Back in May, we introduced something which I like to call the Specterometer. This is simply the percentage of the time that Arlen Specter is voting with the Democrats on what I refer to as Contentious Votes -- anything that comes up for a floor vote in the Senate and where the majority of each party splits their votes.
In the first month or so after becoming a Democrat, Specter was voting with his new party about two-thirds of the time on these Contentious Votes. While there are some less loyal Democrats -- say, Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- who only vote with their party about half the time, this was certainly less than what most Democratic observers were hoping for.
But since then, indeed, something has changed. Well, a couple of things have changed. On May 27th, Congressman Joe Sestak announced that he intended to challenge Specter for the Democratic nomination. And since that time, Specter has voted with his party on 28 out of 29 Contentious Votes, or 97 percent of the time.
Specter's overall party loyalty score since becoming a Democrat -- counting votes both before and after the primary challenge -- is 87 percent. This contrasts with the 44 percent of the time that he broke ranks to side with the Democratic on Contentious Votes while still a member of the Republican Party. He's basically been behaving like a mainline, liberal Democrat.
Notice, however, that I did not say Specter has become a mainline, liberal Democrat. On the one hand, it makes sense that Specter might have been hedging his bets early on after becoming a Democrat, siding with the Republican on a few issues to avoid looking like too much of a craven flip-flopper. He wasn't going to come out with guns blazing the next day with bills to enact single-payer health care and to prosecute George W. Bush for war crimes. He was going to wait until the spotlight was shining a little less brightly, and then begin to vote somewhat routinely with his new party.
On the other hand, it's hard not to imagine that this process has been strengthened, accentuated, catalyzed, by Joe Sestak's primary challenge. You can draw a pretty clear line in the sand from when Specter went from sorta, kinda Democrat to OMG totally! Democrat, and it coincides with the date that Sestak announced his challenge.
The real question is how Specter will behave if and when he wins the primary challenge, and the pressure from the left is off. This is especially so now that some polling shows Republican Pat Toomey, who forced Specter from the GOP in the first place, competitive against him in the general election.
Indeed, Specter appears to be just as capable of reacting to pressure from his right as to his left. In reviewing Specter's votes, I noticed that there was also something of a breaking point while he was still a Republican. In the first part of the year, after Barack Obama had carried his state by 10 points last November, he was voting with Democrats quite often, including on key measures like the stimulus package. But once the primary pressure from Toomey had begun to heat up -- as emphasized by a shocking March 25th Quinnipiac poll that put Specter 14 points behind his Republican rival -- he had become quite conservative, voting with Democrats only 16 percent of the time in his final month or so as a Republican.
On the one hand, all of this is pretty rational -- at any given moment, Specter was making moves that would seem to have maximized his chances of survival. On the other hand, it seems to have triggered plenty of fatigue with voters, who just can't be sure what they'll get if they vote to re-elect him. Arlen Specter is either just about the best reflection or the worst reflection on the state of our Democracy -- it's just hard to say which one.
7.25.2009
Since Primary Challenge, Specter Voting with Dems 97% of the Time
by Nate Silver @ 4:32 PM...see also i, pennsylvania, primary challenges, specter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

137 comments
In the first plot, I think the words "before Quinnipiac poll" are a mistake.
Well, at least Specter is responsive to the voters. That's more than can be said for senators like Max Baucus, who seems to be working solely for the insurance companies. Baucus, unfortunately, has 5 more years before having to worry about re-election so he can continue rolling in the favors from big insurance to get his friends positions as healthcare lobbyists, popular will be damned.
Which just goes to prove that Specter, like most politicians lacks principal.
I have a growing sense that 2010 will be a bloodbath for the Dems. I think many see it that way as well. It's the economy, stupid!
Bernanke is now publicly expressing the view that there will be no net new jobs created over the next five years. That will assure unemployment at politically unacceptable rates.
The darkness will continue to descend on Democrat fortunes even after the mid-terms. There will be no "morning again in America" for BHO's re-election campaign.
Political madness such as multi-trillion dollar deficits, Cap n' Trade and ObamaCare will only further solidify the chances of defeat.
By Inauguration Day 2012, it will seem to many of y'all that you been kicked in the haid too!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Specter isn't responding to voters. He's responding to his inner desire to stay in office. I want to send a big THANK YOU to Sestak for standing firm on his decision to run against Specter in the primary.
Hey in other news, the CBO just took another steaming loaf-pinch on Obama's latest health "insurance" reform bill. Oh, and Spector is, and forever will be a spineless politician...
I'd much rather someone who reflected the best options than someone who sticks to a course that may run off a cliff.
@Walker
The latest CBO report (as reported by Politico.com) was for the Medicare oversight panels, which was originally a GOP idea. Of course, it isn't reported in Politico that the House Health bill would only cause a net deficit increase of $65 billion over 10 years, once the new revenue sources are added in. Why don't you read it?
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf
Of course, it's alway the $1 trillion number that's getting bandied about by the media. And the effects of increased efficiency by not having the uninsured clog up ERs is not reported. And let's not forget the human cost of denying health care, a basic human right, to 10s of millions of Americans.
I think it's entirely possible that we end the calendar year without a substantial health care reform bill, without card check, and without cap and trade. Rarely has so political capital been spent for so little. I look forward to new 538 articles about how this is all actually a good thing for Obama, how it is "smart" and "nuanced" to fold legislatively like origami.
Just keep saying it to yourself enough and in your own mind it might even come true.
Its unfortunate that Arlen Specter can't simply vote with the intention of reflecting his constituency, or what he believes is best for his constituency. Instead he appears to be a typical selfish politician who will take any position to maintain the status quo and keep his job. I see the worst of our democracy in him and I hope he loses in the primary.
I wonder if the Sestak campaign will read this post. If they do I can imagine a campaign ad with the tagline 'Do you really know which Arlen Specter you are going to get?' 'I am Joe Sestak and I approved this message'.
The Specter and Sestak live interviews at Netroots Nation in August should be an interesting affair.
Nate-
To be fair, I think an analysis of Sestak's votes would be in order. He campaigned as a progressive liberal, but his votes have not matched the rhetoric.
In his district, we've felt he's been moving to the Right in anticipation of a Senate run well before Specter announced. Now, Sestak's voting more with the Left to outflank Specter (except for Sestak's vote against single-payer).
I think you will find a shift in Sestak's votes corresponding to this campaign as well.
In 2006 he campaigned as a anti-war candidate who would use his military background to stand firm on timetables and accountability, however he voted WITH Bush and against timetables in May 2007. He was one of handful of Dems to vote with the GOP to fund Cheney's office. He voted for Telecom immunity and warrantless wiretaps.
I doubt seriously that Specter lacks principal. Principle, yes.
Goofs aside: It's a pretty safe bet that, if reelected, Specter's not going to toe the Democratic line as closely. He's simply not reliable.
Of course, every candidate plays to the base for the primaries. Specter's in the odd position of very visibly playing to two very different bases at nearly the same time.
He picked a dumb, dumb, dumb time to switch parties.
WV: ranterse - Spanish verb, meaning "to rant"
2010 does not yet look qiute like 1994, as much as PeteKent would love it to be. The GOP has to run with a viable alternative, the so-called "Contract with America". They can't just begin with opposing meaningful health-care reform, they actually have to stand for something---and not do something stupid like seriously consider Sarah Palin for president in 2012.
Oh, and by the way, Pete, it's "Democratic" Party. To hear and read "Democrat" is a sign of willful disrespect from the other side.
I wonder why Specter didn't attempt to become an independent. He could have made the same agreements with the Dems without appearing to be quite so craven. Surely Specter has enough pull in PA to make an independent candidacy feasible. Too late now, though.
I did think of one mildly clever line to use against Specter: "Arlen zig-zags more than a magic bullet."
I've always liked Arlen (remember him invoking Scottish Law during Clinton's Senate Impeachment Trial), but this bothers me a little. He has always been a liberal Republican, but that is a big leap from liberal Democrat. I have a feeling that graph will change depending on what happens and he'll be back to his old ways soon.
So will he move back to the right in response to the latest Q-Poll showing him tied with Toomey?
Fascinating stuff. We need more articles like this.
I really hope Specter folds his tent before the campaign gets seriously underway. He looks worse every time I see him. But possibly he has a secret agenda. Perhaps he is hoping to get re-elected, then planning to muscle a crony into his seat if he resigns due to poor health.
Walter… Your minders called, very upset. They want you over at mindlessgoptalkingpoints.com on the double.
Yea, the topic is Specter votes w/Dems 97% of the time and all we here from the abused trolls: CBO report and Obama and the Dems will lose/fail.
Hey, even Mule Rider stays on topic once in a while. Give it a try. Ad nauseam deflections makes one look weak and discombobulated.
but hey, please stay the course! ;)
Still haven't gotten over the 2006/2008 elections. Reality is a bitch to the Whigs er Reps!
ciao
How about you see how closely the votes of all who have ever resided at C Street correlate.
Pleasant dreams, PK -- do you really want those scum running the universe?
BlueRevolution… Using “Democrat” when “Democratic” is the proper form signifies that the user is not engaging in discussion but merely parroting GOP talking points. Newt Gingrich is the one who pioneered the use of “Democrat” (as in “Democrat Party”) as a sort of secret code by which his mindless followers can identify each other.
Even though it is less than admirable that Specter is blowing in the political winds, it is nice to know that he is blowing in the correct direction at such a critical time. ;)
It may be, regardless of whatever else happens in 2010, that Specter is a goner, the way that Santorum was. Sometimes it is just time go go or get swept away by the ploitical tides. Having said that, though, I agree with some of the earlier posters: Sestak's voting record DOES need to be scutinized. As we have seen in that awful health care debate, it might actually be better to have an Arlen Specter than another turncoat, "corporate", er, I mean Blue Dog Democrat. If Sestak is going to be another Max Baucus or Kent Conrad, then no thanks.
This may be off-topic. I'll make it on-topic by tying it to a vote from Specter.
The MSM is all over recent polls, which supposedly show the popularity of Obama and the Dems declining on health care. The Republicants are all over this, too. We're hearing that maybe a health care bill is not as popular as we thought - at least, maybe the Dem's version of it is not so popular. People are wising up, the story goes, and really don't want a new expensive government-run health care system.
But these pundidiots have got the story all wrong.
Polls have indeed shown that the handling of the health care idea by Obama and by the Dems is declining in popularity. But this isn't because Obama and the Dems are going too liberal. Quite the contrary. It's because people are beginning to fear that real, big, meaningful - liberal - change is =not= going to happen.
What we're hearing here in flyover country is a) the Dems in Congress are caving, and won't actually enact a public option, and b) Obama won't draw a "line in the sand" and insist that the public option must be a part of upcoming legislation.
The reason the popularity of Obama ad the Dems appears to be declining in the polls is that the public is becoming afraid that perhaps Obama ad the Dems aren't liberal =enough=. If more Dems, and Rahmbo, and Obama, took a stronger stand in favor of universal health care, their poll numbers would skyrocket.
The MSM and various right-wing pundidiots have it exactly backward. Which is hardly surprising. They've been way out of the Real World (tm) for a very long time.
What has this got to do with Specter? Let's see how he votes. Let's see what he says about health care the next month or two. He seems to have a good ear for what's going to sell. I bet he winds up supporting a public option and some real health care reform.
CONGRATULATIONS! YOU WON!! Need I point out it's goddam annoying to have that ad shout out loud at me when I entered the website. The ad promises me I'm the 10,000th visitor. I'm shaking my head.
Pragmatus:
Using “Democrat” when “Democratic” is the proper form signifies that the user is not engaging in discussion but merely parroting GOP talking points.
I'm wondering why you don't make the same comments about certain posters here 538 who constantly use terms like "repulicants" and "GOOPers". But when someone says "Democrat Party" then they're "not engaging in discussion".
Good for you Grog -- keep exposing liberal hypocrisy!
petekent01 (on twitter)
shrinkers post above is a parody, right?
petekent01 (on twitter)
Excellent article in Sunday’s Real Clear Politics by Fred Barnes on Obama's seeming ignorance of economics (notwithstanding the glib rhetoric, which still cannot mask his hostility to free enterprise).
Obama is either fundamentally ignorant or willfully trying to wreck the economy so as to weaken the will of the people to resist his socialist appeals. Either way what he is doing is not working.
I heard it said the other day that no economically literate person would give any positive reviews to Obama's economic programs. Yet he seems to float above it all, secure in the fact that the MSM media will protect him from scrutiny and assist in the dmonization of his critics.
The threat to the nation from this man's ignorance or malevolence is real.
Those who oppose him are scared that the truth will never will out.
Because the journalistic truth machine has broken down, we long for deliverance from whatever source, yes, even looking for solace in whatever Deus ex Machina that can deliver us from this evil.
Thus you have birthers and skullers and Larry Sinclair/Donald Young conspiracists. Blockbuster revelations such as these, if true, might take him down and cannot be suppressed.
If the playing field were level, we could compete easily on a pure policy level, but the media is blocking and tackling against us and the grass roots is not yet completely formed.
petekent01 (on twitter)
I would never criticize Specter for changing his mind. At least he has one, as opposed to Bush who was praised endlessly for "standing tough on his principles" but who was simply too stupid to have any ideas beyond a few meaningless platitudes and did whatever Dick Cheney told him to.
Specter is a problem because he's simply too corrupt and will bend to whatever pressure is applied -- which is mostly going to come from right wing corporations.
As the poster pointed out, Sestak is not exactly the best alternative either. Quite frankly nobody knows what they'd be getting with Sestak either.
As for Specter's polling numbers, that's not surprising when you just are about to switch parties.
1. Republicans hate him because he backed the stimulus bill, and because he's not a doctrinaire right wing robot. Then they double-hate because he switched parties.
2. But, Democrats aren't used to thinking of Specter as a Democrat and don't have any loyalty to him. He has to use the next year to establish his identity as a Democrat if he's going to win party loyalty from Democrats and get elected.
Certainly he's going to have an uphill fight, but the more voters see of the EXTREME right wing Pat Toomey the less they're going to like him either.
IT's clear that a move from Specter to Toomey would NOT be any kind of improvement for anyone but the hard-core right wing of the Republican party.
Their only real hope is that their base is motivated and turns out in force to punish Specter, while the Democratic base is depressed and stays home.
That's possible of course, but it's not likely the Republicans will be that energized for an off-year election either.
"Thus you have birthers and skullers and Larry Sinclair/Donald Young conspiracists. Blockbuster revelations such as these, if true, might take him down and cannot be suppressed.
If the playing field were level, we could compete easily on a pure policy level, but the media is blocking and tackling against us and the grass roots is not yet completely formed."
The paranoid delusions of the right-wing are always good for a laugh if nothing else.
Translation:
1. Some insane, idiotic story about Obama's birth records that has been endlessly refuted by every source that has investigated it with a shred of impartiality or even reason, including the REPUBLICAN governor of Hawaii, would "take down" Obama,'
2. If only there weren't a left-wing media conspiracy of silence by all those multi-billion dollar world-wide Media conglomerates --- all of whom are really being run by wild-eyed Marxist Anarchists! Gasp!
Yup! They really sit around their corporate board-rooms on the thirtieth floor of Rockefeller Plaza scheming how to advance the cause of world socialism!
And the right-wing "grass-roots" isn't "organized yet." Of course this would be the same right-wing grass roots that elected Nixon, Nixon, Reagan, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Bush II during the last 40 years.
In short, largely Rural White America. The same coalition of Angry White Working Class Men, and the Fundies, and the chruch-going married women, and the rural and small town dwellers and the Constitutionalist Ron-Paulers, and Nativist "throw out all the brown people" fringe, and the militia nut, gun toters, and the conspiracy mongers, and the other assorted trash that was just crushed in the last 2 elections for reasons of DEMOGRAPHICS that the right wing just can't get their minds around.
In short, the same clowns who still think Bush was great because he was a "good Christian man."
But, they're just about to turn the corner now and expose that treacherous Obama for the closet Marxist that he is!
And THEN America will really sit up and take notice! Or the nurse will come with their meds and take their tin-foil hats away. Or something.
You would think that after being so HOPELESSLY WRONG with all his mindless, triumphalist predictions about how great Sarah Palin was going to catapult John McCain into the White House, and all the rest of the swill they posted during the last election that Pete Kent and his ilk would just STFU and keep their heads down in shame at just how WRONG they were -- about everything.
No such luck.
Cugel said...
You would think that after being so HOPELESSLY WRONG with all his mindless, triumphalist predictions about how great Sarah Palin was going to catapult John McCain into the White House, and all the rest of the swill they posted during the last election that Pete Kent and his ilk would just STFU and keep their heads down in shame at just how WRONG they were -- about everything.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trolls do what they do best ie troll ;)
Although there are occasionally interesting/entertaining trolls and then there's your basic one trick pony, sour grape, clueless, spamming trolls like PK, etc. so inane and moronic, the perfect personification of the Whig party!
ciao
GROG…
What seems to have escaped your notice is that the people who post here and use such epithets as “GOOPers” and “Republican’ts” are not the heads of the Democratic Party. The “Democrat Party” meme was started by the man who was at the time the head of the Republican Party—Newt Gingrich. It has been repeated, ad nauseam, by every official and major candidate in the GOP ever since.
If you can’t separate the significance level of Newt Gingrich saying something and something else coming from me, whose impact goes scarcely beyond the few people who bother to read my posts, then you have a very skewed sense of proportion.
A thought, not really related to Specter, but reading some of the birther rubbish it occurs to me.
What I find astonishing is hgow similar the tactics of the attack dog Republicans are between now and when Bill Clinton was President, and when Mike Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry were running for President. Call it the Atwated offence if you like. Basically the rule is erode trust in the opponent.
With Clinton it was the sex scandals and whitewater. Lets use that as the most long term example that we have. Now bearing in mind the important thing is not that the allegations are ever true, the important thing is that they bear similarity to the public conception of the man. (Or woman). With a slick man like Clinton, sex is perfect. Gets womens backs up and plays into the idea of the arrogant liberal. Then the idea of the corrupt Southern Pol could be played to with Whitewater. Drip drip drip drip. And thats the point. Its the constancy, never letting up, always plugging away at the trust issue.
With Kerry, it was slightly different, in that he appeared a man of fairly unquestionable principle. What to do? Lie!! The truth might out eventually, but in denying the lie, you give in oxygen and publicity. The Limabaugh machine will repeat the lie often enough, but there is a clever bit here, in that the right wing media can muddy the denials by refuting some of the claims of the denial. That further erodes the trust in the candidate.
With Obama the main thrust is that Obama isn't like you. He's not American really, he is a muslim, he is black, hes effete, he is intellectual. Thats why the Gates hullaballoo was perfect. It played totally into the preconceptions the right are trying to set up. In a sense that is why McCain's 7 houses, and his 'the economy is strong' gaffes were so damaging, they hurt McCain in exactly the same way that the GOP was trying to set up Obama.
I don't know what libreal can do about it. But I do think this is the reason the conservative charge about liberals being arrogant is powerful. Liberals want to, and believe that they can, win on the issues. Elections are rarely fought in the minutiae of policy. Much more often they are fought on a sense of issues, and on whether or not people trust the politicians they are voting for. (Which is why turn out in the US is so bad, why vote for anyone if you don't trust them all!)
To tie this all with Specter maybe thats his biggest task, to help people trust him having crossed the aisle. Its also maybe why incumbency is an advantage usually- better the devil you know.
Off-Topic:
Pete's just a little more "excitable" at the moment because his great love/hope is leaving office (she won't be back as an elected official) and the markets are up.
Fred Barnes is Pete's MSM equivalent. He's never right, but when he's stupid he's sometimes stupid-funny. I read both from time to time in the hope of getting a chuckle, or, at the very least, a smirk. I'm usually disappointed, but sometimes trolls do have their uses.
On-Topic:
Specter wouldn't have switched parties if he didn't intend to run in 2010. He's doing what he thinks he needs to do to win. He's a pro.
GROG…
In case my last post went over your head, go here, here and here.
What the GOP is engaging in, from their leaders all the way down, is smarmy, purposeful disrespect. Just one more example of what has become the norm from the Party of No.
re: Arlen Specter. Self-serving, albeit electoraly successful, political hacks have been the bane of the nation since the first Continental Congress. One further comment on the President. I feel he has virtually squandered too much political capital by attempting to implement wholesale politcal and social change within his first 1/2 term. Too much has been attempted too soon, with predictable results. I opine he has simply spread himself too thin by attempting to replicate the sucesses of FDR's first two terms (eight years) within a 6 to 12 month time frame. Right now, there simply is too much unfinished business on Congress's plate, and I'm not sure the President has sufficient political capital left to enforce the party discipline needed to achieve all his policy objectives.
The Party of No…
♦ No new ideas since Gerald Ford
♦ No common courtesy, from the top of the party on down, when it comes to political opponents
♦ No major candidate that sooner or later isn’t involved in a sex scandal
♦ No shame when it comes to defending the tawdriness of supposed “family values” candidates
♦ No plan for reforming health insurance other than “leave it to the market”
♦ No plan for solving the financial crisis other than “leave it to the market”
♦ No interest in allowing Medicare to bargain with drug companies instead of wasting billions upon billions in taxpayer money on full-retail pricing
♦ No alternative to any reform of “government of the business lobbyists, by the business lobbyists, and for the business lobbyists”
I’m sure I could have come up with many more—these were just off the top of my head.
@Pragmatus and markymark both -
You're completely right. For a long time, the Republicant approach to politics has been to wage personal attacks against Dems, because Republicants know they lose on the issues.
That's why we got the Clinton sex scandal, and now we're getting the tin-hat birthers. And now the flapette about Gates. The only strategy the Republicants have left is to get people talking about something - anything - other than the actual issues. Because when we talk about issues, people realize the Republicants have nothing to offer.
Specter left the Republicants because he refused to go as far right as they wanted him to. He knows quite well his state won't stand for the far-right nonsense of the Republicant "base". He's a good politician, and he knew he'd get creamed in the general election if he toed the party line.
Republicants lose on issues - American has resoundingly rejected their social agenda, their foreign policies, and their disastrous economic theories. All the Republicants have left is tin-hat attacks and obstructionism.
Pragmatus:
No, you didn't say anything that was over my head. In fact that kind of sounds like "smarmy, purposeful disrespect" to quote your above post.
I never disputed that Democratic Party is the correct party name.
I was just wondering why you don't think there's anything wrong with posters like shrinkers saying Republicant party or Mike in Maryland saying GOOPers.
@GROG -
I was just wondering why you don't think there's anything wrong with posters like shrinkers saying Republicant party or Mike in Maryland saying GOOPers.
For my part, I'm being respectful. For years, the far right has been taking a couple of letters out of the name of the Democratic Party. So I figured, the Republicants must have felt they needed an additional letter or two, so I'm giving them one. Just being helpful, really.
And since they've become the Party of No - their only goal now is to obstruct - it seemed in keeping with their current objective to change the "-can" in their name to "-cant". Again, I'm simply following what they themselves clearly want. (They've even got Eric Cant-or as a spokesperson.)
But this is off-topic - bringing it back to Specter, whatever else you can say about him, he was smart enough to reject the Can't-Do attitude that the wingnut party bosses want.
@Pragmatus et. al.:
Actually, the "Democrat Party" meme predates Newt Gingrich. Bob Dole showed himself to be a Republican "hatchet man," as Mondale pointed out, during the 1976 VP debate, when he referred to WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam as "Democrat Wars."
But the nasty Bob Dole didn't originate the term. The one who first used the term frequently for cheap political effect was the infamous Joseph McCarthy. Those who use the word, "Democrat," as an adjective, are following in his feces-spreading footsteps.
Terms like "GOOPers" and "Republicants" are a response to Republicans' constant insults. Such terms might not be mature, but as Prag pointed out, they're used by MB posters, not by leading lights of the Democratic Party. When you hear Obama call them "Goopers" (as Dubya used the "Democrat Party" epithet), then the Dems can be viewed as sinking to the Republican depths. (Don't hold your breath.)
wv: nucke: either a power plant or a bit of fun; you choose.
markymark wrote:
"With Clinton it was the sex scandals and Whitewater."
Please don't forget the UN troops in Montana, ready to take over at any moment, complete with black helicopters.
Or the plan to replace all of the American currency with "redbacks", per the orders of the NWO (or Illuminati).
And what discussion of Clinton conspiracies would be complete without including the murder of Vince Foster and several others who "stood in Clinton's way"?
The Republican Party has become a quasi-religion rather than a political organisation. What binds adherents of a religion together is faith, not rational thought. Thus, the eagerness to believe any crazy theory is part of the rank-and-file's effort to show their "faith credentials", not to persuade anyone. The Party leadership is willing to give tacit winks and nods to the crazies, because all that they see are loyal Republicans when they look at the conspiracists.
To bring it back on topic, I see Specter as the PA Norm Coleman: his loyalties blow in the breeze, but he can be reliably swayed with false promises and idle threats.
Matt,
I get it now. The Republicans started it, therefore it's acceptable to say Republicant and GOOPer, but unacceptable to say Democrat Party.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
The reality is: mainly far right extreme 'evangelical' conservatives show up in Rep state primaries, sooo moderates, to whatever degree, have increasing trouble winning the primaries, especially now that the Whig er Rep base is ever shrinking.
In PA, many Reps switched parties or became independents and of course Obama's registration drives in every state tilted some former majority Rep states to Dem. This is/was Specter's reality ie PA, not so purple anymore.
And we must remember Biden/Obama made certain promises to Specter if he switched. Opportunist, to be sure, but the Dems wanted Specter to switch.
The Rep presidential primaries were interesting in that the whole field was sooo weak that a former so called Rino, McCain, won by default when so called conservatives ie Mittens, Huckabee, Thompson et al canceled each other out and McCain won by default when the party elders determined their war hero candidate was their best chance in the general and came out in force and endorsed him after he won NH, again by default.
ciao
Does Penn have an open primary? I would hope that most Republicans flood the Democratic primary and vote for the weaker candidate, Spector. I have more confidence Toomey could take Spector, who no one really likes. What do you say, Keystone State Republicans??
Meaningful health care, er I mean health 'insurance' reform will fail this year. Why? A vast majority of Americans are 'content' with their existing coverage and will not vote for a baffling, possibly more expensive, unknown alternative. Period. All this conjecture is meaningless.
Democrats, back in late 2007/early 2008 should have been smart and elected a moderate liberal candidate, i.e., Bayh or Warner. That would have sealed the deal for the Democrats for multiple decades. Instead, foolishlessly, they went for a callow one-term hyper-liberal. Americans are revolting against his policies now. Not a big suprise. One termer, no doubt.
John Thune will take him.
Funny thing is, "Democrat Party" just makes the speaker sound stupid, as if he or she doesn't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.
At least "Republicant" makes a reference to the actual nature of the current party, whereas "Democrat party" is simply an uneducated grammatical error.
@Matt and Tood Dugdale - right you are, yes, the "Democrat Party" meme is something the Republicants have been mouthing in lockstep for a long time. I remember it clearly from the 60s. And yes, the Republicant religion has for decades been pushing these paranoid nonsense theories as their primary means of attack, since talking about actual issues - the economy, the wars, shredding the Constitution, health care, education, etc., etc. - talking about these things means they lose.
The American people are desperate for real change. The status quo is no longer acceptable. The politics of "ignore-the_issues, do personal attacks" no longer works. The Republicants tried it throughout the election cycle last year, and their way was soundly rejected. But they haven't yet caught on - they seem to be convinced that their way forward is to do more of it.
Good luck with that. The Republicant mishandling of everything they touched has caught up with them, and America's not buying their bait-and-switch nonsense anymore.
@Walker -
Does Penn have an open primary? I would hope that most Republicans flood the Democratic primary and vote for the weaker candidate, Spector. I have more confidence Toomey could take Spector, who no one really likes. What do you say, Keystone State Republicans??
Yup. That's the Republicants. They can't win by being honest, because on the real issues, they have no ideas (well, they have some ideas, all of which have already been proven to be failures). They are the party of cheating and dirty tricks. And these jokers think they should stay in power?
Here's an idea, Walker. Have honest and open discussion about the things that actually affect our country, and the world, and the real lives of real people. How about if we rely on the American system of democracy, free and honest debate, and see which ideas win on their actual merits?
Like that'll happen.
Oh wait. It did. That's what last November was all about.
Hey Walker
On your (((dead))) political blog 'Nononobama' you say: Feel free to contribute too but please be civil.
Spamming is not contributing or being civil!
Feel free to grow up and stop acting like your still in kindergarten ...
ciao
The Dems are the party of "yes".
*Yes to tax cheats.
*Yes to record deficits
*Yes to a $750 billion unfunded stimulus which Dems claimed would alleviate the economic crisis quickly. It has failed.
*Yes to the federal bailout of the auto industry which failed. (Which 76% of Americans were opposed to.)
*Yes to an unfunded government run healthcare system with speculative savings. It will ultimately lead to higher overall medical costs or medical rationing.
*Yes to rejecting limits on medical malpractice awards which would provide immediate reductions in overall medical costs at no cost to the taxpayer. (75% of Americans favor limiting malpractice awards.)
Hopefully, Republicans will continue to say "no" to increased spending that increases the Federal deficit. Somehow, the Republicans have let the Clinton Administration take credit for the last balanced Federal budget. In truth, the budget was not balanced until the Republicans took control of Congress in the middle of his first term.
The Republicans must stay the course and continue saying “no” to fiscally irresponsible Democrats who want to increase government spending by adding to the deficit with unfunded spending programs and increased taxes.
Shiloh,
You lack your compatriots wit and sophistication. You may need to go to finishing school. I suggest the Sebastian Flyte School of Pen and Ink, which is loosely affialated with both Eton and Oxford. Tell them "Anthony Blanche" sent you and you may get 50% off.
Nononobama is indeed 'dead', as you say. But somehow (like a 'Spector'?) it still lives on in the 'worldwide intertube', a phantom of another Age? The Age when Obama talked a lot and didn't have to do anything. Indeed, those were glorious, halcyion days.
Maybe I should resuscitate it?
And your comment about Republican and 'dirty tricks'. Yes, you are so right. As opposed to Republicans, Democrats are virtous, saintly poli-angels, every last one of them. They would never, ever sully their clean names with political dirty trickery! Petition challenges, 'walking around money', ACORN hustling with public monies... Nope, that doesn't exist in Democrat Land!
John Thune, 2012
@GROG
I don't even know where to start:
*The Republicans have ZERO standing when it comes to fiscal discipline. King George II and Cheney the Terrible ran up huge deficits with the willing compliance of a right-wing, extremist-led Republican Congress for six out of eight years. And they didn't even have the honesty to put Iraq and Afhanistan war funding into the Federal Budget, they kept it "off budget" so the deficit numbers would look better. So much for "values" and "responsibility".
*The Gingrich-Dole Congress of the 1990's deserve ZERO credit for the balanced budgets of that decade. ZERO, ZERO, ZERO! What balanced the budget was the 1993 Clinton Budget Plan that passed without a SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE in either the House or Senate. After the right-wingers took over in January 1995, they tried to ram their wing-nut agenda down Clinton's throat and he stood his ground. By the time Clinton and the Ginrich-Dole Congress had agreed to a Budget Plan, it was 1997 and the deficit had already dropped significantly into the tens of Billions. Basically, the government ran on continuing resolutions for 2 years based on the previous budget rules of the Democratic Congress and the Clinton White House. Giving the GOP credit for the surpluses is like giving the rooster credit for the sun coming up.
I think the last Republican President who presided over a balanced budget was Richard M. Nixon. That's when the GOP wasn't run by a bunch of right-wing nut jobs who run on "values" that they don't practice in their own lives.
My 2 cents.
Walker
Your reply is totally disoriented and discombobulated, no surprise!
btw, I'm not the one who mentioned 'dirty tricks'. Flustered much ?!? and as I don't want to get in a battle of wits w/an unarmed man, you take care now and don't miss any of your meds. We all saw how it affected limbo!
ciao
Nodak:
One problem with your analysis. Clinton did not submit a balanced budget plan in 1993. That was also the year of the "great Clinton tax hike". No Republican could have possibly voted for it and they didn't.
Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan. It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan.
This is when the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."
BTW, Bush did raise the deficit to historic highs, but Obama's deficit is 4 times that of anything Bush presided over.
As long as we're discussing inappropriate names for Parties, I've always thought "GOP" is pretty dumb.
What is particularly "Grand" about the Republican Party? It seems quite subjective.
And "Old"? The Democratic Party was formed in 1828 after Jackson was elected. The Republican Party was formed in 1854. Which Party is older?
I use the term "GOP" mostly to avoid repetition and provide contrast in writing, but it's still inappropriate IMO.
@GROG
BTW, Bush did raise the deficit to historic highs, but Obama's deficit is 4 times that of anything Bush presided over.
Not quite true. Bush kept the wars and the raiding of the Social Security trust fund off the books. Also the bailout money that he insisted on at the end of last year. Accounting honestly, Bush's FY2009 deficit (which is the result of his final year in office) is 1.3 trillion dollars.
Obama's first budget (FY2010) does not have a 5.2 trillion dollar deficit, which would be 4 times Bush's final 1.3 trillion.
Please re-check your figures, I think you made an error.
But what has this got to do with Specter?
Shiloh, I was responding to both yourself and the gentleperson above you. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, unlike Obama, who doesn't seem to be able to do anything right at all, either at once or all together.
And your comment about "limbo"?
How low can you go (drum snare and crash!)?
To mock those Americians who struggle with substance abuse problems is not something I imagine a liberal feeling comfortable doing. Don't you feel any compassion for people hurting inside and finding false relief in the bottle or needle?
I don't care about politics, that's just cold.
I disagree w/ Obama and most Democrats on many, many things but I would hope to never stoop to making fun of their personal foilbles.
I do leave open the right to make fun of Senator Franken's liver lips and general "Ogre-like" qualities, though...
So how will Arlen vote in 2011 when he has no primary challenger ans has a lifetime (for an 80 year old) appointment to the Senate?
I'll take my chance with either Toomey or Sestak
Walker said...
Does Penn have an open primary?
TROLL -
See this post:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/healthcare-timeout-is-fine.html#comment-1534620063551473451
It's in response to the exact same question you asked on the "The Healthcare Timeout is Fine" post by Nate.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Hey, does anyone know what Mike Maryland's Blogger ID is???
"Walker said...
Does Penn have an open primary? Blah, blah, blah! Democrats are finished! I love to hear myself blather!"
No child. PA does not have an open primary. That's why "Spector" switched parties, because he couldn't win the REPUBLICAN primary when the only PA Republicans left are right-wing ass-hats.
And how hard is it to spell "Arlen Specter" when his name is in the freaking TITLE of this article? You really have to TRY to look that stupid!
So weekdays just aren't enough time to spread hate and venom in the comments of fivethirtyeight.com, Mike in Maryland and Cugel?
You have to spread your mean-spirited vitriol on the weekend too?
Walker said...
Shiloh, I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obviously not, as only my user name was mentioned in your post.
Your totally disoriented/discombobulated ie changing the subject as mentioned sooo flustered now your ramblin' like a frickin' idiot!
And re: my previous post, I apologize to all the kindergarten kids out there ... sooo stupid, one doesn't even realize how much of a fool you are.
and yea I lied, my last reply to an unarmed kid!
again, feel free to quit your childish straw man/distraction blurbs at any time ... or continue.
take care
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt! ~ Abraham Lincoln
Mule Rider said...
So weekdays just aren't enough time to spread hate and venom in the comments of fivethirtyeight.com, Mike in Maryland and Cugel?
You have to spread your mean-spirited vitriol on the weekend too?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanx for sharing on a weekend, but, but, but, please try to stay on topic ...
ciao
Cugel, despite your insults you still remain in my good graces as you appear to be a Jack Vance fan...
Cugel the Clever??
Not trying to get into a snarkfest with you, shiloh. Just pointing out that two of the most hateful human beings that patrol 538 are willing to spread their vile and disgusting remarks both during the week and on the weekend.
Alright, alright I take all comers!!
In this corner, a scappy kid from the mean streets of Bellaire, Texas...in the other corner, the left corner, a gentleman from Maryland, a Jack Vance fan, and a Civil War enthusiast with a particular fondness for battles waged by General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard...
I strike first! How is it that, despite super majorities, President Obama seems to be failing in passing the key elements of his entire agenda, in particular, comprehensive energy and health care reform policies?
If you disagree with my presupposition, that is fine. Maybe you truly believe Obama isn't struggling in this regard.
If so, tell me how I am wrong?
I wage that Obama IS striggling in passing his agenda largely because 1) America fundementally doesn't want it, especially during times of economic upheaval, and 2) Obama lacks executive experience and tacks towards a generally passive leadership style in general.
To the person who rides the offspring of a donkey/horse cross:
Are you speaking of yourself and all your sockpuppets and PeteKent and all of his sockpuppets?
Those are the two 'personas' that readily come to my mind who are "hateful human beings that patrol 538 [and] are willing to spread their vile and disgusting remarks both during the week and on the weekend."
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Bernanke is now publicly expressing the view that there will be no net new jobs created over the next five years. That will assure unemployment at politically unacceptable rates.
Hey Pete, I hope you're still around, I wanted to ask you about this comment.
I've found this in a bunch of other comments on blogs, similar to yours. So far as I can tell, the source is a Newt Gingrich letter posted on Human Events? He says that a recent Federal Reserve report says there will be no net new jobs in the next five years. He doesn't link to the report or cite it in any way.
Assuming he's referring to the Federal Reserve's semiannual Monetary Policy report delivered to the Congress on July 21, it clearly shows in a graph on page 40 that the projected unemployment rate in 2011 is projected to be around 8.75%, and in the "longer run", 5%.
I cannot find any instance of the words "net jobs" or any part of the document that seems to back up Newt's statement. I'm afraid that, unless you can find something else, you've been fooled again by your completely dishonest Republican leaders. What's the old saying? Fool me once, shame on me... fool me twice... Hmmm...
Mule Rider said...
Not trying to get into a snarkfest with you, shiloh. Just pointing out that two of the most hateful human beings that patrol 538 are willing to spread their vile and disgusting remarks both during the week and on the weekend.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not going to argue whether or not someone is hateful or whether they are spreading vile as I mentioned previously, typing on a keyboard is sooo impersonal and one can be sooo detached from reality watching their monitor.
And of course, sooo easy to avoid, just stop going to said particular political blog, but, but, but, some peeps are addicted.
Just like foxnews hate and vile, just change the channel, or if you're a conservative and don't like Obermann, my fav, sarcasm, don't watch.
Although speaking of being addicted, that would definitely be part of my definition of trolls. Also insanity ie doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Trolls just like to be distracting and paid attention to ie "please, please, look at me" because obviously they have no life and too much free time.
OK, now I'm ramblin' lol but I'm sure one gets my point.
btw, no charge for my free, keen grasp of the obvious, psychoanalysis ;)
take care
p.s. again, am I still on topic ...
yea, Nate's site, although a unique political blog in some ways, one can easily avoid all the nastiness, as you say, or choose to continue in the conversation, not a big deal one way or the other as regards to the time/warp continuum!
Deep, eh :)
btw, rumor has it there are many, many conservative blogs out there ...
the political forum at a reality site I used to post at after the 2008 election, many, many conservatives stopped posting, go figure! They always argued that liberals dominated the forum lol and after Obama one what few cons who still posted there took their "balls" and left. Highly amusing to us liberals who never and I do mean never go away despite the fact Reps had won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections until Obama totally discombobulated the Rep party and foxnews ...
ciao
correction: and after Obama won what few cons who still posted there took their "balls" and left. :)
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Specter, but...
@Walker
I strike first! How is it that, despite super majorities, President Obama seems to be failing in passing the key elements of his entire agenda, in particular, comprehensive energy and health care reform policies?
How about we wait until we see what the bill looks like? Can't really say whether he is "failing" until there's a bill to see what's in it.
HUGE majorities still want a public option. In face, a way big majority still wants single-payer universal health care, but that'll have to wait until the Party of No is slapped a couple more times.
Health care reform will pass this year. You say it won't. Let's reconvene in January and see where we are. Until then, this is pointless.
What has this got to do with Specter?
@shiloh
Just wanted to say you're doing fine. Keep it up.
As I note in my book, The Power of Money in Congressional Campaigns, this type of behavior is actually somewhat normal. Arlen Specter did tack the right up until he beat Toomey in 2004, then he moved back to the center, per his normal voting behavior. Why? He needed the Republican party reputation in the primary but his more "moderate" reputation for the general. AND, furthermore, he was rewarded with more party money and the party's endorsement against Toomey in the primary.
Members of Congress need resources to win elections (reputation and money) and react accordingly based upon the resource landscape.
Persuter,
How DARE you spread such "vile and disgusting remarks" (aka FACTS) on a weekend, and challenge any of the resident TROLLs to back up their assertions. HOW DARE YOU!!
We all know that conservatards think of FACTS as "vile and disgusting", as they get in the way of the wingnut, Republicant, GOOPer, Party of NO! talking points.
(Did I hit all the main descriptives the TROLLs stated they don't like? After all, they didn't mention Faux News, Lush Rimbaugh, Manthrax Colter, O'Lielly, et al, so I didn't include them above.)
VBG
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@David Parker
Members of Congress need resources to win elections (reputation and money) and react accordingly based upon the resource landscape.
A great argument in favor of public funding for political campaigns, on all levels.
Shrinkers, you may be small, but you don't think small. I like the cut of your jib.
I agree with you that its hard to oppose or promote a bill when there really isn't any bill on the table. Good point.
Would you agree that its essential for Obama to settle on a concrete bill right now? Something that he could take to the people instead of a list of general guidelines?
Walker, I'm flattered. Honestly. Rhetoric and grandstanding aside, I want a good discussion.
Would you agree that its essential for Obama to settle on a concrete bill right now? Something that he could take to the people instead of a list of general guidelines?
I think Obama wants to return to the Constitutional separation of powers. He's said what he wants, and he is relying on Congress to craft a bill. That is how it is supposed to work.
We've grown accustomed to the president trying to dictate his will upon the land. Personally, I don't want a king. I'm content to see what comes out of the give-and-take of the balance of power inherent in the Founders' original intent.
...think of FACTS as "vile and disgusting"...
No, it's pretty much the incessant name-calling and insults and perpetual smart-ass tone you carry.
It has nothing to do with "FACTS."
You are a mean and pompous jerk and treat most anyone who disagrees with you - even many other "lefties" - with gross incivility.
We're taught to pray for people like you, but dang you make it tough.
I just hope you don't lead such a miserable and nasty life as what your comments what reflect in your postings on 538.
You seem angry and disturbed. I really hope that's not the case. But if it isn't the case and it's all just an act to rile people up and get under their skin, that's a little sad and pathetic as well.
Bottom line, the Rep hierachy always backed Specter in the primaries, regardless, because he was the Reps best chance to win the general in PA and they knew Toomey was unelectable!
and now Specter's a Dem and Reps are stuck w/Toomey in a state that is trending more and more blue as older voters pass and younger voters register ...
ciao
I'm wanting one of you Obama homers to back up your boy for 2012 and put your money where your mouth is.
Based on the comments from his most rabid supporters, he should be considered at least a 4:1 favorite to win the general election in 2012.
So how 'bout a little wager? Give me a 4:1 line on Obama getting elected. In other words, I get anyone but Obama and he's your horse to ride. If he wins, for each person that bets me, I'll pay $250. If he loses, you pay me $1,000. Fair enough?
Let me know if you want in on the bet. According to all of the rhetoric, that should be easy money for you guys.
M.R. If you're so certain, give me 4:1 odds, I'll put down 5k. You lose, you give me 20k.
M.R. If you're so certain, give me 4:1 odds, I'll put down 5k. You lose, you give me 20k
Naw, naw, naw. That's not how this works. Obama is the clear favorite, and if Vegas were laying odds, I'm sure they'd be on the order of 4:1 in his favor. At the very least 2:1.
You have the favorite in the race, so why do you need the odds stacked in your favor as well? I will up the $$$ figure but only if you agree to the 4:1 odds in MY favor. Hey, it's Obama. You can't lose, right?
Mule Rider said...
I'm wanting one of you Obama homers to back up your boy for 2012 and put your money where your mouth is.
Based on the comments from his most rabid supporters, he should be considered at least a 4:1 favorite to win the general election in 2012.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mentioned previously as a liberal independent, 2008 was the only time I gave to a political candidate er wagered money, $75 to Obama.
And what a return on investment: No McCain and no Palin! :)
As I said to Walker: disoriented, discombobulated, deflections, distractions, straw men, red herrings, and as Letterman used to say, please no wagering ;)
No, but I'll bet you in 2012 I'll be donating to Obama's re-election campaign! :)
Yea, I'm 1 for 1 in donating to winning candidate(s)
carry on
I plan to retire about then. I'm in for 50K. Mule can put up 200K.
I plan to retire about then. I'm in for 50K. Mule can put up 200K.
This is funny, coming from BO's most ardent supporters. They ain't willing to bet on him unless they concede there's a 75% chance he'll lose. Wow, y'all don't have much faith in him. Seems completely disconnected from all the rhetoric.
Guess there aren't any serious challengers out there.
Actually, giving 4:1 odds to an opposing candidate would insinuate there's an 80% chance he'll win (and Obama will lose).
Shrinkers, interesting point about Obama desiring for a movement back towards a constitutional separation of powers.
Hadn't heard that, but if that is the case, that is admirably high-minded!
That being said, if I was very desirous of immediate action on the health care and energy fronts, I would probably want the president to "get his hands dirty", knock some heads over on the hill, and pull and LBJ and get some stuff done, know what I mean?
There's got to be some tension between the two approaches. Obama is probably still trying to feel his way.
Guess there aren't any serious challengers out there.
Of course not, Mule. No one believes you'll come through. Even though you're convinced you're right. I'm even OK with even odds. Are you?
Anyway, I see Pawlenty is going national. The 2012 Republicant primaries are going to be fun - the Palin / Bachmann / Cantor wingnut faction vs. the McCain / Pawlenty / Jindal trying-to-look-reasonable faction. I'm buying popcorn.
But again - what has this got to do with Specter? Anyone....?
I'll bet $100 that on a daily basis the party of No !!! continues to implode lol
and another $100 that limbo has cardiac arrest before 2012.
and another $100 that palin, perry, sanford, cantor, boehner, coultergeist, ingraham, savage, malkin, ensign, vitter, coleman, bachmann, blackburn, pfotenhauer, dobbs, billo, limbo, hannity and everyone who lives at the 'C Street' house continue to make me laugh ...
ciao
@Walker -
if I was very desirous of immediate action on the health care and energy fronts, I would probably want the president to "get his hands dirty", knock some heads over on the hill, and pull and LBJ and get some stuff done, know what I mean?
There's got to be some tension between the two approaches. Obama is probably still trying to feel his way.
As far as dirty hands - that is what a Chief of Staff is for. I'm certain Rahm is on the case.
Also, Ted Kennedy has made health care reform his life's work, and that is basically what he's been doing since his cancer diagnosis. I don't think Obama needs to work much on Congress on this issue as long as Teddy is still alive.
On tension - yes, I'm certain there is tension. On the one hand, America elected Obama to make some real changes. On the other, the Constitution puts limits on presidential power, and we have just lived through 8 years of a president who ignored the Constitution (Bush famously referred to the Constitution as "just a God-damned piece of paper").
It may take a while to get the balance back. It took a while to break it. But history is more than six months long.
Of course not, Mule. No one believes you'll come through.
I'm good for the money, and if I make a bet, I'll see it through to the end. That's whay I kept it to the $1,000/$250 range...something more reasonable to pay against should I lose.
Even though you're convinced you're right.
That makes no difference and is completely "irrelevant." Arizona Cardinals fans were "convinced" their team would beat the Steelers in the last Super Bowl. Vegas didn't think so and the odds favored Pittsburgh. Arizona made it a great game but the oddsmakers were right (on the winner but not necessarily the spread).
I'm even OK with even odds. Are you?
I'd consider 2:1 odds in my favor. I'd be stupid to go lower than that against one of the most popular presidents in American history. The man has plenty of political capital to spend between now and then. He can't lose, right? Why are you scared to give me a slight edge?
Anyway, I see Pawlenty is going national. The 2012 Republicant primaries are going to be fun - the Palin / Bachmann / Cantor wingnut faction vs. the McCain / Pawlenty / Jindal trying-to-look-reasonable faction. I'm buying popcorn.
See, you even divide up the Reps into only two groups - the certified crazies and those trying not to look crazy. How does Obama not win this in a landslide? You've got to be kidding me that you want even odds, especially with what you've admitted about your perception of the GOP.
But again - what has this got to do with Specter? Anyone....?
Nothing, and I'll admit as much. Just trying to inject something colorful to talk about with entertainment value than some self-serving, 80 year old politician.
*yawn*
Bush famously referred to the Constitution as "just a God-damned piece of paper"
Really?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html
I wish I could be as reckless making such statements about Obama, but I guess I have a conscious.
You know, I'm diametrically opposed to Obama on a hundred or more issues, yet you don't see me stooping into (because I disagree with them 100%) the "birther" conspiracy, the secret Muslim conspiracy (taking and twisting the quotes from one of his books), etc.
See, you even divide up the Reps into only two groups - the certified crazies and those trying not to look crazy.
I was being generous. More factions than two just make for even greater amusement.
The Republicants have been proud about never being critical of one of their own, and marching in Fascist lockstep on important congressional votes (which is why Specter defected - see, I brought it back on-topic!!!) So much so that I considered using the name "Replicant" instead of "Republicant". It will be fun to watch the party splinter.
But I know quite well that they'll re-emerge one day, and I suspect it will be around a Pawlenty-type politician who pretends to be sane.
I live in Minnesota - land of both Pawlenty and Bachmann, along with Franken and Klobuchar, not to mention Jesse Ventura. And McCarthy, Coleman, Mondale, Garrison Keillor, and lots of other colorful figures. We get the full spectrum here. I love politics.
Just sayin.
Mule Rider said...
But again - what has this got to do with Specter? Anyone....?
Nothing, and I'll admit as much. Just trying to inject something colorful to talk about with entertainment value than some self-serving, 80 year old politician.
*yawn*
And so we see the 'purpose' of a TROLL. To come into a discussion and throw it off track, to twist and distort anything anyone says, and just generally to make sure that no one can discuss the topic at hand.
Back to the topic at hand, as to Specter's chances:
We are more than nine months from the Pennsylvania Senatorial primary (May 18). A lot can happen in a week or a month, let alone more than nine months. I suspect that if there is any hint of his cancer coming back, his chances of winning the primary will go down quite a bit. On the other hand, if he wins the primary, and then there is a hint of his cancer returning, he will get a lot of sympathy vote, and his chances of winning the general will go up quite a bit.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
marching in Fascist lockstep
It will be fun to watch the party splinter.
Hilarious. You insinuate they should all be put in straight-jackets and locked up, link them with "Fascists", and are sure the party is going crumble and fall apart.
Yet you can't make what should be a fair bet on Obama to win in 2012?
Wow, you really are a pussy.
Just sayin'.
And so we see the 'purpose' of a TROLL. To come into a discussion and throw it off track, to twist and distort anything anyone says, and just generally to make sure that no one can discuss the topic at hand.
Dude, you don't see it, but you just discussed yourself to a tee. Your "insult-mongering" and generally asshole-ish attitude makes sure NO discussion is every on track, and you are constantly guilty of distorting and twisting.
Even when what you say has the semblance of being "on-topic," that's not the case and is damn sure not your intent.
Your purpose isn't to discuss anything or have any reasonable dialogue about a subjuect, it's to use the most incindieary language you can think of to discuss anyone not like you - mostly conservatives, but really anyone who isn't far left, homosexual, and self-loathing - to...and this is what confounds me because I really don't know why you do it...
Maybe you simply get off whaling away on your keyboard with insults and mockery and then hitting PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT so you can see your anger splattered all over the screen knowing you've subjected others - particularly those you disagree with - to your filth.
Whatever the case, you exhibit the trollish behavior your supposedly loathe as a characteristic in others and are the very epitome of the d-bags you claim to rail against.
As hated as I am on this site, the disdain for you is at least as much. That much is a FACT.
Mule, it's real fun to take things out of context :)
Hilarious... "Fascists"... the party is going [to] crumble ... can't make ... a pussy.
I don't think I need to comment.
Mule Rider said...
As hated as I am on this site, the disdain for you is at least as much. That much is a FACT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hmm, hate is a very strong word and would indicate that person is of some importance to the person doing the hating.
personally, I have a few liberal friends who do indeed hate cheney/bush and for some very good reasons ie over 4,000 U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians dying needlessly in Iraq, etc. etc.
Myself, I didn't even hate Nixon. In order to hate someone one has to put a lot of effort into the equation and doing the quick math, don't know a lot of peeps who are worth that kind of effort, certainly an anonymous poster on a political blog wouldn't even be considered for say a "strongly dislike".
As I said, typing on a keyboard is soo impersonal, who cares what some fool says re: this and that.
Bleeding heart libs would be praying for one's soul lol sarcastic libs like myself would just enjoy the give and take, but hate, nahhh that would mean someone who posts on the web was/is a very, very important person and obviously this concept on its face is absurd.
So, no Mule, you also have your facts wrong on being hated lol.
As I said, some trolls can be amusing/entertaining ...
carry on
@shiloh
personally, I have a few liberal friends who do indeed hate cheney/bush and for some very good reasons ie over 4,000 U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians dying needlessly in Iraq, etc. etc.
It is really interesting that Bush killed far more Americans than the 9/11 attacks did, isn't it?
But we really should be talking about Specter.
Mule, it's real fun to take things out of context :)
You're the one who insinuated the GOP was fall of crazies, you were the one who invoked the phrase "Fascist lockstep," and you were the one who said the Republican party was about to splinter.
I merely conveyed those sentiments with my questions but used different wording. How is that taking anything out of context?
It is really interesting that Bush killed far more Americans than the 9/11 attacks did, isn't it?
So is there an offical tally on how many Americans Obama has killed by needlessly continuing these wars? I'll fully concede that Bush is a murderer and agree to there being a certain amount of "victims"...but you'll have to concede that Obama is now responsible for murdering a certain amount of those soldiers and foreign civilians.
So what's the count on Obama's watch? I'm wondering...
Clearing Obama of responsiblity because he is "continuing a war that Bush started" is NOT a plausible defense. Just to make that clear.
Obama has shown no indication he's going to be willing to withdraw from Afghanistan anytime soon. Doesn't this concern you in the least?
Why worry about the murderer Bush when you've got the present murderer in Obama to unleash your attacks on? I want to know how you feel about the murderer Obama.
And again the person who rides the offspring of a donkey/horse cross, in his message at 8:39 PM, proves that he/she/it is nothing but a TROLL. A lot of keytapping (how DO TROLLs type anyway - tap, tap, tap, with one of those sausage-sized fingers?) and not a word about the subject at hand.
Hey TROLL?
Can we at least TRY to stay on topic?
Do you agree or disagree with what I stated about Specter's chances if his cancer is even suspected as returning? Why or why not?
How do you think that would affect his voting record?
Go ahead and try to insult me, but at least also, at a minimum, try to address the topic in some form or fashion.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
persuter, I think the statement came from the Fed Chairman's Congressional testimony last week.
What is clear is that job creation will lag under Obama since his economic program relies on governement spending and is light on ifrastructure and his tax cuts are small and bleed into income encoraging little more than the chewing gum and lottery industries.
You're the one who insinuated the GOP was fall of crazies,
Hey, I know it isn't "full" (if I could ignore your Freudian slip) of crazies. But don't you think that at least a little bit of control in your hands? You could really help lessen that perception by not making batshit crazy posts yourself.
shrinkers wrote:
"But I know quite well that they'll re-emerge one day, and I suspect it will be around a Pawlenty-type politician who pretends to be sane."
I'm sceptical on that score, but the results in 2010 will be the deciding factor.
The Republicans think that they have hit on a "sure thing" by going back to their "core principles". That means tax cuts and fiscal conservatism. Obama is already doing tax cuts, and fiscal conservatism sounds great until you have to tell the public what spending you plan to cut.
The favourable rating for the Republican Party is at 34% currently on Gallup. They will be struggling to even get the base to hold their collective noses and vote for the Republican candidates; that's why they have to keep the base "energised" with conspiracies, outrage, and assertions of Obama's "plans".
The thing is, the base can win in "red" states, but not easily in "purple" states. As long as they can flip one House or Senate seat in 2010, the "core principles" idea will be considered a winner and they will go with the crazies in 2012.
The Republican Party favourables are now lower than the Democratic Party's numbers were in 1994. The Republicans last showed a net gain of seats in 2004, and that was almost entirely in the South. The "low-hanging fruit" is gone for them, for the most part.
That's the way I see it, anyway. People over-estimate the Republican ability to do the sensible thing, IMO. Their "unified messaging" is coming apart at the seams on an almost daily basis.
It's nice to see another Minnesotan here, by the way.
With regard to HR3200 the House HC Reofrm bill, I think it was a terrible miscalculation of Obama to let it sit out there, a huge target all through the August reseach.
There is so much scary stuff in that Bill. It is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to establish a single payor system and impose healtcare rationing, esp at end of life.
The people will recoil in horror.
Never mind that the CBO and OMB are in open warfare.
Such disorder!
Where will it lead?
petekent01 (on twitter)
@Mike in MD,
Specter is done after this term. He'll pander to whatever cause he believes will give him a snowball's chance, which will be both good/bad for Democrats in the short-run.
But a wishy-washy, cancer-prone senator up for re-election doesn't have enough fight in him for one last go-round.
You could really help lessen that perception by not making batshit crazy posts yourself.
Funny thing is, I don't consider myself a Republican and have never voted that way. I'm a conservative independent who's usually so fed up with politicians on both sides of the aisle, I can't stomach casting a vote for any of them.
But I'd like to know what "batshit crazy" statements I've made tonight in your opinion. Do enlighten us what you think I've said that's crazy. Or are you just throwing that around as another parroted insult that the left has for conservatives without any real "evidence."
I'm serious. Identify one thing I've said in this thread that could be considered crazy. Betting on the 2012 election? Hardly. Silly talk but not batshit crazy talk. Come on. Tell me.
It's nice to see another Minnesotan here, by the way.
But nothing beats Rockford Rd in Minneapolis, however. Am I right?
Just a thought -
This thread is about Specter. I know topic drift is a way of life, but still...
For anyone who wants an honest and thoughtful political discussion about the various issues raised here, we should maybe find a different forum.
For anyone who simply wants to score points, it's not worth it. Beat up a stuffed toy, you'll feel better.
This thread is about Specter. I know topic drift is a way of life, but still...
Guess I'm a bit flummoxed why anyone would be so hellbent on discussing the political fortunes of a wishy-washy, cancer-prone 80-year old.
But I'd like to know what "batshit crazy" statements I've made tonight in your opinion. .... Silly talk but not batshit crazy talk. Come on. Tell me.
I wasn't actually referring to what you've posted today. Hey, if it was just today then no big deal. Everyone can have an off day. But you habitually post batshit crazy stuff. I really don't feel like putting myself through the pain of reading through your posts today. For my own sanity I try to pace myself. *shrug*
P.S. I'm at a loss as to which is worse, you or PeterKent. PeterKent, as far as I can tell, knows what he posts is illogical batshit crazy stuff. That makes him unrepentantly deceitful. You seem to be garden variety clueless, with a side of anger induced "loosing it" from time to time.
.
Ah, competition! If only all the yappers about the "free market" believed it applied to politics. Instead, we get a virtual monopoly controlling most seats in Congress, thanks to gerrymandering.
The winners are always whining about having to spend all their time campaigning once they're in Congress. What they mean by campaigning is doling out political, legal & fiscal favors in exchange for campaign money, which they will then use to buy the media deciders, the ad time & space, and the local pol's they think they need to win the next election.
What they seem to forget is that they can't just buy us poor dumb little voting sheep any more. There just isn't enough money to go around. And now that we have other sources of information, and less allegiance to Parties, it's harder to manipulate us. There might actually be a free market in ideas emerging. Or erupting.
If the sound of that eruption doesn't have the effect of making these corrupt corporate clowns start fearing electoral Judgment Day, they may not have time to run from the pyroclastic flow that's headed their way in NOV 2010, 2012 & 2016.
A serious threat to their political careers is the only thing most of these wh-res appreciate. It's up to us to keep the pressure on, and fire them if they don't perform, no matter what the Machine or the Media has to say about it. It's still OUR country. We pay the bills, we fight the wars, we produce all the goods & services and we consume them. Nice set-up. Now we need to run it ourselves, for ourselves.
With us or against us, Dems?
.
Dwight said...
Everyone can have an off day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lol that just struck me as very funny, yea even Mule and PK, sort of the opposite of ~ Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.
carry on
Gee, Dwight, I thought you had something worth sharing. Guess not.
*shrug*
Todd, it would be great if you are right. But I've learned the lessons about hubris.
I'm glad we now have Nate. I'll wait until he weighs in on where the future of the Republicant party might go. He's got an almost spooky ability to condense the polls on a given topic into a cohesive view of where the country is standing at present.
The GOP has been disintegrating ever since Pat Buchanan's independent run at the presidency. If the Republicants try to cluster around Palin / Cantor / Bachmann, they are marginalizing themselves. Ron Paul might well form the kernel of another re-formed party. Jindal and Palin are jokes, and (for any of us who live in MN and who know the score), Pawlenty will show himself to be a mere tool.
But the Republicants have shown that they are all about propaganda, not really about the capabilities of any particular candidate. Witness Bush, who had no abilities whatever, but had his strings in the hands of Cheney et al. All they need is someone who looks presentable, and a tool like Pawlenty or Coleman might well agree to be a puppet for the established elite, once they settle on a message they think will work. (Palin will never agree to be someone else's puppet.)
But, as I said, this may not be the best place for a serious discussion on these topics - I mean this particular thread may not be.
And it's good to meet you too, Todd.
I sorely wish the people who frequent this site who think I'm so freaking "clueless" would follow me around a day to see just how "clueless" I am.
Of course, in their world, "clueless" simply means somebody not kowtowing to the far left agenda and nothing to do with intelligence, charisma, leadership, etc., etc.
I don't think I'm too special, but I'd stack up my skills, abilities, etc. against anyone who frequents 538 and guarantee I'll come out ahead 99% of the time.
But I'm not Far Left, so I guess I'll just go back to leading a sad life as a "clueless" member of society.
Woe is me, being so "clueless." I can't tell you how miserable I am or how worthless I feel. I mean, gosh, I'd make you just giddy telling you how much my family thinks I'm a loser, I've had no success with women, I find myself in a dead-end job with peanuts for pay, very few friends, and neighbors who mock me for how I dress and being socially awkward.
Damn, my life is a wreck. I'm so "clueless" and it's just not going to get any better :(
Mule Rider said...
I sorely wish the people who frequent this site who think I'm so freaking "clueless" would follow me around a day to see just how "clueless" I am.
Of course, in their world, "clueless" simply means somebody not kowtowing to the far left agenda and nothing to do with intelligence, charisma, leadership, etc., etc.
I don't think I'm too special, but I'd stack up my skills, abilities, etc. against anyone who frequents 538 and guarantee I'll come out ahead 99% of the time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a casual observer to 538 until recently and don't know if this applies to you, but once the "group" determines a certain poster at a political blog is only there to cause trouble ie a troll, whether said person turns out to be quite intelligent or a total moron is not relevant.
One never gets a second chance to make a first impression ...
carry on
s a casual observer to 538 until recently and don't know if this applies to you, but once the "group" determines a certain poster at a political blog is only there to cause trouble ie a troll, whether said person turns out to be quite intelligent or a total moron is not relevant.
One never gets a second chance to make a first impression ...
Now that's probably the best reply I've gotten from you. And I agree.
My problem was that early on, frustrated by the lack of intelligent discourse - as most liberals on here were seemingly only interested in conservative-bashing and not debating any of the issues at hand - I lashed out with some invective of my own and would even stay away for weeks/months at a time.
Well, it didn't matter later on when I would come back - as I have lately - to try and engage some of the folks here in rational dialogue. Some of the standbys from before are still around, just mocking and hurling insults.
Yeah, I really don't know why I try. I guess, with the exception of very few posters, about the only liberal associated with this site that approaches being my intellectual equal is Nate. Guess I think by hanging around that some day I'll get a chance to "prove" that conservatives aren't all knuckle-dragging troglodytes as he'd like to think and can stand toe to toe in a debate by making rational, factual points, not the political hyperbole that floods the airwaves via talk radio, the blogosphere, etc.
Commenting on a forum where the topics all have a liberal slant and the fanbase is at least 3:1 liberal, it's going to make me look ill equipped to hold my own. But I grant you I'm no dummy and would make a lot of liberals retreat to their happy corner if we were really to go head to head on the issues.
It helps that I'm not a dogmatic buffoon like an Inhofe or Limbaugh, an airhead populist like Palin, a "crazy" like Bachmann, a lightweight like Jindal, or a pandering moderate like Crist.
They don't reflect me or anything about me. So I'm offended when I'm associated with anything they stand for.
Mule Rider said...
But I'm not Far Left, so I guess I'll just go back to leading a sad life as a "clueless" member of society.
Woe is me, being so "clueless." I can't tell you how miserable I am or how worthless I feel. I mean, gosh, I'd make you just giddy telling you how much my family thinks I'm a loser, I've had no success with women, I find myself in a dead-end job with peanuts for pay, very few friends, and neighbors who mock me for how I dress and being socially awkward.
Damn, my life is a wreck. I'm so "clueless" and it's just not going to get any better :(
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Come'on, no time for self-deprecation lol as Senator Franken would be the first to say, You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, some people probably like you!
carry on
Mule Rider said...
Yeah, I really don't know why I try.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Therein lies your problem. You have a love/hate relationship w/538 ie you're addicted, but alas, one is on the wrong side of the fence.
Maybe "we" should take a vote and decide if you deserve a second chance ;) after all, bleeding heart libs are all about second chances, eh
OK, it's late and I may be hallucinating :) I kid
ciao
Mule Rider wrote:
"But nothing beats Rockford Rd in Minneapolis, however. Am I right?"
Actually, no, in more ways than one.
Rockford Rd isn't in Minneapolis; it's in Plymouth. And a lot of streets in Plymouth beat Rockford Rd.
I'm going out on a limb here and am thinking that you googled my name and found my address, which is hardly secret. However, I don't live on Rockford Rd. Nobody lives on Rockford Rd in Plymouth unless you go several miles west of the border. For some weird reason, the addresses on the frontage roads are stated as Rockford Rd, and also as their individual street names.
But if you wish to mail me, the Rockford Rd address is valid for postal service.
shiloh,
My vote is that the person who rides the offspring of a donkey/horse cross is a TROLL, and as such, deserves no further comment from anyone. In fact, we should institute the Amish shunning treatment, where not only is the person not spoken to, but backs are turned so that NO contact is made with that person.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
the person who rides the offspring of a donkey/horse cross
It kills me that you go to such great lengths - i.e. typing so many words when a simple "mule" will do - just to prove you know one basic fact from biology. Of course, you're not being technically correct, because it's not just any offspring of a donkey and a horse. The donkey and the horse have to be a specific gender. It has to be a male donkey and a female horse...otherwise, you could potentially have a hinny.
So you haven't been technically correct by leaving at just "offspring of a donkey/horse."
So I'll do you like you do me on a "technicality."
BUSTED! Get your FACTS straight, d-bag. Otherwise, you're just twisting, distorting, and most importantly, LYING!! Such is the life of a flaming TROLL!!
That's right, Mike. You don't know what a mule is exactly!!
TROLL!!!
Mule Rider,
speaking for myself, I don't believe that you are stupid.
You are obnoxious, abrasive, arrogant, ill-tempered, ill-mannered, and sometimes ill-informed. Those are often the characteristics of truly stupid people, but that does not make you stupid. Those characteristics, however, tend to make one less than suitable for intelligent or friendly discourse.
As I recall, you abandoned fivethirtyeight to start your own forum in which in you thoroughly vetted potential participants for intelligence and proper attitude. Now you return here and complain that we are all too stupid for you. That seems odd to me.
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that during the campaign you promised to castrate yourself if Obama won Indiana. How did that work out for you?
Funny anecdote about trolls. For shits and giggles, I just (and you can do this too) googled my full user name, as well as Mike's, with the word troll next to it.
That's right. Go to the Google search engine, and in the box, type "Mule Rider" troll. After you get your results, type "Mike in Maryland" troll.
Believe it or not, there are only 2,910 hits with my name and "troll." However, with good ol' Mikey, there are 411,000 hits.
So he either spends a whole hell of a lot more time talking about "trolls" or simply being called on himself. Either way, he is, by leaps and bounds, far more linked with that word than I could ever dream of being.
Just thought I'd point that out.
It gave me a laugh.
Damn, Mike, You've out-trolled me 411,000-2,910. That's quite a performance.
speaking for myself, I don't believe that you are stupid.
Thanks. It's unbelievable how it pains some people to concede even that.
You are obnoxious, abrasive, arrogant, ill-tempered, ill-mannered, and sometimes ill-informed.
Now I can handle that kind of critique and freely admit I've been most/all of those things to varying degrees at some point. And as part of my "resurgence," I want to avoid coming across as any of those, although I feel it may be necessary to be mildly abrasive when driving home a point to some of the wildcats that roam this site.
As I recall, you abandoned fivethirtyeight to start your own forum in which in you thoroughly vetted potential participants for intelligence and proper attitude.
I may have said that but I'm too lazy to go through with it for now. I was fed up with the same ol', same ol' and have left for extended periods of time.
Now you return here and complain that we are all too stupid for you. That seems odd to me.
No, no, no. That's not the case. But a few people immediately pounced on me because of conversations we've had in the past. I'm just spitting a little fire back at them. I don't want to come across as coming back and calling out everyone as 'stupid.' That's not the case and there are certainly informed and intelligent people here, especially many of the liberals.
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that during the campaign you promised to castrate yourself if Obama won Indiana. How did that work out for you?
I don't remember that, but rest assured, I have maintained my manhood and was not (and still am not) willing to wager my testicles on an election. Money? Yes. Balls? No.
Mike in Maryland said...
shiloh,
My vote is that the person who rides the offspring of a donkey/horse cross is a TROLL, and as such, deserves no further comment from anyone. In fact, we should institute the Amish shunning treatment, where not only is the person not spoken to, but backs are turned so that NO contact is made with that person.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
shunning lol as Snake Plissken said in 'Escape from New York' ~ No human compassion! and speaking of the Amish they live 'down the road a piece' in Holmes County, OH and make the best damn Swiss cheese! I digress.
Don't believe many Amish do political blogging ;)
Was just trying to follow Obama's lead and show some empathy for a minority ie a conservative troll at a progressive site ...
carry on
As a Pennsylvania voter, what I would really like to see is this kind of analysis of his voting record across his entire Senate career, or at the very least the last several years.
I like a lot of what Specter has to offer, but I naturally have some reservations.
If his poll numbers dont improve the Democrats should consider abandoning Specter.
This analysis of Specter's voting must be based on a very small number of votes. What is the margin of error for each sample?
Post a Comment