A new Quinnipaic poll has bad news for Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania's 2010 Senate contest. His lead over Pat Toomey, the Republican opponent who earlier this year forced him from his party, has shrunken to just one point, 45-44.
I'm inclined to take this poll mostly at face value, in terms of how things would play out if an election were held today. Quinnipiac is a good polling firm and have been running surveys in Pennsylvania for a long time. The party cross-tabs looked potentially a little bit funky to me, so I re-ran the numbers using 2008 election splits (D 44, R 37, I 18), but it didn't help Specter much -- his lead went from 45-44 to 46-43.
Toomey is much less known than Specter -- only 44 percent were able to register an opinion about him, although most of those that did thought positively of him. Usually when a candidate has poor name recognition this early in a race, it's a good sign, since it means that his numbers have more room to grow. But I'm not sure that's the case here. Currently, only 10 percent of Pennsylvanians describe Toomey as "too conservative" (38 percent describe him as "about right" and 4 percent as "too liberal"!). But Toomey is, in fact, very conservative. While previously in the House, he compiled a DW-NOMINATE score of +.768. That's a very big number; there are only four current members of the House who are to Toomey's right. Toomey did not reside in an especially conservative district, by the way; in fact his former district voted for Barack Obama 56-43. So there's no particular reason to think he'd moderate if he represented the whole state.
Pennsylvania is sometimes thought of as at least being a socially conservative state. While parts of it are -- and the state is idiosyncratic on some issues like abortion -- this isn't really true on balance. In 2008 exit polling, 27 percent of Pennsylvanians described themselves as conservative, versus 34 percent of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvania also isn't a particularly liberal state; it's a moderate one with a strong Democratic machine and a strong Democratic tradition, especially in Presidential elections.
In theory, asToomey has a six-year voting record, Specter ought to be able to point to plenty of controversial votes that he cast and brand him as a ultraconservative rather than a moderate. The question is how much that will resonate. For one thing, since Republicans really aren't in any place to implement controversial measures like, say, privatizing Social Security, or extending the war in Iraq, it might seem to voters like something of a moot point. But more importantly, there might be questions about the person doing the messaging. Toomey, who does not shirk from his conservativeness, will probably have a response something along the lines of: at least I'm staying true to my beliefs, whereas my opponent can't decide what he believes in. In that sense, Specter's primary opponent, Joe Sestak, might have an easier time of things (although expect Sestak to keep the netroots somewhat at arm's-length and highlight his own moderation if he wins the primary and Toomey is running a good campaign.)
Ultimately, I'd still rate either Democrat as about a 2:1 favorite over Toomey, this poll not withstanding. But Pennsylvania will certainly be moving up in next month's Senate race rankings.
7.22.2009
Arlen Specter Just Can't Shake Pat Toomey
by Nate Silver @ 12:39 PM...see also 2010, pennsylvania, senate, specter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

105 comments
What proportion of Toomey's numbers are inflated due to the stronger primary contest on the Democratic side? Obama was trailing in polls compared to McCain when Hillary was still in the race, and we all know how that turned out. If this poll is representative only of the fact that Sestak supporters are reluctant to go for Specter in this stage of the game, I'm not too worried.
mindmeetsworld.blogspot.com
I wonder as well how many people still think of Specter as a Republican, espeically given that some people see Toomey as too liberal! (Though maybe they were asleep during the questioning!) I'm not reading too much into this poll. Still some food for thought for Democratic Primary voters.
Hey folks, not all conservative issues hurt candidates. Wake up. PA loves pro-life candidates, for instance. Furthermore, on the very important issue of card check, this poll had a huge lead for opponents. That could make for an exquisite embarrassment for Specter. By the way, Toomey beats Sestak too.
In any case, Obama runs weakly in PA, and that was before his policy disasters started to hit the road. Toomy is intelligent, young, and well spoken, and he is not a self-serving opportunist.
At the very least, unlike others on this blog, Nate does not appear inclined to offer up self-mutilation in a bet that Toomey doesn't make a race of this. He now feels the GOP has a 30-40 percent chance of WINNING, with the supposedly "nutty" Toomey.
The question isn't whether Toomey beats Sestak or whether Toomey beats Specter. The question is whether Toomey beats Specter and Sestak combined (or, slightly less than that, assuming some supporters of one will really refuse to support the other. I can't see it being too many, though).
Toomey’s lack of name recognition cuts both ways. The more people know about him, and how closely he is allied to arch-conservatism, IMO his support will likely dwindle rather than increase.
Roman,
No. It doesn't necessarily work like that. Most of those who weigh in a against Toomey in either match up are the same people. If there were big upside for the Dems in one candidate or another, that candidate would do better than Toomey because they would be adding to the base support. Thus, Romney tied Obama in a recent Rasmussen poll, but the SAME votes favored Obama by five or so over Palin. The qualifier here is that neither Sestak nor Toomey is that well known. That could shake it up. But the poll is bad news for Specter.
I understand they're polling the same people and you can't just add the poll responses for Specter and Sestak. I wasn't suggesting doing that. The point I was making was the broader point about primary vs. general election support.
In that sense, these polls are pretty opaque. For example, it could be that some responded "undecided" on Specter because they support Sestak right now and don't know if they'd vote for Specter in the general -- or vice versa. It could also be that they're genuinely undecided. Either way, I'm willing to bet either Dem candidate would have more support than strictly predicted by this poll, once the primary is over.
Of course, by that point in time, Toomey could have gotten much more or much less popular on his own merits.
Politicians can be elected at the statewide level without being a perfect ideological fit. There is a serious problem with even looking at an election in 2 dimensions (left/right) because elections tend to be dominated by a small number of issues and the personalities of the candidates.
The bottom line with Specter is that a lot of people don't like him. He was never a nice guy or engaging politician, and now his crass opportunism has taken full bloom. He's an unattractive fixture to an especially unpopular Congress (the institution is always unpopular to some extent).
Sestak has weaknesses of his own but would match up better against Toomey overall. The Democrats hold an edge here but Toomey has a better chance of winning than either Democrat does individually.
There is some hostility towards Specter lurking in the crosstabs that has nothing to do with political party.
Toomey beat Specter 43-40 in Union households, but loses in those same households to Sestak 38-34. That's a 9% drop in the same category of voter.
Similarly, 7% of women, 6% of Republicans and 5% of independents also drift away from supporting Toomey when you remove Specter from the equation.
Rendell is trying to clear the field for Specter, possibly as part of the party-switching agreement. I think it's apparent that it would be a stupid move not to give Pennsylvania Dems a chance to make their own selection.
Wow. This is shocking to me. I never really gave Toomey much of a chance against Specter - but in retrospect there is a lot working in his favor.
Three major things happened over the past several months.
1. The Stimulus bill was passed. This largely looks like a failure at this point, or at the very least does not appear to have stopped unemployment numbers from skyrocketing. The fact that the administration sold the bill as a way of keeping that number at 8 percent (or was it 8.5? Either way) and it didn't happen undercuts the argument.
2. The climate bill. This was only passed by the skin of the teeth by arm twisting and giving major concessions to Dems from agricultural districts that otherwise would never have voted for this.
3. The health care bill. Republicans are unified against it and the Dems are divided.
So on the first point the Democrats look like they miscalculated and on 2 and 3 they are in disarray. That's the macro scene. This is the first time in years that Dems have been this divided on policy where they have the power to shape policy. It reminds me of where the GOP has been until the last election. Because of all of this, the Dems are having a tough time running rough shod over the GOP. For the first time since the Iraq War took a turn for the worse, the public seems to at least be giving the Republicans a hearing. Hence the movement of Independents to the GOP.
As for the specifics of this race, no one knows what the hell Specter believes - not even Specter. Why the hell would someone want to elect a weather vane as senator? And it will be hard for the Dems to drudge up the boogeyman of Bush when, you know, he sort of campaigned for Specter and saved his ass in 2004.
If Specter is the Dem nominiee, Toomey *could* win this - provided Obama's popularity is near or below 50 percent next year.
Sestak will probably beat Toomey. Liberals should hope that Sestak can somehow get Obama to change his mind and jump ship to support Toomey.
The general head-to-heads won't matter because Specter is going to lose to Sestak going away. You can write that down. Sestak will thump Toomey in the general.
Oops - last line should read,
*Liberals should hope that Sestak can somehow get Obama to change his mind and support HIM (Sestak)*
Something may be missing from the analysis: a generalized penalty for incumbency.
The deep economic crisis that the country's going through may -- this is of course speculation -- puts all incumbents at increased risk of losing to upstarts and fresh faces with "new ideas."
If the country is in a great funk a year from now, whether you are a Republican or Democrat, if you are an incumbent you may lose 2 points (arbitrary number) to anybody who can come across with fresh ideas.
In other words, in this kind of crisis there may be an incumbency disadvantage.
Mark,
That depends on if Obama changes course. Presidents have a lot of sway when they back a candidate in a tough primary.
If Obama continues to back Specter, and Specter ekes out a win in the primary, he may very well lose in a general election. The guy is showing his age. He's 80 years old and doesn't have the stuff to run a vigorous campaign. He makes McCain look like a spring chick.
In other words, in this kind of crisis there may be an incumbency disadvantage.
Yep. We're sure seeing that a lot already in New Jersey.
Don't you kids remember Senator Rick Santorum? He represented PA from 2001-2007 and was a pretty conservative guy -- kind of belies the idea that PA can't/won't elect conservatives.
As I said in the previous thread, I'll masterbate with a cheese grater if loony Toomey comes within 10% of Specter or Sestak in 2010.
Personally, I take this poll with a handful of salt, but if we do take it at face value, then it's good news for Sestak. It's obvious Specter isn't anywhere near as popular with the Pennsylvania Dems as Ed Rendell thinks he is, so there should be no pressure on Sestak to not take him out. Unlike Chris Dodd, progressives don't want to see Specter pull through. Even when he was well ahead of loony Toomey after he switched, progressives still to see him primaried. But like Chris Dodd, Dems shouldn't hesitate to take him out if his numbers are weak in 2010.
I grew up in PA, but live in Maryland now. Pennsylvania people will support a straight-shooter, irregardless of his/her party or ideology. I have to believe Specter hurt his reputation with a great many Pennsylvanians, both Democrat and Republican, when he switched parties.
Since I haven't followed PA politics in sometime, can anyone answer whether Toomey is more conservative than Rick Santorum? Remember, Santorum was always considered very conservative. He lost favor with Pennsylvanians when he stopped representing them and became a spokesperson for the far right. Is Toomey similar? Also, how would you label Sestak? If he is a pro labor-union, down-to-earth liberal, he will beat Specter and Toomey. If he is a progressive, academic liberal who doesn't relate well to people, he won't get out of the primary. I looked forward to responses by those who have followed PA politics recently.
Don't you kids remember Senator Rick Santorum? He represented PA from 2001-2007 and was a pretty conservative guy -- kind of belies the idea that PA can't/won't elect conservatives.
Good point. If Toomey wins then 2010 will be a repeat of 1994. Because only in abnormally strong GOP years do candidates like Toomey and Santorum win open races in Pennsylvania.
If Toomey does win, then this one senate seat is going to be the least of the Democrats' problems.
Toomey is more conservative than Rick Santorum? Remember, Santorum was always considered very conservative. He lost favor with Pennsylvanians when he stopped representing them and became a spokesperson for the far right. Is Toomey similar?
Santorum's main problem is that he because the poster boy for the far right. He went out of his way to publicly and loudly stress is positions. He acted like he was a senator from South Carolina instead of a senator from Pennsylvania. That made him ripe for picking the minute the GOP fell out of favor.
Toomey basically is like Santorum - but he probably won't be so gung ho to say things like "man on dog".
Best case scenario: Specter is a reliable vote for the Dems, Sestak wins the primary, pulls ahead of Toomey and wins comfortably the general.
Funnily enough, Specter voting 100% with the Dems makes things more interesting and perhaps creates a few problems. Who knows, Specter may actually retire to avoid a tough primary. That wouldn't be unexpected considering his age. I mean, it's not like he's Robert Byrd or Daniel Inouye. He'll have to fight to keep his seat.
Who knows, Specter may actually retire to avoid a tough primary
Sorry for laughing about this but to all you Democrats: He's your a$$hole now. Why on earth would Specter retire? He could have retired weeks ago but instead is doing everything he can to hold onto power. Specter isn't going to quit unless his cancer comes back in a big way or he is losing overwhelmingly to Sestak in every primary poll.
Adam said...
3. The health care bill. Republicans are unified against it and the Dems are divided.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Party of No !!! daily meme in a nutshell ~ "unified against it" the anti-party, the party of no ideas, no alternatives, the party that can't catch a clue.
Reading my history, it didn't work very well for Reps in 1948 ie being totally anti-government or totally anti the opposing party when the Chicago Daily Tribune reported "Dewey defeats Truman!" ;)
Dewey and the Reps were sooo sure they were going to beat Truman lol ... yea I know, 1948 is a lot different than 2008, just sayin'
I don't like Newt Gingrich, but at least he has some ideas on how to fix the mess cheney/bush left us in ...
btw, Truman is looking better and better to historians in their updated presidential reviews, hmm ~ Truman was a good campaigner, much like Reagan and Obama, I digress
ciao
Shiloh,
And that rant has exactly what to do with Specter/Sestak vs. Toomey? Politically what I said is true. The macro scene is affecting the race. If Obama's numbers were ten points higher, like they were a couple of months ago, he would be able to transfer some of that support to his boy Specter.
This site is really great and can be quite informative even if it is coming from a decidely liberal bent.
It's shame that it all too often too many people come on here simply to parrot leftwing talking points.
Opposition parties are supposed to be the "Party of No". It served Demorcats well in the mid 2000's.
I can't figure PorridgeGun out. He makes such outlandish claims that sometimes I'm almost sure he's a fake. There's just no way someone can fit the profile so well - as he does - of a knuckle-dragging cheerleader for every uber-liberal policy, idea, and candidate that comes along. I swear, at times, he must be a conservative/Republican in disguise just posting his inane hogwash in the form of mocking taunts and puerile rants, as well as those gratuitous links to DailyKos articles, in an attempt to paint a caricature of the 'liberal neanderthal.'
Then again, as I've found out in the past through personal encounters, there really are liberals that ignorant, angry, and mean-spirited who are ever circling the fringe of humanity, and not just the political landscape. So I'm sticking with my original thought - he's the real thing! A loathing, ignorant loony toon liberal!
Opposition parties are supposed to be the "Party of No". It served Demorcats well in the mid 2000's.
Very ironic, cogent, and most importantly true point that Dems, but especially loony liberals, seem to forget.
@Adam
Specter is entitled to do what he likes, but a primary and a general will be gruelling for a man of his age. To hold onto power and make his re-election bid easier, he has to prove himself to be a loyal Democrat. You can't underestimate the damage he did himself that first week after he switched. As soon as he opened his mouth Sestak was already prepping his campaign. And those two votes didn't help either. Since then, Specter has been a reliable vote.
Also, with Specter a reliable vote and doing his best not to piss on the base, and with Franken seated, Obama should now drop the hammer and push through a progressive agenda. Apart from dropping 5-10 points in job approval, which was kinda expected and consistent with recent presidents, nothing has really changed. Everyone knew healthcare reform was gonna dominate his next 100 days, and everyone knew how much a pain in the arse it would be. The only thing that has surprised people is how hypocritical these corrupt Blue Dogs are. They're literally out of excuses at this point.
Pennsylvania has been represented by Moderate Republican US Senators- John Heinz and Arlen Specter during the 1980's. When Heinz died in 1991. Then Governor Bob Casey' Sr- appointed Democrat Harris Wofford to the seat- who defeated former GOP Governor Richard Thornburgh-a moderate Republican in the 1991 PA US Senate Special Election.
Wofford- a liberal Democrat lost to Rick Santorum- a Conservative Republican in the 1994 GOP Revolution.
When Santorum faced re-election in 2000- Democrats had a divisive primary between Klink- a US Congressman who hailed from SW Pennsylvania and Allyson Schwartz- then a State Senator and Former Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies Mezinsky- Philadelphia Burbs. Pro Choice Voters stayed home rather than support Klink who was pro-life. In 2000 Democrats unseated Class of 1994 GOP Senators in Michigan(Abraham-R),Minnesota(Grams-R) and Missouri(Ashcroft-R).
In 2006- DSCC headed by Chuck Schumer recruited Bob Casey Jr. who is a Statewide Vote Getter in PA to challenge Santorum- Casey defeated Santorum by a landslide margin.
LOL @ Mule Rider
Adam said...
Shiloh,
And that rant has exactly what to do with Specter/Sestak vs. Toomey? Politically what I said is true. The macro scene is affecting the race. If Obama's numbers were ten points higher, like they were a couple of months ago, he would be able to transfer some of that support to his boy Specter.
This site is really great and can be quite informative even if it is coming from a decidely liberal bent.
It's shame that it all too often too many people come on here simply to parrot leftwing talking points.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, most of last year 538, RCP, Politico, HP were pretty much nothing but left/right wing talking points and it continues to this day.
You mention Specter is now the Dems "asshole" lol hmm how many Rep assholes have "we" got rid of in 2006/2008 ok, too numerous to mention.
btw, a reply in (6) minutes lol as you continue to dominate this thread. Take a breath every now and then 3.5 years is a longgg time. You obviously live, breath and eat politics and are a die hard Rep. My condolences!
And today's polling is just a snapshot in time as Nate will tell you. Trends come and go depending on the days headlines. 2006 turned on the Mark Foley scandal a wk before the election. Reagan was at 35% job approval rating March 1983 and beat Mondale 59/41.
Did I mention polls are just a snapshot in time.
But I will agree (((if))) Toomey wins in PA the Dems are in deep trouble, whereas Corzine losing in NJ is insignificant.
As I said, 3.5 years is an eternity, chill. I had a friend at another site who said she was born a Rep! and a had a folder at her ready w/all her Rep talking pts. She lived and died Rep politics. You sound just like her.
ciao
PorridgeGun said...
Apart from dropping 5-10 points in job approval, which was kinda expected and consistent with recent presidents, nothing has really changed.
Actually, it's more like 5-7 points. In the last few months, Obama's been around 65% in credible polls, and 55% in Raspublican and PPP. In the last few weeks, Obama's been around 59% in credible polls.
Porridge,
That's not entirely accurate.
USA Today pegs Obama at 55. So does AP. Hotline has Obama at 56. CBS News, known to skew leftward, has Obama at 57. Those are all "credible" polls.
The RCP average is 56.1 On March 3, Obama was at 64.2 in that average.
"Opposition parties are supposed to be the "Party of No". It served Demorcats well in the mid 2000's."
I remember the Dems of the mid 2000s being mostly cheerleaders for Bush. Lets see ...they blindly supported the Iraq War, torture, the patriot act, illegal wiretapping, etc. etc.
Just one or two "No"s would have been nice back then. We can blame Bush & Republicans all we want, but spineless Dems were part of the problem in the mid-2000s, not part of the solution.
Mule Rider said
'Opposition parties are supposed to be the "Party of No". It served Demorcats well in the mid 2000's.
Very ironic, cogent, and most importantly true point that Dems, but especially loony liberals, seem to forget.'
-----------------------
Actually its not true. Remember the weak*ss*d way many many Dems backed the Iraq war resolution as an example.
That being said, the party of no meme is not necesraily always going to be a bad thing. There may well come a time when actually many people want something a bit different, and a party that has opposed everything the Obama administration has tried to do could be an advantage.
Toomey may end up doing slightly better than Santorum did in 2006, but "slightly" is the operative word. Pennsylvania is a safe Senate seat in 2010 for the Democrats.
Markymark,
I was thinking more about mid-decade, say 2005-6, after public opinion on the war shifted. Democrats shouted from the hilltops that the war was a failure and made noise about pulling out. They just didn't have the votes in the senate to do it. But - that certainly WAS saying "No" - and it certainly DID pay political dividends for them in 2006.
Adam, the differnce being that the war was a policy that had be seen to fail. I think the Democrats did generally respect the old thing about 'elections have consequences' thing after 2000, and gave Bush more leeway than the GOP has given Obama. (Thats my anecdotal memory anyways). Mind you I think the public was happy to give Bush a chance early on as well. The difference being that the GOP has not waited for Obama to fail. (for better or worse)
Assuming that Specter can win the primary I think the key thing to watch will be the polling numbers of Toomey as he becomes more and more known.
In 2006, regardless of the polling outfit and the number of undecideds, Santorum never really was able to pull out of the low 40's. If Toomey stays in the low 40's next year in poll after poll (even if Specter is only 45 or 46) then Toomey probably loses. I think there is an upper limit on the number of people that will elect someone so conservative in Pennsylvania.
Incidentally that thinking also suggests to me that Corzine might be in real trouble. Yes, it's true that Republicans often poll better against Democrats in NJ than they actually do at the ballot box - but Corzine is consistently in the high 30's and low 40's - no matter what Christie's numbers seem to be. And Christie is starting to pull above 50 in Quinnipiac, Rasmussen and PPP polls. If Corzine can't get his own numbers above 45 soon, as Christie becomes more well known, it's hard to see how he pulls this off.
Toomey is in no way, shape or form going to win a general election matchup...But yes, let's look at an obviously suspect poll that has only 10%of people saying Toomey is too conservative as a base for saying he has a chance...It's insanity when people even acknowledge moronic garbage like this.
John,
I wouldn't be so quick to say "never". Why do you think that Democrats are going to automatically come out to vote for Specter? Republicans are almost certainly going to be more energized anyway next year, given the fact that they are completely shut out of power.
Political winds shift quickly. It was only in 2004 that George Bush came within 2 1/2 points of defeating John Kerry in the state. Demographics in Pennsylvania haven't changed all that much, and it's a moderate state. If John Kerry was a bad candidate for Democrats to rally behind, then what the hell is Specter? Here is a guy that palled around with George Bush when his ass was on the line.
Just as lack of enthusiasm among Republicans cost them Indiana and North Carolina last year, it's very easy to see how lack of enthusiasm among Democrats could cost them a seat in Pennsylvania. I wouldn't put money on it now, but to say there is "no way shape or form" seems awfully silly.
CO-Liberal said...
"Opposition parties are supposed to be the "Party of No". It served Demorcats well in the mid 2000's."
I remember the Dems of the mid 2000s being mostly cheerleaders for Bush. Lets see ...they blindly supported the Iraq War, torture, the patriot act, illegal wiretapping, etc. etc.
Just one or two "No"s would have been nice back then. We can blame Bush & Republicans all we want, but spineless Dems were part of the problem in the mid-2000s, not part of the solution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And speaking of Bush43 and Polls. Just how does one go from a job approval rating of @ 90% after 9/11, "you're either w/us or against us" to a low of 22% in some polls last year.
Did I mention polls are just a snapshot in time.
and Bush41 had an approval rating in the high 80s after 'Desert Storm" but managed to get only 37.4% of the vote in the 1992 election.
the 2006/2008 elections were definitely addition by subtraction ie as cheney/bush continued to implode so the Dem #s improved. and yes they were against the war as was most of the country, but rhetoric was insignificant on both sides as the voters watched reality on tv ie Katrina, Iraq war, Constitutional violations, corruption, hypocrisy re: family values etc.
So yea, talking pts. don't even have to be heard, just watch daily reality in the media.
Unfortunately for Reps, the last (30) years of their talking pt. "but, but, but Carter/Clinton" has been replace w/but, but, but cheney/bush for the next (30) years.
talking pts. only work if it is the perceived reality of the voters, interesting to note the networks stopped reporting on the war when most people had already made up their minds on the war.
Americans have a short attention span and after (4) years, 1997, of the Iraq war "we" lost interest.
An analogy w/the Iran/Iraq war. After (8) years Iranians and Iraqis got tired of killing each other and after 4/5 years of the cheney/bush Iraq war, Sunni, Shiites etc. got tired of killing each other as al Queda had already accomplished their mission of prolonging the war and the u.s. govt. started paying off the tribal war lords to keep the violence down.
Much like after 9/11 when al Queda caught America w/it's pants down. How could they ever top that attack. No need to even try as they changed America forever and got cheney/bush to start a nonsensical, no end game war against Saddam Hussein.
And as I said, my talking pts. are totally insignificant, reality is what counts!
ciao
and yes, it's hard for the opposing party to be bold when the president has a 90% job approval rating ie politicians are mostly cowards w/a few exceptions, 'Profiles in Courage' doesn't apply.
and w/out talking pts. cable news would be void of discussion, eh :)
Actually, Adam, I will put it this way. If, all other things being equal, you take the voter turnout, I would say you would most likely find 35% of the Pennsylvania electorate would find Toomey far too conservative (which is a rough, low balled number. His voting record is one that proves this out. So in a poll in which only 10% found this, he is down by 1...I agree hard core liberals won't be enthused to vote for Specter (if he is the nominee), but he has consistently kept a +50% margin of Dems favorability...And just wait until people hear more from Toomey...Not sure where you are from, but he's not going to play to most of the state, moderates like Specter are the rule, not the exception...10% find Toomey too conservative, it's a joke and so non representative of what anyone would even think to allow as a deviation. Sounds to me based on the tabs, that they picked a bunch of people who knew Toomey and were Republicans, and then found any Dem they could find that had never heard of him...They should have tossed the poll based on that info alone...
10% find Toomey too conservative, it's a joke and so non representative of what anyone would even think to allow as a deviation. Sounds to me based on the tabs, that they picked a bunch of people who knew Toomey and were Republicans, and then found any Dem they could find that had never heard of him...They should have tossed the poll based on that info alone
Either that or people just don't know enough about Toomey. Just because only ten percent say that NOW doesn't mean that the sample is unrepresentative. From what Nate posted above,
Currently, only 10 percent of Pennsylvanians describe Toomey as "too conservative" (38 percent describe him as "about right" and 4 percent as "too liberal"!).
That still leaves 52 percent that are not ready to give an opinion. If more than 40-some percent EVENTUALLY say that Toomey is too conservative as Specter and the Democrats attempt to define him, then he'll lose. But just because only ten percent say he is too conservative now, when so many don't offer and opinion on the matter, doesn't mean that the poll is junk.
Actually it means 48 percent aren't ready to give an opinion. I flipped the numbers - but the point still stands.
John said...
Actually, Adam, I will put it this way. If, all other things being equal, you take the voter turnout, I would say you would most likely find 35% of the Pennsylvania electorate would find Toomey far too conservative (which is a rough, low balled number. His voting record is one that proves this out. So in a poll in which only 10% found this, he is down by 1...I agree hard core liberals won't be enthused to vote for Specter (if he is the nominee), but he has consistently kept a +50% margin of Dems favorability...And just wait until people hear more from Toomey...Not sure where you are from, but he's not going to play to most of the state, moderates like Specter are the rule, not the exception...10% find Toomey too conservative, it's a joke and so non representative of what anyone would even think to allow as a deviation. Sounds to me based on the tabs, that they picked a bunch of people who knew Toomey and were Republicans, and then found any Dem they could find that had never heard of him...They should have tossed the poll based on that info alone...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So true, the campaign hasn't started and is over a year away!
and as Mike Tyson said so eloquently ;) "Everyone has a plan, until they get hit!"
ciao
Isn’t it funny that when Pete Kent goes away Adam shows up to parrot the same talking points?
My guess is that Arlen Specter won’t run in 2010. He is not well, and besides the toll a grueling campaign will exact, people are hesitant to vote for someone who seems to be on his last legs.
Lastly, it is ludicrous to attach any significance to a poll this far away from an election. This is one poll, folks, and I think Quinnipiac got what they were after—a headline—rather than a true measure of support or lack of it for Arlen Specter.
Pragmatus,
I'd still like to know why Specter went through the trouble of making a stink and changing parties if he didn't intend to run again. It seems more likely that he knew he couldn't win as a Republican - and since he STILL wants to be a senator he went with the path of least resistance.
If Specter wanted to retire there would have been no need for him to jump ship.
He is not well, and besides the toll a grueling campaign will exact, people are hesitant to vote for someone who seems to be on his last legs.
Exactly why Obama should dump Specter and back Sestak. If I could pretend to be a liberal Democrat for just a second, I would think, "What the hell does Obama owe Specter?"
This comment string is hilarious. There is not a poll or political wind that the readers of this blog can't spin. Toomey ahead? No problem, we're going to win. PA is a blue state. Conservatives are wing nuts. Blah blah. Meanwhile, where the news goes real bad, silence falls.
Isn't NJ a blue state (bluer than PA). Isn't NJ about to oust its Gov and elect a Republican?
There are no permanent victories in politics. The Dems are achieving little in power, and are going to have a very hard time holding onto what they have gained.
Can you imagine what a blow out win Ridge would have enjoyed?
Only 44% knew enough about Toomey to have an opinion, but everybody knows Specter, and he's perceived very negatively due to his defection. I think, therefore, that it's likely Toomey's numbers are being inflated by anti-Specter sentiment.
Sestak and Specter's campaigns should be working together right now to focus public awareness on Toomey's House voting record. Either of them would have to beat Toomey in the general election, so it would help both of them to try to whittle his support down to the conservative base before going after each other.
I find this interesting. Nate said: "Toomey did not reside in an especially conservative district, by the way; in fact his former district voted for Barack Obama 56-43. So there's no particular reason to think he'd moderate if he represented the whole state." So, a district that was more Democrat/liberal leaning didn't have a problem with him being "too conservative." Maybe it's just the people from the advocacy groups and the liberals who visit here that find him to be "too conservative." Remember, the question wasn't "Do you think Pat Toomey is conservative?" Of course he is. The question was do you think he is "too" conservative? Like I said before, Santorum was elected Senator in PA and there was no question he was very conservative. PA electors didn't find that he was "too conservative" until he got on all the talk shows and in the papers espousing his conservative viewpoints on every issue. Again, I haven't been living in PA for a few years now, but I always felt the state was moderate to conservative. There is the Catholic majority that is opposed to abortion, the blue-collar ethic, which supports unions, but understands responsibility and deplores welfare, a strong pro-police sentiment, at least outside of inner-city Philly, and a strong hunter community that is pro-gun ownership. I wouldn't say it is a very conservative state, like Alabama or Oklahoma, but it isn't a progressive liberal state, such as New York or Massachusetts, either. It is a swing state that can go either way. Integrity and character of the candidate have more to do with the way people vote there, than party affiliation or ideology. A good poll for PA politics would ask character-type questions about the candidates.
Let's see.
This poll was taken in July, 2009, or almost 16 months prior to the general election in November 2010.
Let's look back to October 1991:
President GHW Bush's polling was in the upper 80s immediately after Iraq War I (Spring of 1991, or the April/May time period). In October of 1991, the Washington Post/ABC poll found that 47% of the respondents would vote for President Bush vs. 37% would vote for an unnamed Democratic candidate. Seems as if almost half of GHW Bush's support disappeared in those five to six months.
And who is to say that circumstances won't change in the PA Senate race?
The wingnutters are spouting that the recession is continuing. Under whose watch did the recession start? I believe it was little shrub who was occupying the White House at the time.
The wingnutters are spouting that the unemployment rate is still increasing. Yes it is, but the rate of increase is drastically slowing (typical of a recession that is about to turn around). Are you wingnutters so prescient that you know with absolute certainty what the economy will be like 10, 12 or 14 months from now? Because that is the time frame in which many people will be making up their minds about who will receive their votes in the November 2010 PA Senate election.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Personally I would counsel against calling the NF Gubernatorial race too early. I think Corzine may well be in trouble, but I think its the kind of race where a campaign may be important. Also I think that any election outside of a Presidential election year tends to involve voters deciding very late.
I think Corzine is the kind of politician who is uniquely in a position to get hit by a storm of protest in November, given his background and party affiliation, and incumbency. BUT what happens if things do begin to turn around in the meantime, what happens if a decent healthcare bill gets signed, the economy picks up and everything feels good again? I think both NJ and Virginia are still very open races this November.
Sestak is on The Ed Show tonight
Those of you saying Toomey can't win in PA because he's "too conservative" still have not explained how it was that a strong conservative GOP candidate like Rick Santorum could be elected and re-elected to the U.S. Senate in recent years.
profnickd—
You wrote recent.
In the November election, Santorum lost, with 41% of the vote to Casey's 59%, statistically the worst defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania and the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator since George McGovern lost his reelection bid to James Abdnor in 1980.
That's recent.
Jeff—
This comment string is hilarious.
Seeing as you're commenting, that goes without saying. Did I read that Gregg endorsed someone in the race to succeed him today?
Off topic but big.
DURBIN SAYS AUGUST DEADLINE IMPOSSIBLE
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25288.html
Jeff said...
This comment string is hilarious. There is not a poll or political wind that the readers of this blog can't spin. Toomey ahead? No problem, we're going to win. PA is a blue state. Conservatives are wing nuts. Blah blah. Meanwhile, where the news goes real bad, silence falls.
Isn't NJ a blue state (bluer than PA). Isn't NJ about to oust its Gov and elect a Republican?
There are no permanent victories in politics. The Dems are achieving little in power, and are going to have a very hard time holding onto what they have gained.
Can you imagine what a blow out win Ridge would have enjoyed?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please, spare us the platitudes! Republican politicians, pundits and yes Virginia, posters like yourself, spent the last 3/4 years apologizing/trying to rationalize the train wreck that is: cheney/bush.
BDS, Carter/Clinton, deflections, red herrings, straw men, spin etc. anything and everything to defend their shrinkin' party!
And yes Dem's use these distractions also, but after the Dem's cleaned the Rep's clock's in the 2006/2008 elections it's mostly Rep's trying to rationalize the why' and wherefore's as in:
but, but, but
Bottom line: (2) official polls! the Dems won the 2006 election by (6) pts. the 2008 election by (10) pts. 2010 ?!? ask me a wk before that election and I'll give you an educated guess, plus Obama won't be on the ballot which will help some Reps.
History says Reps should pick up 10/20 seats in congress at least, especially after the Reps' disastrous 2006/2008 elections.
but, but, but history told many that a young, relatively inexperience, bi-racial candidate didn't have much of a chance to be elected president ~ but, but, but after (8) years of cheney/bush all things were possible, eh
As I said, (((if))) Toomey wins PA the Dems are in trouble, but Nov. 2010 is an eternity away.
And yes, Reps are hoping/praying the tide turns and are quick to post any negative polls re: Dems, it's natural. Both sides do it.
"a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest ..."
ciao
"When you find yourself in the majority, it's time to pause and reflect ~ Mark Twain"
p.s. yea, spare me your preaching on political spin and what not, this is a discussion forum and one is free to ignore me or anybody else ...
@Mike in MD:
Under whose watch did the recession start?.
Under whose watch is it getting worse?
GROG…
Your points are truly bizarre.
If there was a really big fire, caused by kids playing with matches, you would blame the fire crew that showed up to fight the fire.
Bush/Cheney/the GOP were the kids with the matches here. When firefighters show up, they get paid for putting out a fire. They don’t get penalized for how much time it takes.
Shiloh,
A tad touchy aren't we. Whenever a lib begins to sputter about "Bush Cheney", you know things in Obamaland are bad.
Pragmatus:
Fire fighters are paid to put out the fire, not throw gasoline on it.
profnickd…
The problem with the GOP is that it has nothing to offer new voters.
The electorate who for decades were lulled into voting against their own interests are dying. For each one that shuffles off to his reward, a new voter comes of age. What is the GOP doing to attract them? “No! No!! No!!!” Sounds like a long, drawn-out tantrum to me, from the very top of the party down to the grass roots. If you think Rick Santorum is a model of what young people are looking for in a candidate, I wonder where you have been the last few years.
Pragmatus,
And yet Independents are somehow being attracted to the GOP. Curious, isn't it?
Adam…
The proof of whether independents find anything of interest in the Party of No will be borne out at the elections, not from opinion polls or wishful thinking. All the wishful thinking the GOP engaged in prior to November 2008 evaporated like fog when the voters began filling their ballots out. Since they have changed nothing in their approach I foresee much the same results for the immediate future, unless of course someone invents a true magic wand or pixie dust that actually works before November 2010.
Pragmatus:
If being the party of yes means:
Saying yes to spending trillions of dollars that we don't have. Saying yes to record deficits. Saying yes to printing billions of dollars when you can't borrow anymore. Saying yes to umemployment rates approaching double digits. Saying yes to government takeovers of the auto, banking, and healthcare industries. Saying yes to taxpayer funded abortions. Saying yes to government control of my medical records. Saying yes to the government conrolling 40 some percent of the economy and skyrocketing past 50% if Obama's healthcare bill passes. The list goes on.
Yes, hopefully the Republicans will continue to be the party no more.
profnickd said...
Don't you kids remember Senator Rick Santorum? He represented PA from 2001-2007 and was a pretty conservative guy -- kind of belies the idea that PA can't/won't elect conservatives.
Prof? Prof of what? Wackiness?
When was Sanctorectum first elected?
1994.
Who was he running against in that election?
Harris Wofford, in many people's opinion, 'an accidental Senator'. And history shows that when someone is 'an accidental (fill in the office)', they are a much, much weaker candidate than someone who is NOT considered 'an accidental (fill in the office)'
What was Sanctorectum's margin of victory in 1994?
49.40% of the vote to Wofford's 46.92%. Real big winning margin, wasn't it, especially considering that 1994 was a HUGE Republican year.
Let's move forward to when Sanctorectum won reelection in 2000. Remember, an incumbent Senator or Congressman usually has a LOT of advantages when running for reelection, such as money, name recognition, pork spending they can crow about, etc., etc.
Sanctorectum received 52.42% of the vote against Ron Klink's 45.51%. Who was Ron Klink? A first tier opponent? Hardly.
And what happened when Sanctorectum ran in 2006 against a top tier candidate?
Sanctorectum received 41.28% while Robert Casey received 58.64%. And please note that Robert Casey is NOT a flaming liberal (as the wingnuts try to portray anyone to the left of the Reich-most GOOPer).
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Pragmatus,
Maybe. No doubt the election will be the definitive answer. But I would point out that polling was pretty darned good leading up to the 2006 and 2008 elections and that governing has proven to be much more difficult for Obama and the Democrats than campaigning. Instead of smugly proclaiming an end to the GOP after a couple of bad cycles (How many bad cycles have the Dems had over the past couple of decades) maybe it would be wise for the Democrats to question WHY polling shows Independents are leaving the reservation.
Trust me - it would have been better for the GOP to take that approach instead of gloating about winning - before they got clobbered.
Mike,
You're clearly an intelligent guy. Your name-calling makes you seem awfully infantile though.
GROG…
You get an A++ for talking points. You don’t seem very interested in facts, such as who was responsible for, to quote you—
“Saying yes to spending trillions of dollars that we don't have. Saying yes to record deficits. Saying yes to printing billions of dollars when you can't borrow anymore. Saying yes to umemployment rates approaching double digits.”
—all this was accomplished by George Bush and his cronies raiding the Treasury and dismantling financial regulations. But please, don’t let me influence your “thinking”. You guys just keep up the mantra that you’ve been chanting without effect for ten years or more. That’s the best thing that could happen to America right now, to hear the same-old same-old from the GOP.
Pragmatus:
Then you must love George Bush, because Obama is doing what he did fiscally only taking it to a whole new stratosphere.
Bush's deficits don't even approach Obama's. Not even close. Your argument is the same old talking points from the left.
"We can have big deficits because Bush had big deficits."
GROG:
Most of the deficits are because of the Bush administration. The stimulus is a small portion of the deficit. It's a one-off spending program, whereas Bush's tax cuts and prescription drug benefit programs were structural--plus two wars that we were never asked to pay for. Please check out David Leonhardt's article. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html
As for borrowing money and "takeover" of the banking industry, most people believe that these were necessary steps to prevent the entire economy from collapse. Surely you know the arguments. It would be better to address them than respond with talking points.
And surely you know that just about everyone, including Obama and most Democrats, want to get out of the financial and auto fields as soon as possible with the least damage to the taxpayer as possible. It's not as if anyone wanted government to get into these fields in the first place.
And I don't know where you get to government controlling 40% of the economy. The percentage of private corporate investment that has been recently nationalized is one-fifth of 1%. http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php
And I'm tired of hearing about government takeover of health care. There is no such proposal on the table. And when other rich countries get comparable health outcomes as we do while we spend on average 75% more, that tells me that we're getting a raw deal. Maybe what's in Congress isn't perfect, but conservatives have put precious little on the table to account for this disparity.
And as far as saying "yes" to unemployment approaching double digits: do you really think that if we had done nothing, then unemployment would not be approaching double digits? Economic catastrophes take time to hit bottom. To claim that government interventions have already made things worse than they otherwise would have been without any proof is irresponsible. (And it ignores the aid to the states that clearly have made things better than they otherwise would have been. How much worse of would California and other states be without that aid?)
Let's look at fact first. Because the real world won't conform its facts to fit anyone's particular ideology.
GROG…
You need to read up on what your saints have said regarding deficits—
“Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”
—Dick Cheney in 2001
Maybe you’d like to amend that to read: “…deficits don’t matter unless the president is a Democrat.”
Just trying to help you sort out your philosophy…
thank yew racist Rendell.
You tried mightily to keep the White House white for your inbred constituents, and you've done all you can to turn a sure Dem pick up into a possibility for a santorum soaked Republican to get into the US Senate.
Adam: But - that certainly WAS saying "No" - and it certainly DID pay political dividends for them in 2006.
I think Adam is right. Democrats in 2006 did not have much in a way of a positive agenda. The issues were Iraq (the public was tired of it), incompetence (Katrina) corruption (the public was sick of it), and high gas prices (little did we know how much higher they would go, and running on low gas prices is a blatant pander anyway). As Michael Kinsley wrote at the time:
True, people might question your sanity if you were to declare that you were voting for the Democratic Party agenda. The what? If there's anything worse than ignoring that famous elephant in the room, it's imagining a donkey that's not in the room. Even so, a vote for the Democrat is a vote against the Republican. And voting "no" to a record of failure is more important to the functioning of democracy than voting "yes" to any number of promises about the future. It was not Newt Gingrich's Contract With America that caused the great Republican sweep of 1994: It was disgust, skillfully nurtured by Republicans, with the Democratic-controlled Congress.
http://www.slate.com/id/2152350/
The problem with Republicans offering nothing more than "no" is both substantive and political. Substantively, the problems we face (such as health care) are better faced sooner than later, and putting nothing on the table doesn't help. Politically, Republicans are betting on failure. For Democrats going into November 2006, it was a good bet because everyone could see the failures on election day. But to bet on failure now is a gamble; we have little idea what the national situation will be in over a year, much less in over three years. A lot will happen between now and then.
Chicago,
Don't blame Rendell. Rendell alone can't prop up Specter.
Fellow Chicagoan Obama is the one you need to get ahold of and convince to switch horses.
But to bet on failure now is a gamble; we have little idea what the national situation will be in over a year, much less in over three years. A lot will happen between now and then.
Agreed 100 percent. It might be worth the risk though. By just saying "no" (a la Nancy Reagan) - the Republicans don't risk fracturing their coalition. Saying "no" AND coming up with an alternative could get the GOP into trouble. Politically it's better for the GOP to just oppose, oppose, oppose. They can worry about alternatives when they have the votes to affect policy.
Jeff said...
Shiloh,
A tad touchy aren't we. Whenever a lib begins to sputter about "Bush Cheney", you know things in Obamaland are bad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, no, no lol but, but, but ;) you should have seen me and read my posts at another political forum before and after the 2004 election when I was totally pissed off at how bad a candidate Kerry was. Then I was pissed! to be sure.
Now, after the 2006/2008 elections, when most of my fav candidates won, not so much. Just like to point out the truth and weed thru all the b.s.
Mostly amused at how Reps are now trying to distort reality and history ie FDR's policies prolonged the Great Depression lol talk about going back in time and trying to revise history re: someone who was elected president (4) times. As I've said repeatedly, Reps "catch a clue!"
As mentioned, voted for McGovern in '72 so I'm used to being in the minority, not a problem. And now that Obama has totally discombobulated the Rep party and Reps are imploding daily even as I type, all is well :) Hey when your political opponents are unraveling, get out of the way!
Interesting to note Nixon's '72 landslide and Reagan's '84 landslide could not return control of congress to the Reps when the Dems were on a (40) year run and now appear likely to be on another (40) year run as the party of Limbo, Steele, Palin, Gingrich etc. continue to provide comic relief.
No, I have no agenda and really never have. When I was in the USN, Reagan was my C-in-C, no biggie, although I didn't vote for him life goes on.
One thing I do find amusing last year for the first time I donated twice to a politician. $50 and $25 to Obama. I believe my $25 dollar donation was part of his $150 million haul in Sept. but, but, but now that I have donated, "they" think I'm a Dem and a member of the DNC and am constantly getting emails, mail, phone calls for donations. but, but, but, since I'm still very happy Obama is president, these annoyances ;) don't bother me.
Yea, now that I'm clearly in the majority politically, just trying to enjoy my and the countries recent good fortune of electing a serious, rational, capable leader.
take care
p.s. so I can "assume" the last (30) years every time I heard Carter/Clinton from Reps, they were scared shitless, eh ;)
As some pundit said @ 6/7 years ago, if Clinton was dead, the Reps would dig him up!
ciao
Actually, I live in the district Toomey represented and even got into a lively discussion w/ him after one of his congressional debates. While true that he did represent a swing district, there are a couple of caveats. His opponents in all three of his congressional elections were weak. His first was former Allentown mayor Roy Afferbach who, in a foreshawdowing of his then future performance as mayor of Allentown, ran an inept and overconfident campaign. Toomey then had the same opponent for his following two re-election bids. A affable fellow, but simply not articulate and coherent enough to be a credible opponent. Toomey defintitely bested him in the debates. Also, at the time he was a congressman, Toomey was at least more moderate on the social issues (he was always extremely conservative on fiscal/economic issues). I really think his change on social issues was to accomodate his ambitions to eventually run statewide (where he would have to accomodate a more conservative Republican electorate). Even now he "checks" the correct positions on cultural issues, but never discusses them w/ the passion he has for the fiscal ones.
I remember the debate I got into with him. My friend encouraged me to reluctantly accost him after one of his re-election debates. I tried to stick to small talk and it started out pleasantly, but then he almost immediately asked me who I was voting for. I honestly and politely responded "not him" and then he immediately seemed to get indignant. He asked why and I mentioned (again politely) that I simply disagreed w/ him on most issues). He then became more aggressive in his conversation and his followers (who until then seemed to be scattered around the auditorium) seemed to start encircling my friend and I. It was honestly a bit weird. Anyhow, I civily bid Good-bye and went on my way.
This being said, Toomey certainly is a fairly articulate, intelligent, capable candidate who should not be underestimated. Although I think the odds are that he will lose, a lot will depend on how the Sestak/Specter primary goes down, the state of the economy in 2010 and how Toomey comports himself during the campaign.
P.S. Love the website Nate. Keep up the great work.
Adam: By just saying "no" (a la Nancy Reagan) - the Republicans don't risk fracturing their coalition. Saying "no" AND coming up with an alternative could get the GOP into trouble. Politically it's better for the GOP to just oppose, oppose, oppose.
Maybe. If the economy is still in the tank, it might work.
But if the economy is at all on an upward trend next November, even if it's still not in good shape, I think Republicans will have a hard time regardless of what gets passed. Two years is a long time to bring nothing to the table, even if it keeps their coalition together, because they won't be offering an alternative. They'll be "all in" for Democratic failure, and I think it's unlikely that the economy will continue to deteriorate for six more quarters.
Politically, perhaps it's their best bet. Not very good for the country, though, to have only one side putting out plans.
I just wanted to take a moment and address the NJ comparison. Comparing governorships and senate races is always dangerous to begin with, just look at the fact that Mass has had Republican governors for 85% of the last 20 years...Second, the PA race has variables that those mentioning Santorum do not take into account. 1, Specter can hardly be cast as a liberal, so conservative Dems are going to have no problem voting for him, and those, even if they say Toomey is not "too conservative", will still go with Specter. Liberals will turn out to keep the fillibuster proof majority, even if they have to hold their noses. My point in saying Pat has no chance is that in this ideal situation, where the survey is so skewed towards those who don't know Pat, or think he's on their idealogical plain, and he is still a point down. the Demographic could not be better for Pat than this as people learn who he is. Literally, more than 50% of the undecideds would have to break with Pat, which would mean that if 64% of PA's population (once is all said and done) think Pat is too liberal or about right on the scale, he would be a point down, and I just can't see that happening. Again, a lot can change, but that just seems crazy to me judging the guys record, especially against a perfectly reasonable, well known opponent. my worry with Sestak is that he will have the opposite problem, and that could make this a race. With Specter, people know they are getting someone who could be classified as moderate, negating the voting against the idealogical aspect of the race.
One last thing, someone mentioned independents trending Republican, but I think evidence has shown the reason has more to do with the idealogical shift of the classification due to more Republicans leaving the party the past 2-3 years, than it has to do with core changes in life long indy's. So these are people who would have been voting R anyways, so it makes a much harder hill to climb. Also, no comparing Adam to Pete Kent, Adam has in no way shown he deserves scorn whereas PK makes me want to vomit due to his invectives. Well intentioned dissent should be welcomed as it leads to valuable conversation and insight.
Also remember that Pennsylvania is home to one of the oldest and most prominent extremist right-wing religious organizations, the Talibanesque National Reform Association. Rep. Joseph Pitts (PA-16), who was Congress' liaison to the religious right during the Bush administration was closely identified with the group. Yes, Pennsylvania will most certainly elect congressmen who are ideologically indistinguishable from the most extreme fire-breathing Southern Baptist televangelist. They have people like that sitting in congress right now.
Adam said...
Mike,
You're clearly an intelligent guy. Your name-calling makes you seem awfully infantile though.
Gee, Adam. Which word offended you the most?
Was it 'Sanctorectum'?
Was it asking 'Prof' if he was the prof of wackiness?
Was it the use of the word 'wingnuts', or the derivatives of that word that I've used, such as 'wingnutters' or wingnuttery'?
Was it the 'Reich-most' comment?
Was it saying 'GOOPer'?
Let me know so I can incorporate the most offensive term into more of my comments.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Quick thought on the GOP being the Party of No as opposed to the Dems in the 2005-6 period. Its basically reiterating the point earlier, but also showing a lot where the GOP are going wrong at the moment. The difference is that the GOP are saying no to policies that have not run there course. In fact they are saying no before they even become policies. The Dems were saying no to unpopular and ineffective policies, having allowed the Bush administration a certain amount of good will in his first term.
I love how the libs here want to dimiss Santorum as some sort of fluke. He won state wide twice, for crying out loud. Yes, he did it by narrow margins. Yes, he did it in big GOP years. So what. He lost in a big Dem year, and was beaten by a pro-life Dem with a legendary name. The point is, he was VERY conservative, and on the hot bottom social issues. Toomey, despite the comments on this site, and whatever his "scores", is not as conservative as Santorum on the social issues. Don't give me the "scores" as a way of measuring ideological leaning. (Remember, Obama was the "most liberal" senator? Most of you mocked that.) The "ideological" or "firebrand" label is as much a matter of tone as substance. Obama, for instance, is just as liberal as Barbara Boxer. But his tone is moderate, while her's is shrill. In this sense, Toomey is far more electable (currently) than Santorum (and let's bear in mind that Santorum won twice). PA is going to have a major race in the fall. It will be a toss up whoever is the Dem, particularly if unemployment in PA hasn't improved. Toomey is very articulate on the economy.
And it won't matter that Bush "started" the recession. I've noticed a studious silence on this site as regards the Gallop poll in which Obama's handling of the economy (and health care) have dipped into the negative.
I'm a Democrat from one of the reddest parts of PA. I can only speak my opinion, not on the state as a whole.
I do want Sestak to win the primary and will be voting for him, because I want a true Democrat representing me. I don't want someone that was a Republican for how many decades and then just changed his mind.
Yeah, Spector's a solid Democratic vote...right now. Who's to say that if he wins, come 2012 or 2013, he might decide the Democratic party is no longer where he belongs and switch back to Republican?
And I still say, unless 2010 is a year of a tidal wave bringing in hordes of Republicans nationwide, Toomey doesn't have a shot in PA. He's too far right. PA in 2009 is not PS in 1993, the year before Santorum got elected.
But these are just my opinions, and I've been wrong before.
The GOP is saying "no" to Obama policies which so far have been all about big government and government control. That's not what the GOP is supposed to stand for.
@dismon said:
And surely you know that just about everyone, including Obama and most Democrats, want to get out of the financial and auto fields as soon as possible with the least damage to the taxpayer as possible.
Do have any evidence to back this up? I think you're being quite naive.
I don't think Obama has any intentions whatsoever of giving up control of the banking or auto industries. The Pay for Performance act is an outstanding example of class warfare.
This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.
Republicans won't (or shouldn't) say yes to this kind of thing. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink.
GROG: Do have any evidence to back this up? I think you're being quite naive.
I don't think Obama has any intentions whatsoever of giving up control of the banking or auto industries.
The evidence I have is that some financial companies have already repaid their TARP finding and are free to pay their executives whatever they want. Also there is what Obama and many other Democrats have said about their intentions. Third, there is the public unpopularity of continued government involvement which would make it politically disadvantageous to maintain government control.
Conversely, what's your evidence that there is no intention of relinquishing control? Anything more than speculation?
The Pay for Performance act is an outstanding example of class warfare.
This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money.
First of all, lots of bills get introduced that go nowhere. But even if the Act is taken seriously, there was a simple solution: companies could have refused the TARP money to begin with. Or they can pay it back, as a few have. That's not class warfare; it's "If you're going to take my money, you're going to play by my rules." Raw capitalism makes these kinds of deals all the time.
I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government.
I addressed this assertion in my prior post (as well as several others), but there has been no substantive response to it (as well as to the others). Where does this "takeover" of "40%" of the economy come from? I provided a chart on recent "nationalizations," and they're a pittance. I asked why current health care proposals constitute a "takeover," and heard nothing. I see little evidence that government is engaging on a grand plan to "control the economy."
Maybe we should deal with facts and proposals that are under serious consideration and have a substantive discussion?
dismon,
First, thanks for having a respectful discussion.
Secondly, government spending accounts for 45% of GDP. France is at 52%. If this healthcare bill passes, we will go well past France. That scares the hell out of me.
France has already lectured us on the benefits of capitolism. While Europe as a whole is moving to the right, we're moving rapidly to the left. It's hard to comprehend.
It is unconstitutional to tax one group of people for the benefit of another group of people, and that's exactly what Obama is proposing in his bill. His entire presidency is about government control.
Specter has many issues: changing parties, his age, his health, and a more blue Pennsylvania electorate. Can Specter will a general election vs. Toomey, likely yes ... I think Toomey is too conservative for Pennsylvania voters; however, if the economy is not improving by fall 2010, Toomey could win a narrow victory. Governor Rendell would be a much stronger opponent.
GROG, what is your source on that 45% of GDP? That's well over the numbers I've seen, even relatively recent numbers. These aren't some Karl Rove-esque tripe that you've picked up some where?
P.S. Of course the GDP having the shit kicked out of it recently is going to create a spike in that percentage. Yes, it's disconcerting to see that. Welcome to what is the closest we've been to a repeat of the 30's Depression.
First, thanks for having a respectful discussion.
Likewise. People usually believe what they believe for reasons, and it's better to explore them than dismiss them.
Secondly, government spending accounts for 45% of GDP. France is at 52%. If this healthcare bill passes, we will go well past France. That scares the hell out of me.
First of all, the CBO estimates of the bills under consideration say the cost to the federal government will be about $1 trillion over 10 years, or $100 billion a year. GDP in 2008 was $14,264.6 billion.
So the increase would be less than 1% of GDP, unless I've done my math wrong. (Not to imply that it's chump change, of course.)
Second, I don't think it says much to say "we'd pass France." The issue should be results: will this reform leave us better off or worse off, and will it be worth it? To put an arbitrary number as a limit is to dismiss the merits of what is being proposed. If it's bad to "pass France," there has to be a reason to justify it.
Third, our health care system ranks consistently behind most of our peer nations, including France. I believe it's not really disputed that other nations get comparable results while we spend 75% more. If that's what happens in France, why not copy aspects of their system which may work here, especially if it seems more cost-effective? Perhaps there is not enough of an emphasis on costs in current bills, but they're a work in progress, and something may be better than the status quo.
And as for scaring the hell out of people, I'd say that losing one's job with a preexisting condition and so being uninsurable for the rest of one's life is a pretty scary prospect that has to be factored into the mix.
It is unconstitutional to tax one group of people for the benefit of another group of people, and that's exactly what Obama is proposing in his bill. His entire presidency is about government control.
First, where in the Constitution does it say that? Progressive taxation certainly is not unconstitutional.
Second, there is no "Obama" bill. He is open to many proposals on how to pay for whatever plan we're talking about.
Third, everything depends on what your baseline is. The effective income tax rate on the top 1% wealthy has declined from 36% in 1995 to 31% in 2006. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/yet-more-bad-arguments-against-taxes.html Also, the wealthy got most of the benefits of the Bush tax cuts. So one could say that raising taxes on the wealthy just restores the status quo. (And what's the alternative if we want additional programs: tax the middle class and the poor more?)
As for Obama's "entire presidency" being "about government control," I just don't see it. It was the Bush administration that intervened in the financial services industry, and that was to keep the entire economy from collapse (or would things be better now if all the banks had simply been allowed to fail?). The automobile bailout was to preserve a manufacturing base in this country, brought about in large part by the poor decisions of some CEOs. I see no evidence that the government wants to "control" these fields; indeed, it's been largely hands-off, especially with the banks, so far.
As for health care, there's lots of room for competition under the various proposals under consideration. But even if there weren't, saying "government control" doesn't end the argument, it only starts it. When other nations get better results at far less cost, we should ask ourselves if our system really works very well.
Free markets do many things well, but they don't do everything well. They don't educate poor people well, which is a bad outcome if you think everyone should have a shot at success. They don't raise armies well, which is bad if you think national defense is a good idea. Why not take whatever gets us the best health care results for the money, whether its a market, a government-run system, or some hybrid?
(continuing prior post)
Anyway, this intervention in the health care system is not about establishing government "control." It's about getting better value for our dollar, which I think just about everyone thinks is necessary for our long term fiscal future.
Our health care system is a mess, and some intervention is required. Even if one characterizes such intervention as "control," I see no grand plans for government intervention over any other aspects of the economy. The other interventions have been driven by necessity (though people can differ on the necessity of the auto bailout). So this idea that Obama is all about government control just doesn't seem true to me.
Jeff said...
I love how the libs here want to dimiss Santorum as some sort of fluke.
And it won't matter that Bush "started" the recession. I've noticed a studious silence on this site as regards the Gallop poll in which Obama's handling of the economy (and health care) have dipped into the negative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Santorum: not so much a fluke, but a flake/nut as in bat shit crazy!
"What the Democrats are doing is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster."
Yeah, the Democrats are a lot like the Nazis, now that you think about it. Well, except for that whole "destroying Europe and exterminating millions of people because of their religion" thing.
Talikng about priests molesting children.
Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
In fact, I heard that liberals implanted a chip in the priests' heads that turned them evil!
etc. Santorum quotes!
Re: Gallup/Obama until the economy starts to improve his #s will remain low, no surprise ie Reagan: March 1983 = 35% job approval rating. And when/if the Health Care bill passes his #s will improve.
The difference, as many have noted re: the Party of No !!! Americans want health care reform, whereas Americans also wanted an end to the cheney/bush Iraq war. Before and after the 2006 mid-terms told cheney/bush Americans didn't approve what they did the first (6) years.
Hence, ergo, therefore being the Party of No !!! can be a good thing or a bad thing. The Reps are betting on failure that has yet to happen! The Dems were responding to failure which had already happened!
ciao
Dwight: GROG, what is your source on that 45% of GDP? That's well over the numbers I've seen, even relatively recent numbers.
That number doesn't seem obviously wrong to me. All government spending amounted to 36.1% of GDP in 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending According to this site, it's up to 45% for 2009. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
But let's remember some things that may account for the relatively high numbers. As Dwight pointed out, we're in a recession, so GDP is down. There were a massive financial rescue and stimulus packages last year, which should not be ongoing expenditures.
Moreover, with the federal budget constituting about 62% of all government spending, 21% of the federal budget (or about 13% of all government spending) is Social Security. These are just payments to retirees, not direct government spending on projects or a "takeover" of any industry. About 17% of the federal budget is defense spending, and 8.5% is debt payments. So it's not as if all government spending is some nefarious crowd-out of private enterprise.
It's been said many times that Wall Street is a leading indicator of the economy. Many say that it indicates economic conditions, up or down, by about six months.
Wall Street doesn't seem to believe that the recession will last into the fall of 2010 or longer. From an AP report on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/ns/business-stocks_and_economy):
Investors celebrated news of another jump in home sales by propelling the Dow Jones industrials to their first close above 9,000 since January.
Better-than-expected profits at some of the nation's biggest companies also lifted the market, giving the Dow a 188-point rally to finish at its highest level since November.
The Dow's gain was the latest jump — and not even the biggest — in a surge that has lifted the index 923 points, or 11 percent, in only nine days as hopes grow about an economic recovery.
So, if Wall Street is a leading indicator of about six months, the economy should start turning completely around by the end of 2009 or early in 2010. And since unemployment generally trails the economy as a whole by three to six months, we should start seeing good job growth by the end of the first quarter to the middle of the second quarter of 2010.
If those indicators are correct, they would be a very heavy influence on voters' opinions about the Party of NO! during the summer and early autumn of 2010, when they are deciding which candidate to vote for, and just in time to make the Party of NO! look foolish in their all or nothing bet that the economy will still be in recession 16 months from now, when people are going to the polls.
And, if the market leads by six months, and we go by the market low of this year (the DOW stood at 6547.05 on March 9), the economy should start turning around by the end of the third quarter of 2009 or early in the fourth quarter, with good job growth starting to show in late 2009 or early spring of 2010.
Any wingnutters here want to dispute that Wall Street is a leading indicator, and what Wall Street is seeing is an economy starting to turn around? Remember that doing so will severely cripple, or completely disable, any of your 'free market is best' bloviating.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@dsimon
Ah, yeah that seems to be a changed projection. Which makes sense that it'd change given the crap hitting the fan. They do have the spike projected to ease down going forward and finally drop below 40% , and they certainly don't seems to be the site that would pull punches. :) I've looked there before, I think that was what I had in mind.
P.S. It looks like Wiki needs to update their graphics, looks like they are using old www.usgovernmentspending.com data/grahpics. If I can recall my Wiki account password I'm going to log in and post a notice of that error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_gov_spending_histry_by_function_1902_2010.png
Shiloh,
Quoting the extreme things Santorum said only proves my point. Toomey comes across as much more reasonable to most voters. And yet Santorum won twice. But around here, the state that twice elected Santorum and quite recently almost voted for GW Bush is a blue bastion. No way.
As for Obama and the economy. You are correct that he will reap the rewards is he engineers (or lucks into) a recovery. But he has reversed the policies that Reagan used to bring on that recovery. Obama is favoring distribution and social justice over growth policies. That may be worthy (depending on your perspective about the role of government), but it entails serious risks if he does not bring on growth, employment, and so forth. Rising stocks won't be enough.
And let's not forget, Reagan suffered a lousy midterm in 82, and the midterms of 2010 is the only election anyone reasonable has in view.
PS
Rasmussen has Fioreli within 4 of Boxer, who is polling under 50 at 45. And this seat doesn't even make Nate's list?
Jeff said...
Shiloh,
Quoting the extreme things Santorum said only proves my point. Toomey comes across as much more reasonable to most voters. And yet Santorum won twice. But around here, the state that twice elected Santorum and quite recently almost voted for GW Bush is a blue bastion. No way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Santorum won in 1994, the year of the Rep landslide when they finally regained control of congress after (40) years in the wilderness, w/49% of the vote. He easily won re-election in 2000 because of incumbency and the money advantage. He lost to Casey in 2006, 59/41.
So he initially won his Senate race during a Rep landslide mid-term by 2 pts. 49/47. And in 2006 when the Dems won the mid-term generically by 6 pts. Santorum lost by 18 pts. 59/41 when he was a (2) term incumbent w/the money advantage.
btw, just wondering how many Reps are left who were initially elected in 1994. Gingrich and his 'contract on America' is longgg gone, resigning under an ethics cloud!, I digress.
Back to Toomey. Nobody knows who he is. My Tyson quote is applicable: "Everyone has a plan, until he gets hit!"
Club for Growth:
Club for Growth is a national network of thousands of Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that promote economic growth primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity.
The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress.
Club for Growth Policy Goals:
* Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
* Death tax repeal
* Cutting and limiting government spending
* Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
* Expanding free trade
* Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
* Replacing the current tax code
* School choice
* Regulatory reform and deregulation
ok, making the bush tax cuts permanent, which is why America went further in debt, plus the cheney/bush Iraq war. hmm, did Toomey support the Iraq war?
death tax repeal, ah yes once upon a time this was called the estate tax lol, eh mostly affecting the wealthy ie this is an issue only the rich care about, basically insignificant.
cutting and limiting govt. spending, yea that worked out well for Reps from 2000 to 2008, next
personal retirement acct.s, yea that will go over well w/retirees in PA which has a much older population having watched the stock market tank the past couple years, next
expanding free trade, hmm, this ones debatable, especially being from Ohio. Sherrod Brown, who voted against NAFTA and beat and beat Dewine easily because of former governor Taft's incompetence/corruption in a big Dem year in OH, 2006, I digress.
Would think Specter is for free trade, don't know about Sestak and not sure it's important one way or the other, next
lawsuit reform, not a big issue, next
tax code reform, a non-starter and non issue, jobs and joblessness will be the issue, not taxes imo, next
school choice, again don't know how Specter and Sestak stand on a not very important issue, especially if you don't have a job, next
deregulation, well now, that has worked out well for Reagan/Bush supporters over the past (2o) years given our current financial crisis and yes, Dems are to blame also, but, but, but cheney/bush were in charge when Wall St. collapsed. ie possession is 9/10s of the law, eh ;)
So recapping, the economy and jobs and Toomey might want to hide most of his 'Club for Growth' resume running in PA, eh
yea, Dukakis was ahead of Bush41 by 17 pts after the Dem Convention in 1988 and lost by 7 ie everyone has a plan until they get hit ...
ciao
The Class of 1994 Senate Class was
Kyl-AZ,Snowe-ME,Abraham-MI,Grams-MN,Ashcroft-MO,DeWine-OH,Santorum-PA,Frist-TN,and Thomas-WY,plus Inhofe-OK and Thompson-TN were elected in Special Elections- Both won a full 6 year term in 1996.
When facing re-election in 2000.
Kyl-AZ got a free pass- Democrats did not field a challenger against Kyl.
Snowe-ME faced a third tier challenger- She was re-elected with more than 65% of the popular vote.
DeWine-OH faced a second/third tier challenger- the brother of the former Democratic Governor.(Dems in OH were in exile.)
Frist-TN and Thomas-WY faced a third tier challenger.
The 94 Class GOP US Senators that faced top tier challengers were
Abraham-MI(US Rep Debbie Stabenow)
Grams-MN(Former State Auditor Mark Dayton).
Aschcroft(late Governor Mel Carnahan)
Santorum(US Rep Ron Klink)- Klink had a divisive primary and had trouble appealing to the Pro Choice wing of the Democratic.
That takes us in 2006. Democrats gave Snowe-ME and Thomas-WY a free pass. They recruited a top tier challenger against Santorum-PA- Bob Casey Jr, DeWine- Sherrod Brown and won. Frist-TN retired. Thomas-WY died in 2007. Snowe-ME and Kyl-AZ are the only two Class of 1994 GOP US Senators that were left.
Regarding Santorum-PA 18 point loss. Santorum was being challenged by the strongest Democratic challeger- a three term statewide elected official with a household last name- Bob Casey Jr- son of the late popular former Governor. Santorum was a rightwing conservative US Senator from a purple state in an anti GOP Year. The Republican Party was unpopular because of their involvement in the Terry Schaivo. Santorum is part of that crowd. This is the crowd that alienated the Libertarian Wing of the Republican Party.
Would only add that during a Rep landslide year, 1994, Santorum won 49/47 ie he won by default, despite himself.
So yea, I've changed my mind, it was a fluke ie Clinton/Dems imploded in 1994.
Even during Reagan's 1984 landslide, he only got 53% of the vote in PA, so not sure how much of a purple state PA is anymore ...
ciao
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment