Poll: Specter's Stimulus Support Could Hurt Re-Election With GOP Voters In 2010
A new Rasmussen poll suggests that Arlen Specter may have put himself in serious political danger by supporting the stimulus bill -- that is, by alienating Republican voters back home, as he heads into his 2010 re-election campaign.
An overwhelming 69% of Pennsylvania Republicans oppose the bill, and 58% of Republicans say they are less likely to support Specter because of his vote for it.
Remember that Specter faced a right-wing challenge in the Republican primary back in 2004, and just barely survived by a 51%-49% margin. So his hold on the GOP base has been anything but solid in recent years.
This leave us with two important questions. First, will the grassroots GOP ire continue to linger about this bill? And second, will a viable primary challenger emerge, who could successfully tap into that feeling?
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Senator Specter isn't a man known to fear what something might do to HIM. He fears more of what doing nothing will do to his fellow human beings.
I'm proud of the man. He's been through hell and back with his own health issues yet his first concern always seems to be for the well being of his fellow citizens.
Oh sure he wants to keep his job so that he can continue to work for Americans; but he does what he thinks is best and worries about the effects to his job LAST.
This is what politicians SHOULD do -- it just seems most worry in the opposite way. They think, "How will this help ME".
Thank you Senator Specter for being an outstanding American.
February 13, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
So are the 7 Dems who voted against it in the House evil too? Do they hate their fellow man? Are they more interested in keeping their job than helping? Or do they just disagree with their leadership on this bill?
February 13, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter was going to have a tough fight for re-election in 2010 anyway. I guess he figured it would be easier to win a statewide race in Pennsylvania if you were with Obama and on the record for trying to help the economy than if you were fighting Obama to the end and not trying to help the economy.
February 13, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
PA GOP is in a tough spot. Specter's pissed off the base, but if some wingnut primaries him, the D's will win the seat. Specter, at least, has plenty of seniority going for him, but if enough R's stay home, the D's win the seat anyway.
February 13, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dems will need two challengers lined up, a progressive one and a moderate/centrist. If Specter is primaried out, it will be from somebody from the hard right of him and will open the door for a moderate left to claim the middle ground. If Specter is primary challenged but wins, it means the middle ground will be his and the Dems should run a progressive to try and pull Specter over more, though understanding Specter is going to win re-election.
Specter vs moderate Dem, Specter will win because he has proven his bi-partisan chops and is high up in seniority. So you might as well run a progressive against him to raise their stature and get the ideas out.
If the GOP runs a wingnut against Specter and wins the primary, the Dem who claimed the middle ground should be able to beat the wingnut in the election.
February 13, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite the fact that their 401Ks have collapsed during the last months and a lot of their friends have lost there jobs, there are a lot of Republicans who don't believe we are in a recession. Moreover, they don't believe there is any role for government in helping us find our way out, if we are. I guess as long as they aren't hurting everything is ok. It is almost like Republicanism is a religion that trumps reality.
February 13, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a third: Will the GOP continue to shoot itself in the foot by demanding ever more extremist candidates in the name if ideological purity?
February 13, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the short-term, it sure looks like it. I thought 2008 would wake them up, but nope--it'll take the elections of 2010 to do it.
What's sad is that I had half-expected them to reorganize and think about what they really stand for once the Dems had both houses of Congress AND the White House. But, no, their reaction so far is to become even more partisan. It seems self preservation would cause them to at least pretend to be more rational and less ideological.
February 13, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way things are going, I don't think that they ever will wake up. They totally look and sound like the whigs right before the party imploded. If they keep it up, they will go the way of the whigs and then maybe we can get a legitimate opposition party to keep the dems feet to the fire.
February 13, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Whigs didn't so much implode as fracture over the slavery issue.
The Republican party today is essentially a coalition of the Wall St. types and the cultural/religious conservatives. In reality, it's purely a marriage of convenience - they share little or nothing in the way of ideology. The only thing keeping them together is that separately they're an even smaller minority, but if there's to be a fracture, it will be between these two groups.
February 13, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, the fault line is the anti-abortion issue, like the slavery issue was for the whigs. The whigs lost their leadership, the republicans have none, and they split over the slavery issue. The republican party has been bleeding moderate republicans for the last several cycles. They stand for nothing except basically anti-abortion. Economically, the small government and anti-tax mantra has become a freaking joke. Also, they lost the party of a strong defense over the last 8 years as well based on the king's f*ck ups. The party is viewed as merely a tool of the social conservatives by many moderates. That's one of the main reasons why they lost all representation in the north east. I still think the whig comparison is very close.
February 13, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the fault line is a lot deeper than just abortion. The social/religious conservatives have an entire view of what American society ought to be and anyone who doesn't fit that view needs to conform or leave. They'd be very comfortable in Puritan Plymouth of 1620. Their problem is that the other wing of the party really doesn't believe in that stuff. All they're interested in is more wealth for the wealthy.
Each faction thinks the other is dragging them down, but is afraid to jettison them because without them they'd become a rump party - but together they're heading that way anyway. They really don't know what to do.
February 13, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with what the social conservatives want, but the easy message and thing that they wrap their arms around is being anti-abortion. The problem that they have is I would say maybe 80% or more of the population doesn't want to make abortion illegal. There are many other ways to reduce abortions short of making them illegal. That fault line could be the demise of the party, so I hope at least.
February 13, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of reminds me of the fabled Oo-Oo bird, which flies in ever-decreasing concentric circles until it eventually flies up its own ass, and cries "Oo! Oo!".
February 13, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks on the left scream about how nuts the repugs are for insisting on their right-wing ideological purity (which they are), then in another post say how Dems should kill off all the moderates and Blue Dogs.
It's as if they're completely blind to the fact that if there were no "middle of the road" Dems, we'd be just as irrelevant as the Repugs are since ditching the "middle of the road" repugs.
And, Specter should just switch parties. He started out as a Democrat then switched to Republican. He's always been a rank opportunist and would be better off if he ended his career as a Democrat.
February 13, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a moderate Dem (I guess--I think of myself as a moderate Dem, but 9x out of 10 I'm pretty far left), I see your point. But though not everyone agrees on everything in the Democratic party (and we do argue a lot), at least we allow dissension. Republican group-think is their recent hallmark and a pretty big weakness in my opinion.
February 13, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a liberal, have always considered myself a liberal. Reading liberal blogs make me question that, however. Although I agree ideologically, I can understand why we lose so many elections. We can be totally unpractical -- insisting on ideological purity at the expense of things we really care about.
One poster argued that the Blue Dogs shouldn't "pollute" our party and find their own. As if we'd even be in the majority without them. As if we'd ever get a chance to bring things like SCHIP and stem cells and pay equity to the floor if the repugs were in charge.
When I hear folks say that being represented by a repug and a blue dog is the same, I scream. I had that right wing scumbag Robin Hayes for a congresman. Larry Kissel replaced him. He's a blue dog but he voted for the stimulus, SCHIP and is pro-choice and pro-stem cell. Of course, I'd prefer it if liberal Mel Watt was my rep but Watt would never carry my district so I'll take what I can get!
February 13, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.
-Will Rogers
February 13, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh heh, and that's our strength. If we don't fracture apart, we've got a lot of ways to do things kicking around. The weak ideas, hopefully, fall by the wayside and the better ones just get better. So, I guess, we are the party of "idea evolution". (kind of a Darwin theme I guess...)
February 13, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh well, all their seats are belong to us in 2010.
February 13, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget Specter, GOP Prepared to Crucify CRIST as JUDAS
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=6174
February 13, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I don't see discussed too often is all the ammunition voting against this bill has given the Dems.
At a time when foreclosures began to rise, our military members began losing their properties at alarming rates, David "diaper boy" Vitter voted against assistance to our soldiers and their families to give them a fighting chance and provide them with the support they deserve for putting their country first.
Why does Senator Vitter continue to disappoint our military members so much?
February 13, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
because he's a capricious adulterous prick?
February 13, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"PA GOP voters", how quaint a concept!
February 13, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pat Toomey must be licking his chops. I hope he or another Club for Growth wacko does challenge Specter and beats him in the primary. That will give the Dems yet another Senate seat. Specter continues to win in a considerably blue PA because he's somewhat moderate and he's been around for a long time - unless you completely screw up, long-time Senate incumbents usually get returned to office. But PA voters are going to sent a Toomey/Norquist approved GOP candidate to the Senate. PA isn't Massachussetts or Vermont or Rhode Island, but it's pretty blue.
February 13, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
you may be right. IMO specter's best bet to keep the seat is to jump to the dems; then he'd whip toomey's ass in the general. (hey, he's more liberal than either senator nelson)
February 13, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You ar4e right about Ozzie, but Harriett had a pretty pronounced feminist streak when the boys wre done snackin on her sammiches.
February 13, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Santorum Redux, anyone?
February 13, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are the 7 Democrats?
February 13, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, if this works, Specter may be in a much different spot in 2010. And certainly he cared more about the country than his position. Maybe cancer helps one get a reality check. I don't always agree with him, but he did the decent thing.
February 13, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting quote from Specter:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/13/specter-republicans-suppo_n_166875.html
Specter says that another Repub. senator told him he was proud of him, and that there are others that would like to vote with the Dems. but are afraid. Maybe in the future a few more will peel off. With Specter, Collins and Snowe I think we have just seen three "profiles in courage." v
February 14, 2009 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink