You Know Things Are Bad When...

Remove all ads!

T2,
the GOP has shrunk. What's left for now is the most vocal orthodox, in my words, nutty, part. Now, do you see the party growing again with the messages they hold now? If it is up to the wing of the party represented by Limbaugh the Palinites define the GOP. They like to see Specter go, and seee it as part of the self cleaning process and of going back to the roots.

If there is no place for centrist like Specter, and people who he represents in the electorate, I don't see the GOPs malady ending. Why should they return to support a party which base refuses them?

The GOP needs to become that oft quoted 'bigger tent' if it wants to prevent becoming a southern party. In the absence of that all they will be able to gain is beyond their polarised faithful, protest voters if the D's screw up.

 

Please remember, Arlen Specter = Magic Bullet Theory, what a joke! He is a life-long politician who does not want to give up his seat until they peal his dead carcass off of it. It's the Arlen Specters of the world that hurt our country and stop us from advancing as a whole. Politicians who are constantly looking to advance themselves only, lining their pockets along the way. What I don't understand is why switch now? He's so ancient! Soon, he will be Arlen "Spectre"! It's not like he can add 20 more years to his seat and gain political clout.

Funny thing is, this will only effect the Race for the Demo Nominee of PA. His voting won't change in the Senate one bit. But, either way, he's out after this term! Good riddance! That's one hurdle overcome for the advancement of the US...

 

Ragusa is absolutely right. Because he sees this as how an independent would. I can tell you, TGS and T2, that as an Independent, it would be way better to have two choices that were so good that it would be hard to chose between them, rather than voting against who has the bigger bunch of boneheads at the moment.

I'm not a Democrat, but I like Obama, Bill and Hillary and, yes the crazy man, Howard Dean. Nevertheless, I'm not a Democrat because they tend of have their share of boneheads:

I don't agree with what he says about Bill Clinton. I see the negatives, but I also can list all the positives for Bill as well. But my point is that the Republicans, atm, have the ideological boneheads. Yes, if you want your political stronghold to be rural Alabama or Georgia, then great, keep your current group of backward thinking leaders and be happy staying the minorty party. Lieberman took his advice and did leave (thank god).

http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2008/12/10-democrats-who-should-go-away.html

http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2008/11/10-people-who-need-to-go-away.html

 

Actually, the reason he is switching parties is so that he will likely win re-election in 2010. If he was going to be out after this term, then there would be no purpose to the party switch. (And if you read on, you'll see why he's likely right.)

To Ragusa: Here's the issue. The guy that everyone expects the GOP to run in 2010 is Pat Toomey. Toomey is extremely conservative and is expected to be a party line voter. What Specter did was read the tea leaves. In polling, Toomey looks very strong in the Republican primary, but polls extremely poorly among independents and Democrats. This makes sense, as many moderate Republicans registered as Democrats in 2008 (and I don't agree with T2 that most will switch back during a mid-term election), so the remaining card carrying members of the Republican party in PA will share Toomey's views. There is no crossover voting in the PA primary, so if you're Republican you can only vote for a Republican, if you're a Democrat you can only vote for a Democrat, and if you are independent you are SOL.

So here's what Specter saw: Toomey will be a huge favorite to win the Republican primary, over him or anyone else who runs. Despite this, because of Toomey's inability to gain Democrat or independent support, he will be a huge underdog against whatever Democrat (likely Specter) he runs against in the general election. That's why Specter says he doesn't want to run against Toomey in the primary. Specter's vote in favor of the stimulus plan made him persona non grata among most Republicans, and he's almost sure to lose on the Republican side of the ticket. Since he already has lost most of the support among Republicans because of his stimulus vote, he has nothing to lose by switching parties at this point.

The greater challenge for Specter is that there is still a lot of political room to his left. Just because he's a Democrat doesn't mean he's guaranteed to win the Democratic nomination either. There is talk of Bob Casey making a run for the Democrat half of the ticket in 2010, and while the name Bob Casey doesn't mean much to people outside of PA, Casey is the son of the very popular governor of the same name for PA in the 1990s. Casey may be a formidible opponent for Specter. But Specter has better odds against Casey in the primary than Toomey, and whoever wins between Casey and Spectre should easily defeat Toomey in the general election.

Casey winning in 2010 is the disaster scenario for Republicans. Specter going from moderate Republican to moderate Democrat isn't a huge difference. If you exchange Specter for a true-blue Democrat like Casey, then that's a big difference.

EDIT: Here's some more info from 538 to Specter's motivation for switching parties. Their view is similar to mine in that it is combination of self-preservation combined with a genuine voting record that differs significantly from the Republican party.

 

Yes, Aldeth, he could win re-election, but I doubt it. I lived the 1st 33 yrs of my life in PA. If I recall correctly, PA was a bubble state going into the last presidential election. Looks like the Dems won over the state. Not surprising, after the Bush debacle. Switching parties does not insure Specter the Dem votes in PA. I really can't see how he could beat out Casey, barring any scandalous issues arising. I would see the winner of the Dem primary as the one who gets the backing of Ed Rendell, the prominent Dem name in PA. Of course, that could just be my bias, as i originally hail from the Philly burbs and have always had a lot of respect for Rendell and his job as Mayor of Philly. Sucks living in Illinois now, o how i miss my Tastycakes and Cheesesteaks!

 

A fellow PA native! You have me beat - I only lived the first 26 years of my life in PA. (By the way, I think you meant to say that PA was a swing state - I'm not sure what a bubble state is.)

As I alluded to in my previous post, Casey is the bigger obstacle than Toomey. Toomey loses no matter who he runs against. However, Specter's shift to the Democratic side does provide him a few advantages. Because he is the incumbent, he will have access to DNC money during the primary battle. (That point might be a bit of a sore spot in the Democratic Party, because most DNC members would prefer Casey have the seat than Specter.) Additionally, the moderate Republicans who registered as Democrats in 2008 are much more likely to vote for someone like Specter than a true-blue Democrat like Casey. Finally, Casey hasn't announced his intentions yet one way or the other. Presidential canidates usually announce thier bids by the spring of the year before the election, but in Senate races, it is not uncommon for the announcements to start in the fall. We'll know in the next 6 months or so if Casey intends to run.

EDIT: The Republican Party is caught in a vicious circle at this point. Since many moderates who were formerly Republicans have switched their party affiliation, the remaining members of the party are further to the right than the party used to be. Therefore, in order to win the primary, a Republican politician has to position himself far right of center. However, in doing so, he lessens his chance of winning the general election, because the further from the center he is, the harder it is for him to get independent voters and any remaining moderates of his own party. The cyclical nature of the Republican party right now is solidifying their base, but not reaching out. The people most likely to win the primary are the least likely to win in the general election.

 

"Bubble" is a college basketball bracket term for teams that might or might not make the March tourney.... "Swing" would have been more appropriate. I just surely hope Specter is not re-elected. I would prefer our Senators in there voting for the "Right" reasons, not for personal gain, satisfaction or Ego inflation, as i believe Specter has done his whole career.

 

This really isn't accurate. Pennsylvania hasn't leaned republican in a presidential election since 1988 -- and they dumped Republican Rick Santorum in 2006, giving new-comer Bob Casey 59% of the vote. Specter has fared so well against democratic challengers primarily because of his reputation as a moderate who is willing to work across the aisle to get things done. Being rated as our country's 10th best Senator in Time magazine probably didn't hurt him, either.

The bottom line? The republican party has been moving farther and farther to the right. Specter hasn't, and it has come to pass that his stances on the issues are more in line with those of the Democrats than with the Republicans. You could call it "political survival" if you want to, but it's a lot closer to calling a spade a spade, if you ask me.

 

Drew, how am i not accurate. If PA was a swing state and Obama won PA, the Dems have won PA. Otherwise, PA would not of been classified as a "Swing" state. Dems have not had total control of PA since 1988. Tom Ridge was the Governor after 1988. That would make 2 of the 3 top officials for PA Republicans at that time, including Specter. Ridge went on to be Bush's Head of Homeland Security for a time. It's only in the beginning of this century that the Dems have had full control of the reigns. Not saying that is a bad thing for PA, as party affiliation means squat to me. It's the motives of the candidates and the results they produce for the future good of both state and country that matter most to me.

 

[sarcasm] Don't you mean "Left" reasons? [/sarcasm]

"Swing" does not mean it changed parties. It means it can swing either way - Democrat or Republican. They also sometimes use the term "Toss Up" to describe states like PA.

 

Blades: Forget about the tastycakes and cheesesteaks. You need to acquaint yourself with Old Chicago (great beer selection and Calzones), Portillo's (may not be in Rockford yet, but has a great Italian Beef sandwich), The Machine Shed (fantastic home style eating), The Irish Rose (awesome steaks), Der Rathskeller (great German restaurant), Giovanni's (good Italian, great service but expensive) and Texas Roadhouse (good steak and great bread).

Of course you probably found all these except Irish Rose and Der Rathskeller -- all the others are on East State Street (along with a bunch of other more well known restaurants). Irish Rose is a downtown pub on State, east of the river -- the owner goes out every day to find cuts of meat he likes and the menu changes daily based on what he finds. Der Rathskeller is west of the river on Auburn. There is also an upstairs pub near the theater on main street that serves great alcoholic shakes.

For breakfast be sure to check out the Swedish pancakes at the Stockholm Inn on Charles Street, the ligonberry sauce is to die for.

Some of these could have changed over the past few years, but I hope not.

 

Correct Aldeth, which would imply neither side has been in power, but having a balance of power. PA has been a "Balanced" state when it comes in terms of getting votes. With both Repubs and Dems having good chances at winning the big seats. Nothing like say, Texas for example, where Dems haven't a shot in H#ll of getting a Senate seat.

Drew, i could be confusing him with someone else, but wasn't Santorum ousted over a scandal, not a change in backing of parties? I believe a hit and run murder charge?

 

Nope. Santorum lost in the general election...and while PA can technically go either way, they haven't broken in favor of a republican president in 20 years...and non-incumbent republicans haven't exactly been doing well, either. When your incumbents are losing and your challengers aren't gaining any seats, it isn't a good sign for your party.

 

T2

Irish Rose and Der Rathskeller are favorites of mine! The Machine Shed is THE best place in the world to get breakfast! I like the "Farmer's Daughter" myself. As for any kind of Italian restuarant or Great sandwiches, this state just can't compete with the Northeast corridor. I think there is nothing funnier than a sign out here that says "Philly Beef"! No such thing! It's called a "Cheesesteak" and cooked with sirloin steak and provolone (or cheeze whiz at World Famous Pats Steaks), not roast beef. But to each his own. The pizza is all thin crust and bland, pooey on Chicago style pizza. It's impossible to get a slice, they cut it in squares, blasphemy! The pizza gods are angered! The Deep-dish is very appetizing, but i would call that a dish, not pizza. I've tried Portillos, better than most sandwich shops around here, as is Macianos. I'm lucky enough to have a mother-in-law who is swedish, so i get the sauce regularly.

 

Okay, okay. But if Specter decides to visit a former PA voter living in the cultural mecca of Rockford I'd recommend he eat breakfast at the Stockholm Inn....

 

I oughta neg rep you for that, T2, but I'm not petty.

As for Specter, well, his leaving isn't really that big a deal, IMHO. In the Canadian political system, it happens occasionaly, and the usual suspects either crow about the superiority of the receiving party or predict the imminent demise of the party losing a member. Others point out the blindingly obvious in whiny voices that "it's all about getting re-elected" as if that's not what every single politician everywhere on the frickin' planet does.

The Republican party has a very wide base -- it's not going anywhere, any more than the Democrats went anywhere in the entire decade of the 80s when the Republicans held sway. The Reps will rebuild, re-focus and keep rolling forward. Specter's move is interesting and it is worth talking about, but it's a molehill in the big scheme of things. I wish the talking heads would realize that and stop trying to make it into a mountain.

 

One quick Mmmmm.... Pats Chese Steaks (said in Homer Simpson's voice)

This is true. It just seems like right now the Republicans are rudderless. There's no clear leader of their party, and the wanabe leaders are the likes of Limbaugh and Palin - not the most moderate or sensible figureheads.

The other thing is the number of people who identify themselves as Republicans HAS been shrinking. And it's been shriking not just leading up to the November 2008 election, but has continued since Obama's inauguration. It seems like the Democrats aren't going up proportionally though. It seems like most former Republicans are regestering as independents. Check out this article. People identifying themselves as Republicans in various polls are down to 20%-22% range. That's down more than 10 percentage points from their levels just a couple of years ago. Or to put that in perspective, 1 in 3 people who identified themselves as Republican just a couple of years ago, no longer do so. That's a huge loss.

 

You can say that again.

Yep, 21 percent, who are willing to admit to it. Ah, Aldeth has already commented on that....

 

Sorry Master Blackthorne, my sincerest of apologies... please allow that this most humblest of peasants meant neither insult, nor rudeness to others reading this most excellent of threads.... just some wishful thinking about a good meal!....