successful in pushing the idea of the Democratic party and the "three defectors" as members of the "Social Democratic Party," they could find the Senate with a de facto 62-37 Democratic majority -- even while Coleman continues to push his legal case into 2010.
Specter, is, and has always been a political weasel of the worst kind (I spent 13 years living with his weaselness). Him changing parties won't make him any LESS of a weasel. Regardless of whether they get any state or national backing, I really hope some sentient democrat runs against him in the primary.
@ytownmetz
How the heck will Toomey be competitive against any Dem? The party split in PA is not 50/50. All the Democrat needs to do is win the Democrats and Toomey has zero potential for inroads among even the most conservatives Dems.
@Kwame
Your prediction of a GOP resurgence in 2010 isn't really supported by history. If we look back at similar situations in US history, people will continue to rally behind the party that is perceived as not causing the economic downturn. It took Roosevelt nearly a decade to get the economy back on track, but that didn't stop the Dems from dramatically expanding their power in the mid-terms of 1934.
The other issue, of course, is that you can only really bring about a resurgence if you have a strong bench.
Specter *will* move to the left. Perhaps not on EFCA. Perhaps not on other things. But he will move to the left, especially if he wins the Democratic Primary and the General Election in 2010.
But isn't the important thing that Specter will vote yes on cloture?
Then the Dem bills will get to the floor and only need 51 votes to pass.
After Al Franken is seated, of course.
I agree with others that Specter's voting for cloture will probably be more significant than votes on some bills. Among other things, this will make it very difficult for the Republicans to stymie any of Obama's appointments.
Does this sound like a gentleman's agreement to anyone else? Could Specter approached someone in the Democratic leadership and said "I'll switch parties (and presumably vote your way on more issues) if you'll agree not to fund a primary candidate against me in 2010?" Or is that too transparently bad a deal for Democrats for them to accept it? If that _is_ what happened, it would settle the Lieberdem issue.
Statler: Why am I not surprised that you're wearing white capri pants?
Brian: Get it right - it's the Democrat Socialist Party. Remember? Republicans can't say "-ic," just as "nuclear" was pronounced "nucular" for a time.
JF: Ah, I missed that - when I was typing up my comment, there were literally 0 comments. In that case, he's pretty much got it, I think. Maybe. Party loyalists on the right side are furious, I bet, and I'm not sure how many of them are in PA.
Brian,
The DSCC has stated that they will not support a challenger against Specter in the primary. There was most definitely some courting going on.
Now, the DSCC also supported Lieberman in CT, but Specter is a lot more popular in his home state and should cruise to easy re-election as a Democrat.
I think it's important to keep the 'Specter' of a primary challenge from the grassroots just to hold Arlen to a moderately progressive voting record. But I am fairly sure he will drift leftward over time just to keep on everyone's good side, and a primary challenge will end up without strong statewide support.
"Sources with knowledge of Sen. Specter's decision to switch political parties say that efforts will be made to ensure that he will not face a primary challenger from a Democratic candidate in the 2010 Senate election."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/decks-cleared-for-specter_n_192356.html
How embarrassing. People had already mentioned Specter voting cloture-but-nay several times.
Sorry!
Short term, this is a PR disaster for the Republican party. No doubt. Particularly on the 99th day of the Obama administration. I'm sure this will be hyped as part of the 100 day celebration.
Long term, hard to tell, but may be better for the Republicans. Depends on whether Specter stays somewhat in the middle or really does move to the left between now and November 2010. Also, depends on how deep the short term effects are, and how lasting.
Until today, it appeared a near certainty that a) Toomey would defeat Specter in a Republican primary, and b) some Democrat would defeat Toomey in the general.
Toomey will now likely coast to an easy win in the Republican primary, and have a nice little war chest available for the general, which he would not have had otherwise. He'll also have a motivated base behind him.
And, instead of facing "a real Democrat", he's going to be facing Specter. Unless Specter moves to the left, it's hard to see how liberals are going to be all that excited about voting for him. Without a high turnout, it would seem unlikely for him to be able to hold his seat.
But he had to do this. He couldn't run as an independent. Beyond the legal primary issues involved, the politics were against him. This isn't like Connecticut and Lieberman where Lieberman won because of Republican votes. Republicans voted for him over their own candidate because their own candidate was so awful. Specter would have been trounced as an independent from both the left and the right.
No one is stating that maybe Specter won't run again. Is that a possibility? He's 80 years old today and has been re-diagnosed with cancer back in April of 2008.
Specter's defection may make Sens. Collins and Snowe feel a little more out-in-the-cold. If that prompts them to vote a bit closer to the party line, it might actually help the Republicans more than the loss of one seat hurt them.
In all, I think this move benefits Specter more than anyone else. Despite his age and ill health, he is still a masterful player of the game.
People are saying he might vote cloture on Employee Free Choice Act but against the bill. Maybe, but why? The only reason for him to come out for it at all is to:
a) Win points with his new caucus.
b) Get back his labor support.
I'm certain that what he plans to do is extract something from the Dems in exchange for his cloture vote, then vote for both cloture and the bill.
I think you're right, but it's still a hell of an insult...
Many Republicans are eerily quiet on this one. They must be plugged into the collective "aka Rush" to get their talking points and flood the internetz with their whimsical wit.
There's another aspect to this. Without wanting to upset people, it's likely that Ted Kennedy will cease to be capable of serving as a senator sometime in this Congress. And Massachusetts law (changed in 2004 when the legislature wanted to stop Mitt Romney appointing a Republican to replace President Kerry) requires a gap of about five months between a senator ceasing to serve and the election of his replacement. So it's likely that the Dems will be back to 59 of 99 for a good while.
You might even wonder if Norm Coleman will now be even more incentivized to prolong things until Ted ceases to serve.
I'd say this is more demoralizing than anything. I almost feel sorry for the Republicans....awe who am I kidding.
Schadenfreude at its best.
@Aren
The only reason for him to come out for it at all is to:
a) Win points with his new caucus.
b) Get back his labor support.
...those are big reasons! I expect Specter will vote for cloture. He will properly extract what he can on the EFCA bill itself, then vote his conscience.
It's interesting that Joe Sestak is very suspicious of all of this. Probably a good thing- if he's nipping at Specter's heels, threatening a primary, Specter will go further left to snuff him out.
Nate - Respectfully disagree with you here. Republicans just lost the ability to continuously fillibuster. And that changes the dynamics in a HUGE HUGE way. They don't have to listen to the Republicans or compromise with the party of No. It's going to be fun to watch. Perhaps when the Republicans come up with some decent ideas/alternatives, they'll start to be relevant.
The Fix Is Already In! The 'DEAL' Specter Negotiated Stipulates NO PRIMARY!This means the Democratic establishment will be out in full force campaigning for Specter and blathering about what a wonderful "bi-partisan guy" Arlen is!
It'll be Liberman v. Lamont in spades with extra barf-bags! Except that Specter is even to the right of Lieberman!
Specter has also said that he will NOT vote to support cloture on Employee Free Choice!
So really, Dems get very little out of this. It's primarily an embarrassment to Republicans but unless Specter changes his voting habits, nothing much will happen.
On the other hand, Specter IS a weasel! He's BOUND to change at least SOME votes to accommodate the Democratic base now that he's got the Republican base truly enraged against him.
He won't win 10% of PA Republicans now. So, he'd better have more than just moderate Dems and Independents!
Unfortunately, he'll have the media and that might make all the difference.
Rep. Joe Sistak has already said he's considering a primary challenge to Specter.Problem is, will he have enough money? He'd have ZERO help from the Democratic establishment -- rather like Lamont.
I tend to think Specter has successfully screwed Democrats.
We'd need Olympia Snowe to switch for there to be enough votes to matter. Specter is just not reliable as a 60th vote on anything.
With 25 years as a Pa Democrat, most of which as a party operative, Specter is a small addition. One of the most self-serving egotists, even by pol standards, he'll be less reliable as a vote than say Snowe or Collins. Yes he'll toe the line if he has something to protect(like a chair), but no he won't swing the ideological balance. I root for Sestak to take him out, or Murphy. Anybody that's a real Democrat.
By that logic, the Democratic party should have disappeared a long time ago. In fact, parties react to losses not by sucking up their bases, but by moderating (Clinton after 12 years of Reagan - Bush, a pro-choice Republican after 08).
the main benefit for democrats is that, even if Specter votes against the democrats, it would be hard to see him employ the filibuster on a regular basis .. since his primary political pressure now comes from democrats.
Had specter suddenly changed his choice on the employee free choice act, it would only have made him look like a flip-flopper selling out his ideals.
This is a good day for the Republicans, because it all but ensures the Senate election will be between two Republicans.
This is a bad day for the Democrats, because the Establishment will make sure no actual Democrat is represented in the election.
Pragmatus...
Read the definitions you sent:
mit⋅i⋅gate
/ˈmɪtɪˌgeɪt/ verb, -gat⋅ed, -gat⋅ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to lessen in force or intensity, as wrath, grief, harshness, or pain; moderate.
2. to make less severe: to mitigate a punishment.
3. to make (a person, one's state of mind, disposition, etc.) milder or more gentle; mollify; appease.
Note that all the examples are of negative things that are less negative after being mitigated.
Look at the bottom, the origin of the word is Latin: mītigātus (ptp. of mītigāre to calm, soften, soothe). If something is already calm, soft or smooth, mitigating it makes it more so, not less.
The free dictionary gives "alleviate" as a synonym, which captures it rather well.
So, does anyone know why Specter didn't choose to be an Independent? I don't now PA politics so I'm not sure if that was even a possibility.
If he did have a choice and still decided to join the Democratic party, that sends a message to the rest of the U.S. the Democratic party is neither extreme or left wing enough to not attract moderate Republicans to their party.
The pressure is on Snowe and Collins.
A tri-fecta party switch would be a treat.
Interesting analysis by Nate concerning how Democratic Party politics in the primary changed the dimension of the GOP in PA as to make Specter even more vulnerable than he was.
It seems that the Dems are clearly going to get a chance to govern from a fairly left wing position and that the checks and balances on majority rule have all but evaporated.
Two things are the great imponderables: (1) how the public takes to that agenda and (2) whether the Dems will get punished for the state of the economy in 2010 or be hailed as geniuses.
Despite so-called mustard seeds and green shoots I see an economy that will continue to limp along for the foreseeable future. At best only the moneyed crowd will do well (what a surprise!), while the working folk struggle. Do not be mislead by Obama's stim -u-less bill: it delivers very little in the way of productive stimulus and nothing to repair tattered individual and company balance sheets.
As far as the policy prescriptions go, Obama will be aided by unfettered power in the House and Senate to achieve in the short run whatever he wants. His agenda is so misguided and little understood that it is likely to cause confusion and alarm as the details become manifest and people feel the impact on their lives of Obama's experiment in Euro style socialism. It is conceit to think that the victory in November was anything other than a personal victory for Obama. With the great mass of people, he took pains to conceal his true self. Witness all the gnashing of teeth on the right as what we feared comes to pass.
Pedulums swing in politics. This one is swinging faster than most.
Remember: this recession is Obama's Iraq War and as it lingers its pain will be felt deeply and personally.
Keep watching the economic reports of you want to know the fate of Obama and his agenda.
petekent01 (follow me on twitter)
Smart play by Specter, albeit a complete no-brainer. The Republican Party has degenerated into a fringe group of right-wing Christian fundamentalists, and foreign policy and economic extremists. Steele, Cornhole and Grover Norquist thought they had Specter in their pocket after he'd cashed in his EFCA bargaining chip. To be honest, I did as well. Now Specter has a friendlier party to negotiate with, not to mention he still has his EFCA bargaining chip, which he'll no doubt cash in. If he does, the Democrats gets him re-elected. That's his best shot, but it'll be the President who decides if and when EFCA passes.
There are so many things to speculate about after this switch. Does Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins switch parties dwn the road? Does Charlie Crist seriously want to be a minority voice in an increasingly far-right minority at this point? He'll vote with the President a shitload more than Mel Martinez, that's for sure, regardless if he has an R beside his name.
Bottom line: Dems are loving this. My instant reaction to this news was quite simply "WHOA!!!"
Unless the Dems are total suckers (and why would that not surprise me), any deal should involve Specter voting reliably on Obama's main agenda items (healthcare, energy, etc). If he doesn't hold up his end of the deal, he gets primaried, simple as that.
But if Specter does decide to play nice in the sandbox, I think the Dems should give him Lieberman's committee chairmanships in the next Congress.
Whenever I read the bottom of one of PeteKent's posts, I am reminded that the first four letters in "Twitter" are "Twit".
How Specter votes at the end doesn't make any difference, what does change is that he's unlikely to vote in favor of Republican filibusters. This means that bills like health care reform will make it to the floor and likely pass, without resorting to reconciliation.
This can be very big.
p.s.: for all those that keep bringing up European Socialism, no country in Europe is or ever was socialist. You're just displaying your complete ignorance.
I just want to add my two cents:
This is amazing. The Obama Administration is turning into the best reality tv program over the course of the next four years. The country has moved into a significantly different direction and it has had effects in the short and long term. Over the most gigantic and the most minuscule.
With all of that hyperbole said, I just got an email from a co-worker reinforcing their anger and resentment right now over the changes that they are seeing w/in the political, national, and global climate. In not so many words, THESE PEOPLE ARE ANGRY!!!
The email was ofcourse about Ronald Reagan and how desperate the conservatives are for him to return. This is the very reason why things like this are happening.
They killed the career of George HW Bush, they rallied against Bill Clinton, and W was supposed to be a return to Reaganism. Well it failed miserably and their talk radio, FOX news gods are still selling them how conservatism works, the government can't be trusted, taxes are evil, labor unions are socialism, government health care is socialism, and so on and so forth.
I've said it before and I will say it again - how are these people NOT wrestling fans...
One final note, would anyone be willing to jump on an email push to get Nate to post the pro's and con's of the Fairtax myth? I think that that would be a great discussion seeing as we just went through the Tea Party fiasco and certain citizens are sipping the Kool-Aid on the Invisible Hand theory 2.0...
jroc133
Isn't there a GREATER chance of Specter losing the democratic primary than the general?
Assuming he can defeat Toomey, in the general election he has a locked in vote of ~30% of PA in Republicans, plus whoever of the democrats wants to vote for him.
In a primary he is much more likely to lose against another democrat, because he needs to the majority of the Democratic votes, not just the majority of all votes.
While I would like to think that he wouldn't go along with Republican filibusters now, I don't think that in fact will be true. Specter voting as a rank-and-file Democrat makes him essentially powerless.
As a wavering Republican, Specter had an enormous amount of power and bleak re-election prospects.
As a wavering Democrat, Specter, he retains the enormous amount of power of being the last cloture vote and dramatically improves his chances of returning to the Senate.
It takes a great amount of wishful thinking to think this changes much. Specter's absolutely going to continue to be either vote 60 for cloture or vote 41 against, not 1-of-60 or 1-of-41.
What also concerns me is by symbolically taking away the last sliver of GOP power on the national stage, we hasten the day the GOP makes a comeback. A lot of people here no doubt think the Republican party is finished, which is nothing but hubris. The last thing I want is a GOP that actually realizes how bad their situation is; a GOP in denial about their position and thinks Michael Steele and Sarah Palin are the future of their party is an easy one to beat.
Valerio, I think a couple of Scandinavian countries here and there self-describe themselves as socialist. So that's good enough for me, I suppose.
I prefer saying that if a mixed market welfare state with labor protections is "socialism", then every prosperous, developed country in the world is a socialism, and has been for the better part of a century.
Yeah, I realize that some right wingers could claim that their prosperity allowed them to become welfare states. This doesn't jibe with the historical record; European countries such as Sweden emerged quickly from the Depression because they adopted Keynesian policies quicker than most, and Japan and South Korea became capitalist powerhouses specifically because they practiced aggressive state interventionism to a degree that would make the Club for Growth collectively shit their pantaloons. (Seriously, some aspects continue to resemble a central command economy. That's not to say this is laudable, but at a certain point in their history it was pragmatic. Their governments are now lessening their role, which is good.) If anything, the imperialist powers of England and the US were allowed to entertain the conceit of laissez-faire because of their military supremacy - which was funded by governments, which are funded by taxes, which are funded by Men With Guns extorting the poor Galtian supermen.
But even granting their dubious claim, it's been nearly a century now and the statute of limitations on their credibility is wearing out. Either the mixed market capitalist democracy - what most of us liberals want - is socialism, or it is not. I hope it's not, because that means socialism is the most successful form of society in the world, and I don't like where that could lead.
The pragmatic in me loves this. The part of me that loves causing pain to Republicans loves this. The part of me that enjoys when any Dem wins a general election against any Rep loves this.
The part of me that's a goofy idealist who wants a "real Dem" in PA, or who has fantasies about this helping the Republicans anytime in the next decade doesn't exist.
The fact that we would probably get a more liberal Dem in 2010 if Specter didn't switch parties does hurt.... but I think the continuing narative that the Republicans are just a Southern White Party with no ideas who purges anyone who doesn't toe the party line is just to wonderful. This does FAR more damage to the Republicans than the Dems getting a freshman Senator in 2010 from PA.
@tangoclose:
Blame the Republicans for (in a turn of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's phrase) "defining Socialism down."
I guess this makes Pennsylvania the most likely state to change parties.
I think you can expect Specter to move to the left somewhat, meaning a Democrat Specter will be a better vote than a Republican Specter.
But the main advantage is adding to the 'stench of losing' that has surrounded the Republicans. They got killed in 2006 in Congress. They got killed in special elections in 2007. They got killed in 2008 at all three national levels. They got killed in another special election in 2009. And now they've found a way to lose without even having an election. They are the Washington Generals, and no one likes a loser of that magnitude.
Find me someone.. anyone.. who says 'I'm a Republican, and I am proud of my party'.
Mitch McChinless doesn't count.
There are two questions I have: (1) how do Pennsylvannian Democrats feel about this? Are they willing to embrace Specter as their nominee next year? Or is that support going to be provisional based on him changing his votes on certain key isses (EFCA, etc.) and (2) besides that, how much will the party throw its weight around to clear the field for Specter regardless of the feelings of rank-n-file Dems in the keystone state?
ben-a my thoughts exactly
i feel split on this. I saw the house democratic representative on msnbc this morning and he looked mad.Apparently he has three million to have run for senate on the demo ticket. i liked the guy and he was YOUNG! now we get old an iffy specter:(
maybe specter is not going to run next time and is doing this to make the rethugs look bad
But i do love the republicans getting all in a tizzy!
today has been a good day to be a democrat.
For Specter to win the democratic nomination in 2010...considering the state in question (PA, a light blue state) he needs to be more liberal than:
Evan Bayh
Mary Landrieu
both of the Arkansas senators
Ben Nelson
He needs to be about AS liberal as say....Jim Webb, or better yet his fellow senator Bob Casey.
For any dem to win any statewide election in PA they need to turn out Phili, its suburbs and Pittsburgh in big numbers...and i dont see a democrat whos as conservative as Bayh or Landrieu doing so.
The REAL question is....lets say Specter fails to get the nomination....what are the chances that Toomey could beat a generic democrat in 2010?
If you're gonna blame Obama for the recession, why not blame him for the Iraq War as well? After all, he inherited both problems from his incompetent predecessor.
You CAN'T follow me on twitter. Because I am not a narcissistic douche bag.
I wonder if flying a jumbo jet a couple hundred feet over NYC and scaring the daylights out of people would be considered a form of torcher.
The way I see it that while he may not be more likely to vote with the dems on up and down votes, he may be less likely to help the repubs filibuster. Esssentially he may vote against a bill to appease his constiuency as a whole but may vote against a fillibuster to please the democrats, ie "I'm against it but it deserves an up or down vote"
As long as the party really does quash any primary challenge, I don't see how anyone's Lieberman-Lamont analogies hold any water.
Lieberman-Lamont WAS a contested primary and Lieberman LOST. The party gave their official establishment backing to Lamont. Lieberman proceeded to win by dint of his appeal to "independents" and Republicans who liked his stance on Iraq (not to mention couldn't stand their own walking joke of a nominee... got something like 3% of the vote).
A non-primaried Specter would not, as noted, have a very motivated Democratic base out there working for him, and he'd have a very irate Republican base against him... but in PA, that's still a win for him.
Remember, most people don't pay much attention to the intricacies of politics. Specter has been around for a lonnnng time and among the vast unwashed masses, name recognition and a claim to "independence" goes a long way!
Bottom line is Specter is a better fit for PA than CT is for Lieberman. Lieberman takes idiotic stands because he genuinely thinks he's right... Specter takes idiotic stands when his party tells him to. I call it an unambiguous (thats the word you were lookin for, Nate) win.
i'm unsure about this. like was said, any democrat can win in the general and why should we settle for someone who will not support the unions.
Man, every time I hope PeteKent will discharge a shotgun in his mouth I am brutally disappointed.
Ah well... tomorrow is another day.
Nate -
While I tend to agree with you that Specter's defection doesn't help the progressive agenda in the long term, isn't there value in having 60 for the next 1.5 years, when much of the inaugural outlines of the Obama agenda are to be laid out?
If that's the case, the tradeoff is really a short term increase in the ability to get the progressive agenda moved forward -- but that then the Dems will need to concentrate more on other races to push the majority beyond 60 in the 2010 election - by going after NH, MO, and Bunning.
Isn't that a good thing for Dems, or at the very worst, a good short term thing for Dems and a punt on 2010 strategy?
The People's Business posted:
By that logic, the Democratic party should have disappeared a long time ago. In fact, parties react to losses not by sucking up their bases, but by moderating (Clinton after 12 years of Reagan - Bush, a pro-choice Republican after 08).What pro-choice Republican are you talking about?
Let's do some Silverian number crunching to see who actually benefits from this.
Some assumptions:
1. Toomey votes with the Rs 100% of the time, Specter 60% and Unnamed Democrat 10%.
2. With Specter in the R race, he wins the primary 20% of the time and Toomey 80% of the time. In the general Specter would beat a D 40% of the time and Toomey would beat a D 10% of the time.
3. With no primary challenge, Democratic Specter wins the general over Toomey 90% of the time.
Given these assumptions, with Specter as an R the Republicans get 21.2% of the votes on average. With Specter as a D, they get 64% of the votes.
What a disaster.
GROG said...
"I wonder if flying a jumbo jet a couple hundred feet over NYC and scaring the daylights out of people would be considered a form of torcher."
I would classify spelling torture "torcher" a form of torture...
I'm going to second Kevin's argument. The move to the Democratic party allows Specter to vote for cloture but against bills. Name *any* Democrat-supported bill, and I guarantee it has at least 50 votes (with Biden able to break the tie). The issue is reaching cloture. I can easily see moderate Dems voting for cloture, then voting against the final bill (appeasing their right-wing constituents) while allowing the bill to pass. This is huge - Dems didn't need the 60th vote for healthcare reform, but keep an eye out for cap and trade and education reform - since now there are enough Dems to vote for cloture and vote for the bills.
Is there anyone viable who wouldn't have run against Specter in a Republican primary but might get in it if Toomey's the only other choice?
m going to second Kevin's argument. The move to the Democratic party allows Specter to vote for cloture but against bills.You wish this and I wish this, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Does anyone really believe that Specter switched parties so that he could go from having actual power and influence to merely symbolic power and influence?
Specter's going to be as much a thorn in the side of Democrats as he was to Republicans. He expected a pound of flesh from the Republicans to be vote #41 and now that he's moved to the party with more meat, he's going to expect more to be vote #60.
So...what happens now with the 538.com Senate Race Ratings?
@Apotropaios:
I am truly an idiot.
Why is Barak so unpopular according to Gallup:
"According to Gallup’s April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton, who got off to a notoriously bad start after trying to force homosexuals on the military and a federal raid in Waco, Texas, that killed 86. Mr. Obama’s current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises…
It’s no surprise the liberal media aren’t anxious to point out that their darling is less popular than George W. Bush. But given the Gallup numbers, their hurrahs could be more subdued. USA Today’s front page touted the April poll results as positive, with the headline: “Public thinks highly of Obama.” The current cover of Newsweek magazine ponders “The Secret of His [Mr. Obama's] Success.” The comparison with previous presidents is useful because they are usually popular during their first few months in office - and most presidents have been more popular than Mr. Obama."
Courtesy of Gallup and WT editorial
A grammar carp - you use the word "extremely" three times in three lines, and it reads appallingly. My English teacher would have shot me :-)
>So...what happens now with the 538.com Senate Race Ratings?
Well logically the little square in front of PA changes to blue since it is now a Democratic seat and then it probably moves down in the ranks since it is less likely that it will change parties in 2010.
As a Pennsylvania resident, I am unsurprised that Arlen chose to switch parties now (gobsmacked, yes, surprised, no).
His argument that he no longer felt at home in the Republican Party is a partial smokescreen. His political career would have ended in the 2010 Republican primary, as there was no chance for him to beat Pat Toomey, because of the defection of so many moderate Republicans from the Pennsylvania Republican Party.
However, anyone who has followed his career should be aware that he is one of the last of the Rockefeller Republicans, and for the last fifteen years, he has been little more than a tool the Republicans have used as necessary, but insulted at all other times.
Similarly, he will now serve as a tool to be used by Democrats now, but we will not feel the need to insult him afterwards.
Arlen is a "loyal" politician, and will always honor the terms of his agreements. Provided the Democrats were careful in negotiating the terms, we can expect Arlen to perform good service in support of Democratic legislative priorities in the next two years.
Any possibility of Tom Ridge or Lynn Swann being able to upset Pat Toomey in a Republican primary, or is the Republican Party just TOO conservative for that to even be a possibility?
Jack-be-dim…
Funny, but most polls have Obama’s approval rating in the high 60s.
Sounds like you have a bone to pick with reality. That’s a job for a shrink, not a comment forum.
You guys lost in November. You are losing as we speak. You will continue to lose far into the future because the GOP is bankrupt of morals, ideals, policies and concern for human beings.
Go share your gripes with PeteKent. You can follow him on Twitter!!
Reportedly, Vice President Biden was "deeply involved" in the talks with Specter to make the switch.
DNC Chairman Tim Kaine's statement:
I am pleased to offer Senator Specter my sincere congratulations on his decision to join the Democratic Party and I welcome him with open arms. Over nearly three decades in the United States Senate, Senator Specter has represented the people of Pennsylvania with honor, conviction, and an allegiance to deeply held principles that I know will continue to inform his decisions as a member of the Democratic caucus. Senator Specter courageously supported the President's economic recovery package while most Republicans played politics with our nation's economy. The Senator's willingness to set politics aside and be part of finding solutions to our nation's problems will find a welcome reception in the Democratic Party. Coming on the heels of Democrat Scott Murphy's victory in a Republican leaning congressional district in New York state, Senator Specter's decision is additional proof that the Republican Party is in serious trouble because it has lost touch with the American people and their desire for change which was so on display in November.
As Senator Specter noted, the Republican Party has drifted far to the right and seems more interested in ideology, conflict and obstruction than in working constructively to address the nation's problems, and no longer appeals to moderates, including Senator Specter. I commend Senator Specter on his decision to work with President Obama and Senate Democrats to help turn our economy around, create jobs and put the country back on the right track. We are thrilled to welcome Senator Specter into the Democratic fold and he can count on our full support.,
GROG said: "@Apotropaios:
I am truly an idiot."
Now I am 100% confidnet that GROG is neither PeteKent, nor Jack-be-nimble
With Norm Coleman gone and Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat, the only Republican among the 45 or so Jewish members of Congress is Eric Cantor of Virginia. While it is true that my people have always found the Democratic party a better fit, there had long been a small but significant contingent of Jewish voices in the moderate wing of the Republican party. Now, it appears, the party of Jacob Javitz and Warren Rudman is all but dead. Olav ha-shalom.
@ Vince
While I tend to agree with you that Specter's defection doesn't help the progressive agenda in the long term, isn't there value in having 60 for the next 1.5 years, when much of the inaugural outlines of the Obama agenda are to be laid out?
If that's the case, the tradeoff is really a short term increase in the ability to get the progressive agenda moved forward -- but that then the Dems will need to concentrate more on other races to push the majority beyond 60 in the 2010 election - by going after NH, MO, and Bunning.
Isn't that a good thing for Dems, or at the very worst, a good short term thing for Dems and a punt on 2010 strategy?
Absolutely right!
@ enodo
If something is already calm, soft or smooth, mitigating it makes it more so, not less.
So,"it's an unmitigated pleasure to meet you " is less complimentary than "it's a mitigated pleasure to meet you"? Not at all.
The primary meaning of "mitigate" is to lessen, regardless whether the object is of a negative or positive nature.
Zig Zag Zell Miller responds to Specter becoming a Democrat:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/28/725473/-Hey-Zell...
Indeed.
Secor314…
I would guess that Toomey has already lined up considerable support in the far-right reaches of the GOP, so if there are other, more moderate candidates interested in jumping into the race it will likely create a lot of friction. Infighting is not in the GOP’s best interests, but since they seem unable to keep from shooting themselves in the foot when presented with the opportunity perhaps a big ideological brawl is awaiting them in PA in 2010.
I think Tim Kaine’s remarks were good up until he got to this point—
“Coming on the heels of Democrat Scott Murphy's victory in a Republican leaning congressional district in New York state, Senator Specter's decision is additional proof that the Republican Party is in serious trouble because it has lost touch with the American people and their desire for change which was so on display in November.”
This is either salt-rubbing or gloating, and it doesn’t further the cause. By all means welcome Specter into the Democratic Party, but the reasons for his switch (e.g. the complete moral bankruptcy of the GOP) are self-evident. No need to strut about it. It makes you look bad.
CNN's Dana Bash is such a fucking GOP hack. Totally playing down the significance of a moderate abandoning the party, obediently taking the Cornhole line. In fact, the capper on her report left the impression that it's the Dems who have problems with "moderate" senators in their own party. Could you imagine how these so-called "reporters" would be framing it if Ben Nelson had switched parties? Apparently, John King's ugly bint reckons a minority of 38 wingnuts united is more powerful than a filibuster proof majority.
Now that Specter is not part of the Senate GOOPer caucus, he won't have the constant pressure from the GOOPer leadership pushing and threatening him. He will be pushed by the Democratic leadership, but with the carrot - "you support this bill, we'll make a couple of changes on that bill."
The stick that the Democratic leadership has is to tell Specter that if he doesn't at least appear to be playing ball, then he very well COULD be facing a primary opponent in 2010. Even if that drives Specter back into the GOOPer fold, his future at that point is sealed and doomed.
Specter either starts to consistently vote more in line with the Democrats in the Senate, or his fate is determined.
Short term, it's a psychological disaster for the GOOPers, modest gain for the Democrats. Intermediate, it's a disaster for the GOOPers, and, if Specter votes more in line with the Democrats, its a gain.
Long term, Toomey has very little probability of winning. If Specter runs unopposed in the primary, he should easily win the general - are disaffected Democrats going to vote for a third party candidate in the general? No - they'll vote for the candidate with the 'D' behind the name.
Another factor - if the Dems don't run a primary candidate, they save that money, and have more money to help other Democratic challengers and/or endangered incumbents.
And if Toomey runs without Specter in the primary, it could open up the primary to another GOOPer challenger. Since Toomey will get major funding from the Club for Growth, they will spend like crazy (Toomey was the former head of TCFG). Even if Toomey wins the primary, it will be expensive for him to run in the general. More TCFG funding required. The outcome of the MD-1 Congressional race was a blow to TCFG, along with several other recent elections TCFG has been involved in. Eventually, people will start to see a Club for Growth-backed candidate, and be turned off to that candidate, decreasing any future influence TCFG has in electoral politics.
Also, we know that people like Lush Rimbaugh, Manthrax Coulter, Bill O'Lielly, et. al., will come out big for Toomey. When he goes down to defeat, their influence will be further isolated to the extreme right of politics, and thus marginalized even further.
My summary: Short and mid-term, Specter's party switch isn't a big gain for the Democrats right now, but has big up potential. For the GOOPers, it is psychologically devastating - how many people will realize the GOOPer claim of being a 'big tent party' isn't true?
Long term - The Democrats will not need to pour as much money and resources into Pennsylvania to keep a Dem in the seat, and can use those now unneeded funds and resources into other races, thus potentially picking up several more currently GOOPer held seats, such as New Hampshire, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio and North Carolina, AND have additional funds to protect current possibly endangered Dems, such as Arkansas, Delaware and Nevada.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
I'm just impressed that Specter actually admitted that he did it for his personal political gain.
Disagree, Pragmatus. I don't think Kaine overdid it on the gloating, if at all. Besides, it's party chairman's duty to rub salt in the enemies wounds and gloat a little, especially in light of Steele's constant trash talking. Big difference is what you have to back it up with. Kaine has Murphy, Franken and now Specter joining the Democratic ranks. Steele, in comparison, has precisely DICK to gloat about, yet he was at it again today with the trash talking.
Also, Kaine isn't even on the DNC job full-time.
What the dems have is another sure vote against filibuster 100% of the time going forward. Whether he votes for the bill in question is irrelevant since the dems have enough bodies to overcome defections.Especially when MN new Senator takes his place.
What this does is kill the ability of the Senate Republicans to cause any real trouble, other than cry a lot.The repiglicans will not be able to stop anything, much less threaten with a straight face.
Frankly, I am shocked since Specter was foolishly defending torture just last week.
Nice piece here. Of course, it ignores the fact that many of the Republican threats to filibuster the Dems were for things they probably shouldn't be filibustering (as if there is anything that should be filibustered), for example the threat to filibuster Sebulius' nomination, which passed by a massive margin today. Who are these people kidding with these idle threats?
Specter is not an idiot, and probably won't side with Republicans on idiotic threats to filibuster. So, once Franken is seated (all but a foregone conclusion) the Dems will have what they need to demolish the threat (or action) of the inane filibuster. Just my thoughts.
I think Democrats will support him to win in Pennsylvania even if his record isn't liberal.
Some years ago NY Congressman Michael Forbes switch parties to Democrat and Democrats failed to vigorously support him against another Republican the next year. Forbes lost. That stands in sharp contrast to Democrats who switched to the GOP and were paraded in front of the media as some kind of a 'trend' (and helped reinforce the Republicans' desire to be seen as the party in ascendancy.)
So I think that the psychological effect of Specter winning nomination as a Democrat and then beating a Republican is strong enough that even Democrats who might not be thrilled with him, will now support him.
There are still a few more apples left to pluck on the tree, after all.
Gallup has Obama's approval at 63/31.
Someone's been cooking up another batch of meth, or looking at single day samples.. which is basically the same thing.
Isn't this a perfect opening for the netroots ?
With no establishment support for a primary...... couldn't a vocal campaign by the netroots that "we'd supply the cash for a primary" be utilised to push Specter on a key point ?
Perhaps the netroots and Specter could do their own deal on the nod-nod-wink-wink, similar to the Democratic parties "no primary funds" deal.
Tell Specter........Vote your conscience, but always give an up-and-down vote for everyone else to vote their consciences too. If you carry on opposing cloture, we'll start gathering funds for your primary.
It could be done like the "Dollar a day to make norm go away". We all contribute $20 every time Specter votes the wrong side of a fillibuster. As he votes against cloture, he'll see his primary challengers resources jump every time.
With his "primary" problem being, well, the primary...... wouldn't that be one hell of an incentive ?
Oh........ And can I patent this idea ? This is, as far as I know, the first record of this idea in print.
If it turns out it is.......... I demand 0.1c on every $ donated as my rightful Galtian reward. Capitalism baby ! The guy who dies with the most toys at the end wins.
Look upon my might ye mortals and despair !
Yours,
TGP
Regarding Nate Silver's REPUBLICAN DEATH SPIRAL, here is Nobel economist Paul Krugman in today's New York Times:
"(W)e have a party that seems to be in a death spiral: the smaller it gets, the more it’s dominated by the hard right, which makes it even smaller."Read it here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/the-specter-of-republican-marginalization/
You go, Nate!
Regarding Nate Silver's REPUBLICAN DEATH SPIRAL, here is Nobel economist Paul Krugman in today's New York Times:
"(W)e have a party that seems to be in a death spiral: the smaller it gets, the more it’s dominated by the hard right, which makes it even smaller."
Read it here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/the-specter-of-republican-marginalization/
You go, Nate!
PK wrote:
"Pedulums swing in politics. This one is swinging faster than most."
The "pendulum" is not a guarantee.
The pendulum never swung for the Whigs, did it?
The pendulum swings because normally the party in the minority makes an effort to expand their base, improve GOTV efforts, or moderate. The GOP has actually shrunk their base, had a dismal GOTV effort in 2006 and 2008, and has moved even further from the centre. They are actively working against the pendulum.
It seems obvious that Parties can commit suicide, or at least dwindle to the point where the pendulum has no discernible effect.
Aside from that, the Republican Party is currently not an attractive option for those who may, in future, become disillusioned with Obama.
The GOP has become rabid, shrill, enveloped in a siege mentality, and quite comfortable with making strident demands for loyalty from the rank-and-file.
In short, it is closer to a religious cult than it is to a political organisation.
This does not appeal to independents, however disillusioned they may become if your predicted disaster comes to pass.
I also find your continued predictions of economic collapse to be in glaring contradiction to your assertions during the campaign that Republicans had a "positive spirit", which is why McCain would win.
At a pinch "Unmitigated win" might be construed to be correct, but the word is simply badly chosen. Mitigate means alleviate [negative] things. Cancelling out the double negatives we have "this is a mitigated win for the Ds" which is the equivalent of "this is an unalleviated win", which is strange. This is presumably due to the common use of unmitigated with the sense of "without any redeeming features"..
There is one person who might be able to beat Toomey and give Specter a run for his money--
Tom Ridge.
I heard him interviewed today on Specter's defection and thought "hey, now, he could change everything." A lot could happen in the next 1.5 years, not to mention that Specter is 79 and, sadly, his health isn't the greatest.
Just a random thought, IF Ridge were to run and win then PA would have a pro-life democrat and a pro-choice republican, two very rare species indeed.
Specter's defection may make Sens. Collins and Snowe feel a little more out-in-the-cold. If that prompts them to vote a bit closer to the party line, it might actually help the Republicans more than the loss of one seat hurt them. .
Collins and Snowe are too independent to toe the party line for mere politics.
@Chris
Just dropping all the way down here to say that, on behalf of all Virginians, we do not take responsibility for "that Virginia guy." He might have been born here, but he left when he was seven years old and we will not claim him. We spent a hell of a lot of time and money getting rid of George Allen, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let you pin Rick Santorum on us now. He's a Pennsylvania problem, and he stays in Pennsylvania.
I agree with an earlier post. Specter is now free from trying to prove anything to his party (or maybe has to prove things to his new party). That said, he will be less likely to hold out support on key legislation. He will vote Dem much more often than not -- especially if Obama is going to campaign for him. He is no Liberman, who continues to rankle and throw firebombs at his own party. I hope that, when the Dems pick up another 5-6 seats next election, that they finally kick Lieberman to the curb one and for all!
Zoe Kentucky,
Arlen Specter is pro choice, the primary reason he was always 'enemy #1 list' for the litmus test imposing organization known as The Club for Growth.
So your scenario instead using Tom Ridge would make it a democrat and republican pro-choice candidate running against each other, making it a lose-lose for anachronistic groups like TCFG, and another major blow against their relevance in modern day politics.
It's nice that they were slammed by Voinivich (not running for re-election) and Orin Hatch (so utterly safe as a republican in Utah) as the reason for the decline of the GOOPers. I'm sure this thought breached the minds of other senators as well that were too cowardly to make them known. But until they do, the death spiral shall continue to be a spectacle of mass entertainment.
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
Post a Comment