Newshoggers.com

Specter is in trouble... (again)

By Fester:

My great fear of not having Senator Specter's career circling the toilet to write about when I have nothing else to write will not be realized.

Rasmussen reports a race where the fundamental dynamics are working against Senator Specter in the Democratic Primary:

1* Suppose the Democratic Primary for the 2010 United States Senate were held today. Would you vote for Arlen Specter or Joe Sestak?
51% Specter
32% Sestak
4% Some other candidate
13% Not sure

Sure Senator Specter is up by 19 in this poll, which is a significant improvement from being down by half a dozen in the last polling on the Republican Primary before he flipped caucuses, but this is a weak position compared to Joe Lieberman in 2006. The Pennsylvania Democratic Primary is about ten months out. Two months out, Ned Lamont was trailing Senator Lieberman by fifteen points in the Democratic Primary that Mr. Lamont went on to win. Several weeks out, Rep. Toomey was trailing by fifteen points in the 2004 Republican Primary. He closed the gap by thirteen points by primary day. A well funded and well run campaign by a competent candidate who only has to make up two points per month against an incumbent with 100% name ID and little passionate support is in very good shape.

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

Commentary By Ron Beasley

So how is it that 76% of the citizens of the US support a public health plan but it may not have the votes in congress?  It's simple really.  When we vote we elect people who take their orders from a few wealthy oligarchs who set policy and make the decisions. The people with the most money can but the most lawmakers.  Jim Hightower explains:

Pockets of Influence in Washington

What do shoplifters and members of Congress have in common? Tailor-made clothing.

Like a shoplifter's long coat, the suits of many lawmakers come with an astonishing array of inside pockets that hold surprising volumes of loot. We already know about various conduits that politicians have crafted to funnel cash into their election campaigns, but USA Today recently reported that our congressional stalwarts have also created a series of less-obvious pockets for stashing special-interest influence money.

[....]

Take the "foundation pocket." Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, has sewn one of these into his suit. His Barton Family Foundation has become a handy place for favor-seeking corporate interests to stash cash and earn Joe's gratitude. For example, Exelon, the giant nuclear-powered electric company, has deposited $75,000 in the foundation - money it could not legally give directly to Barton's campaign fund. Did I mention that Joe is the top Republican on the house energy committee and that he often carries legislative water for the nuclear industry?

Still, Barton sees no ethical lapse in such smelly transactions, cleverly claiming, "The money doesn't go to me." Too clever by half. The Exelon donation came only because the congressman personally wrote to the CEO to solicit it, the check is made out to a foundation bearing the congressman's very own name, and he controls the dispersal of the funds. Indeed, thanks to his corporate donors, Barton's foundation is able to give highly publicized grants to nonprofit groups in his district, thus scoring major political points for Joe.

Then there's the "institute pocket" stitched into the garments of a bipartisan collection of lawmakers.

One is Ted Kennedy, the Democratic icon who is presently setting up an Institute for the United States Senate in Boston. It will be named for - guess who? - him. Amgen, the huge drug corporation, was so moved by the civic nature of the institute that it ponied up $5 million to help fund it.

Please be assured, however, that Kennedy's prominent role in the current legislative fight to rein in drug company gouging had nothing whatsoever to do with the corporation's decision to donate so generously. As an Amgen spokeswoman explained, the $5 million merely reflects the drug maker's interest in helping "young people to become engaged in public service and public policy." 

That's why even though the political party in charge may change things don't change that much.  Without serious campaign reform the oligarchs will continue to rule and a government buy the people and for the people will remain a memory and a dream.

UPDATE

Ali Frick at Think Progress points out that the corporate media is in the attack mode:

Major Media Headlines Pretend That Latest Polls Show Obama’s Policies Are Unpopular

Today, two new national polls were released, one by the New York Times and CBS, the other by the Wall Street Journal and NBC. News headlines quickly settled on a theme: The polls showed that President Obama’s policies were suddenly unpopular:

“Sticker Shock — Obama still popular; his policies, not so much” [ABC's The Note]

“Polls find rising concern with Obama on key issues” [Reuters]

“Polls Show Declining Support For Obama Decisions” [U.S. News & World Report's Political Bulletin]

“Obama’s popularity: Problems testing it” [Chicago Tribune's The Swamp]

“Is ‘Smooth Sailing’ Over for Obama?” [Washington Post]

The headlines have little to no relation to the actual data in the polls, both of which found broad approval for Obama’s foreign policy and economic agendas.

Option Space and Suicide Seats

By Fester:

Over at 2 Political Junkies, there is some fun and very well justified slagging of Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA-18) truthiness on repeating a disproven GOP talking point on the costs of cap and trade. One of the commenters asks the reasonable question about the probability of a serious Democratic challenger against Murphy in 2010. I think the probability of a serious challenger is low for a variety of reasons:

I doubt that there will be a strong challenger in 2010 --- the district last cycle went for McCain by a good margin and has a single session PVI of about R+9. That is a tough seat for a Dem to win.

Add onto the fact that if a Dem was to win that seat in 2010, they are going to be severely squeezed in 2012 as Harrisburg has to collapse the five Western PA Districts (3,4,12,14,18) into four districts. Smashing together either 4 and 18 or 18 and 12 with moderate adjustments to everyone else is the most likely incumbent protection redistricting plan possible. So the Dem challenger would be looking forward to one hell of a tough race in a neutral(ish) political environment year and then a fight to the death in the 2012 redistricting.

My political memory is a bit short for this question. Is there a decline in "serious" challengers in the '10 cycle because the shadow of the future and the probability of re-election of a successful challenger declines because redistricting rescrambles the rules in the next cycle?

My theory on this is that as states redistrict, uncertainty increases; uncertainty on whether or not Town Y is included in a district and with it a net 20,000 opposite party registrants or is my house included in a new district by a line that is fifty eight feet wide and fourteen miles long or am I facing an incumbent of the same party in a mashed-up district? I think that these incentives are strongest in states where there is a highly probable loss of districts (which include Pennsylvania) as states that are adding districts opens up the option space while fewer districts restricts option space.

What's the value of Sestak?

By Fester:

It is looking more and more official that Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Montgomery County) will be launching an official primary challenge against Sen. Specter (D-PA, this week).  I'm trying to figure out if it is worth supporting Sestak with time and money or just the possibility of a vote. 

Logistically, Sestak is an attractive candidate.  He has a demonstrated capacity to win elections, he has a high probability of winning the general election against any known or probable Republican candidate and he can win in a district that is slightly more conservative than the state as a whole.  He'll be able to bring significant resources into the race with an initial $3 million dollar war chest which is several orders of magnitude greater than that of 2006 Democratic primary challengers.  He is a credible candidate and can build a credible campaign.  But is logistics sufficient for support?

Sestak is slightly right of center House Democrat, and a bit right of where one would expect a generic Democrat representing his particular district.  Sestak will not be significantly more liberal than Specter has been in the past few weeks if he was a Senator from Pennsylvania.  Senator Specter as a Democrat will be a bit to the right of the median Senate Democrat and to the right of the "generic" Democrat that Pennsylvania would normally support.  Given past history, the same would be said of Rep. Sestak. 

So the more basic question is a transactional political question; would working or supporting Sestak increase the probability of one or two high salience outcomes to be adapted than the counter-factual of no primary threat to Specter?  I think Specter's best defense is to find a 80% compromise for the EFCA which gets union neutrality in the primary and that will be a positive result from a primary challenge.  However EFCA is not in my top two or three things that I want to see changed, so the salience vector is weak. 

Right now, I'll give Sestak a chance to make his case, but I think I am reasonably indifferent to either candidate.  I know that I strongly prefer either over Toomey, but I don't think either meet the donate and door knock threshold. 

Revolt!

Commentary By Ron Beasley

I think it's positive that there is a revolt against the beltway regulars by both the Republicans and Democrats - it's called Democracy.  In the case of the Republicans its also called stupidity.

Huckabee to endorse Rubio for Florida Senate seat

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has rolled out a succession of endorsements from national Republicans since announcing his entrance into the 2010 Senate race.

Now his Republican primary rival, former Florida House speaker Marco Rubio, has a national endorsement of his own from a conservative heavyweight: Mike Huckabee.

The former Arkansas governor will formally endorse Rubio in about two weeks, according to a Florida Republican familiar with the plans. The details of where the endorsement will take place have not been decided.

and.....

Jeb Bush Jr. backs Rubio over Crist

 Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's (R) son, Jeb Bush Jr., has endorsed former state House Speaker Marco Rubio's (R) Senate campaign.

Rubio announced the endorsement this morning on his Twitter feed.

"Proud to announce the endorsement of Jeb Bush Jr.," Rubio wrote. "He will be a great asset in our efforts to reach the next generation of GOP leadership."

The younger Bush's endorsement of Rubio over Gov. Charlie Crist (R) will be seen as an acknowledgment that the Bush family isn't exactly on board with the governor, with whom the elder Jeb Bush has clashed.

 Of course Christ would be a slam dunk to win the general election - Rubio, not so much.  Perhaps not a really smart revolt.

But in PA there is also a revolt, this time it's the Democrats.

Sestak Intends To Run For Senate

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is privately telling supporters that he intends to run for Senate, TPMDC has confirmed. "He intends to get in the race," says Meg Infantino, the Congressman's sister, who works at Sestak for Congress. "In the not too distant future, he will sit down with his wife and daughter to make the final decision." The move would constitute a primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who intends to run for re-election in 2010, after having switched parties earlier this year.

This too is a "in name only" issue.  In this case however either Sestak or Specter are probably a slam dunk so why not get the best.

The Repellant Conservative ID

By Fester:

Last year during the primary, I argued that Democrats and liberals benefit when the conservative movement's ideological ID is on full public display.  There is minimal pay-off for Democrats to gather into a defensive crouch and fear the freepified ID as the political reality of the second part of this decade and the probable realities of the future is very different than the political and demographic realities of the 80s and 90s when the ID was a powerful and effective political force:

In the past couple of years, one of the most reliable indicators of a winning Democratic issue is when the conservative movement ID is at the forefront of the public debate. It is ugly, repulsive and oozing with pus, and it alienates marginally attached Republican voters and winnable for the GOP Independent and Democratic voters....

It is the same analysis that would have led one to conclude that caving in on Schiavo was a good idea....

It is the same analysis that would have led one to cower as the economic Id of the GOP was on full display during the privatize and destroy Social Security debate....

Kevin Drum is looking at the National Review's Corner reaction to the Obama speech this morning, and is making a political error of grievious magnitude: See? Barack Obama's just another race hustler. I suspect that the "official" conservative reaction in columns and op-eds will be more restrained, but the longer that race stays front and center in the campaign, the more time the real conservative id will have to ooze into the forefront. Obama can't be looking forward to that. [my emphasis] In the past couple of years, one of the most reliable indicators of a winning Democratic issue is when the conservative movement ID is at the forefront of the public debate. It is ugly, repulsive and oozing with pus, and it alienates marginally attached Republican voters and winnable for the GOP Independent and Democratic voters. We want more of the conservative Id in the forefront of the conversation. It is the same analysis that would have led one to conclude that caving in on Schiavo was a good idea. Instead the American public reacted harshly against this massive federal inteferernce into a painful and personal decision process. It is the same analysis that would have led one to cower as the economic Id of the GOP was on full display during the privatize and destroy Social Security debate. Contrasting this Hobbesian vision with a collective security provided by the common effort led to a rapid squandering of any political capital that Bush may have thought he possessed for overt actions. It is the same analysis that has made anti-immigration rhetoric the tough new thing from both the GOP and the DLC wing of the Democratic Party despite knowing that this rhetoric will piss off a massive and growing swing voting bloc.... The conservative Id is ineffective and counterproductive to advancing the GOP's political fortunes, and it is not something that should inspire fear in Democrats. Instead it should be welcomed as a golden opportunity to create a sharp and sustained politics of contrast that works.

Publius is looking at the upcoming Supreme Court fight and is making the same type of analysis now:

it’s worth remembering that the nature of the conservative opposition will primarily be a function of intra-GOP politics.  In other words, organized conservative criticism isn’t really intended for a national audience – it’s intended primarily for social conservatives within the party.  And that’s a good thing for Democrats.The social conservative wing of the GOP has extremely intense preferences on judges....

Republican politicians and activist organizations that rely on social conservatives are going to have to put on a good show.  And that's the problem.Specifically, these intra-party dynamics will force the party to put on its least persuasive and most alienating face to the public during the Court fights....

Instead, the opposition seems like it will have a distinctly 2004 tone ...

And it will certainly reinforce the GOP’s current image problems as a regional, slightly creepy fundamentalist party.

The Conservative ID is a winner for liberals.   The more it is highlighted as the defining characteristics of a good Republican, the fewer Republicans, "good" or not, there will be as people who the base considers "squishes" will leave. 

Ahh, the wonders of a positive feedback loop...

Huntsman To China

Commentary By Ron Beasley

What do you do if you have a sane Republican who might challenge you in 2012?  If you are Barack Obama you exile him China. 

The news that Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. will be the ambassador to China for President Barack Obama almost certainly forecloses the possibility that he will be a candidate for national office in 2012.

Huntsman, who has deep experience in the far east, was clearly positioning himself for a national bid -- casting himself as a common sense conservative on issues like the environment and health care.

He had also begun to build a national consulting team that included John Weaver, a former senior strategist to Arizona Sen. John McCain. 

And what do you do if you are a sane Republican who doesn't think your party will be ready for your brand of sanity in 2012?  You pad your resume by accepting the appointment.  Huntsman apparently believes that the Republicans have at least eight more years in the wilderness.

Republican Suicide Watch

Commentary By Ron Beasley

It;s not just the jihadists that have suicide bombers so do the Republicans.  The high wingnuts that now control the Republican Party  are now involved in a project of ethnic cleansing that will result in suicide for the Republican party.  As I reported here Republican moderate Gordon Smith lost a bid for a third term in the Senate because a high wingnut ran as a third party candidate.  Senator Arlen Specter left the Republican Party because he realized there was no way he could win a Republican primary because all that is left on the Pennsylvania party are the high wingnuts.  And now we have Florida where Governor Republican Charlie Crist is a slam dunk in the general election but is not conservative enough for what is left of the Republican Party.  The NRSC has thrown it's support to Crist which has the winguts in a furious feeding frenzy.

Not one dime to the NRSC

But getting behind Crist in the Florida primary is wholly unacceptable for all the reasons and explanations Dan gave.

If the NRSC thinks this is smart, we must not waste our time or energy with them. Join me in pledging no money, no help, no aid, and no support for the NRSC’s efforts in the 2010 election cycle.

And if you are hesitant, remember that Charlie Crist, the NRSC’s wonder boy, is set to sign into law a massive tax increase on the working people of Florida.

Go for it Eric - keep on helping build a permanent Republican irrelevancy.

What Are They Thinking?

Commentary By Ron Beasley

Arlen Specter switched parties because he knew he had no chance in the Republican primary.  I'm sure that was a least in part a reason for Tom Ridge's decision today.  In my own state of Oregon two term Republican Senator Gordon Smith was able to win the primary but lost the general election because an ultra conservative ran as the Constitution Party candidate and took enough votes to hand the election to the Democrat.  With that in mind this make little sense.

Good riddance? GOP relies on Specter-like recruits

For many Republicans, including Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, the reaction to Sen. Arlen Specter’s party switch was unequivocal: good riddance.

Yet even as his jilted former party slams the door behind him, the GOP is quietly pursuing a 2010 strategy that relies heavily on candidates nearly identical to Specter. The party’s road to winning back a Senate majority, it seems, is paved with moderates whose records are sure to make conservatives blanch.

For the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s recruitment list for 2010 reads like a roster of some of the party’s best-known RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and squishes — the derisive terms applied to centrists by movement conservatives.

While they may be right that these RINOs might have a chance to win a general election what makes them think they could win a primary or like in Oregon some right winger will run as a third party candidate and throw the election to them Democrat?  The Republican Party base is now made up of the lunatic fringe.  I don't see that changing much in the next year. 

Ridge is out

By Fester:

Tom Ridge has declined to run for the Republican nomination for Pennsylvania's Senate seat.  I am not too surprised by this announcement as why would it be a good move for him to run?  Let's get back to that in a minute.  First, here is the announcement from PA2010:

“After careful consideration and many conversations with friends and family and the leadership of my party, I have decided not to seek the Republican nomination for Senate.

“I am enormously grateful for the confidence my party expressed in me, the encouragement and kindness of my fellow citizens in Pennsylvania and the valuable counsel I received from so many of my party colleagues. The 2010 race has significant implications for my party, and that required thoughtful reflection....

If Ridge was to enter the race, he would face a bruising primary as his policy positions of being a moderate, pro-choice Republican are unacceptable to a significant faction of the state's Republican base.  He may have been able to get away with this four years, and especially eight years ago as the Republican base still contained a strong contingent of pro-choice voters in the Philadelphia suburbs.  However those voters have become Democrats.  Toomey would still run hard at him, and Ridge would be in for the fight of his life. 

And once he won the primary, he would be facing either another pro-choice moderate Republican in Specter or a successful southeastern PA suburban Democrat in Sestak who had consolidated union support behind him for the general election.  Given current partisan trends in Pennsylvania, the best Republican candidate is facing a tough fight against a mediocre Democratic candidate.  Ridge as a pro-choice Republican who beat down the anti-taxers in the form of Toomey would have no door knockers or phone bankers.  His only hope would be to either run the rubber chicken big donor circuit ten times a week for a thirty million dollar ad campaign or to do a complete 180 degree spin on lifelong policy positions to attract the door knockers of the Republican base. 

And if he was to win the general election, what fun would it be to be a Senator where the GOP's aspirational hope is to get to forty two or forty three seats in this term, and potentially get to fifty by 2013.  More likely he will join the Snowe-Collins axis of 'unpure Republicans' in a Senate with a Republican caucus of less than forty.  What fun is that? 

Not too much fun for the next four years of his life.  He has a good job and some influence, why throw that away in an uphill fight?  So I am not too surprised that he declined to run.