Specter Begging for a Primary Challenge
If Arlen Specter was trying to think of things he could say on Meet The Press this morning that would get progressives across the country read to urge Joe Sestak to mount a primary challenge, he seems to me to have done a good job.
GREGORY: It was reported this week that when you met with the president, you said, “I will be a loyal democrat. I support your agenda.” Let me test that on probably one of the most important areas of his agenda, and that’s health care. Would you support health care reform that puts up a government run public plan to compete with a private plan issued by a private insurance company?
SPECTER: No. And you misquote me, David. I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that. And last week, after I said I was changing parties, I voted against the budget because the budget has a way to pass health care with 51 votes, which undermines a basic Senate institution to require 60 votes to impose closure on key issues. …I did not say I am a loyal Democrat.
Ben Armbruster observes that Specter went on to join Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) is expressing opposition to a public health care plan.
Progressives are often unhappy with Nelson. But at the same time, I think it’s widely understood that Nebraska is a very conservative state so if you can have a Senator from Nebraska who backs progressive positions even once in a blue moon you’d consider yourself lucky. Pennsylvania, by contrast, last voted for a Republican president when Michael Dukakis was on the ballot and there’s every reason to believe that an orthodox Democrat would beat Pat Toomey in a general election.
38 Responses to “Specter Begging for a Primary Challenge”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Specter must be very sure of his backing from other senior Democrats if he thinks he can get away with being a DINO. (I usually avoid that term, but I think that if it applies anywhere, it applies here.)
If there is ever a time when Democratic Party voters should be given a real choice in a primary where there is an establishment-backed—establishment-created—candidate, it’s this time. If Specter wins, fine, but he should not be allowed to walk it, especially if a deal was struck behind closed doors.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Wouldn’t the budget plan require just 50 votes, because Biden would cast the tie-breaking vote?
/Nitpick
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Well you see for Specter to win he thinks he should run as a democrat.Specter is still a Repub albeit more moderate than most of the Right so being “a loyal Democrat” isn`t very viable.He reminds me of Clinton in so much as I thought then as I do now that Clinton was a repub in democrat clothes with his policies and NAFTA and not vetoing the Gramm,Leach Bliley Act, and Specter is a repub trying on democrat clothes to see how they fit.I hope Sestak runs against him and wins or if Tom Ridge runs PA is in for a world of hurt and so is the rest of the country.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Having Specter vote mostly with Democrats for the next couple of years and then get beaten in the Democratic primary really would be the best possible outcome. And it doesn’t seem that hard to imagine it happening. Even if Specter made some kind of deal whereby Obama or Biden or Reid or somebody has to support him in the primary, the slice of the electorate that bothers to vote in a Democratic primary in a year without a presidential primary is probably a pretty well-informed and liberal group. That being the case, it seems quite possible that they’d be interested in voting for someone other than their state’s longtime Republican senator. Good luck to whichever Democrats decide to take Specter on — and I hope they focus their fire on him and not on each other.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
The question is how progressive Sestak would be.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
He’s also doing a pretty good job of giving Mikulski ammunition for why he shouldn’t be named chair of Judiciary if he’s still in office in 2010.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Re KCinDC
The question is how progressive Sestak would be.
Not very.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/is-sestak-right-choice-for-left.html
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I think that Sestak should challenge him and I don’t think he should wait. If he starts now a lot of people will donate to his campaign and even if he looses he will at least move Specter to the left.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I love it how Republicans bend over backwards to show how conservative they are, but Democrats (not all, but way too many) bend over backwards to prove they’re not liberal. Yes, Specter is a special case and he’s barely a Democrat….but he still has to answer to Democratic voters, many of whom are quite (gasp) liberal on alot of issues. And if labor doesn’t have his back during the primary (EFCA), who exactly is his constituency?
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Didn’t Obama already say he would support Specter in a Democratic primary? My guess is his minions have already decided Specter works to their advantage no matter how he votes since he makes Obama look like a shining bipartisan against the purist infighting of the Republicans.
I can’t really imagine a primary challenge getting off the ground unless things change drastically–no one who matters in liberal politics is going to be caught dead donating to a candidate expressly opposed by Obama and his friends.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I think that Sestak should challenge him and I don’t think he should wait. If he starts now a lot of people will donate to his campaign and even if he looses he will at least move Specter to the left.
Moving Specter to the left is obviously in our interest as Democratic partisans. It’s not particularly in Sestak’s interest if he loses in the process. Sestak’s going to get in the race if he thinks he can win, and it’ll probably take some time before it’s clear whether or not he’s viable. Sestak has a House seat to defend, and if he’s not going to beat Specter, he doesn’t want to lose it.
I’d like for someone with some name recognition to announce a candidacy soon, but I don’t see Sestak as a particularly likely candidate on that front.
I don’t understand Marshall’s argument at all – Joe Lieberman was just as much supported by Democratic elites as Specter (more so, really, since he actually had a history with the party), and he still lost. There’s absolutely no reason why Specter couldn’t be beaten in a primary, especially if the AFL-CIO supports his opponent (and they have absolutely no reason to do otherwise – Specter totally sold them out and Obama is not going to cut out the AFL-CIO because they refuse to support Specter).
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
One of the thoughts I had is that Specter’s defection actually makes it possible for someone like Toomey to win. If Specter stayed as an R and won his primary challenge (or did not), the D’s would have someone that everyone would rally behind. In contrast, Specter (as an R) or some other R would either alienate the base or the ‘centrists’ causing the former to stay home or the latter to vote for the D.
Now with Specter’s defection, the calculus is reversed. The R base could possibly be energized by a Toomey candidacy (although there’s rumblings from the NSRC to throw him under the bus, which makes no sense to me), but the D base would be total ‘meh’ on the Specter candidacy (if he wins the nomination).
So as far as turnout wins elections (which I have no numbers for, so could be totally off on this whole post) Specter running for re-election as a D may make things mighty close (compared to say another ‘pure’ D) even with the incumbency advantage.
Furthermore, the best chance for success in a D primary challenge against Specter is to run a similar ‘insurgent’ campaign to what Obama did for the democratic primary nomination, which was a mix of tacking left and co-opting some the center. (For example, Obama was clearing against the Iraq war, but was much more ‘accommodationist’ when it came to ‘corporate power’. In the case of Penn senate, it could be, for instance, someone who would be for card check, but also for gun rights)
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
if a democrat doesn’t run against specter and use that sound bite – “i did not say i would be a loyal democrat” – as the centerpiece of his campaign against specter, they are all idiots. when i heard him make that statement this morning, my though was, “oh shyte, he’s stepped in it now!”
not quite a maccacca moment, but darn close.
now a prominent dem in pennsylvania just has to be courageous – and ambitious – enough to challenge the party bigwigs, who will be lined up for specter.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
What if Specter runs as a Democrat and loses to Sestak or someone else, and then decides to run as an independent (”I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat”) trying to appeal to centrist Dems and Repubs? Depending on the appeal and voting strength of right wing Repubs in PA, the conservative could be the next Senator for 6 years or run for President in 2012.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
@14. Jim -
Pretty sure there’s a ’sore loser’ law in PA that prevents Specter from running for Senate if he loses his primary challenge a la Lieberman
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
What if Specter runs as a Democrat and loses to Sestak or someone else, and then decides to run as an independent
Can’t do that in PA. Sore loser law.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“What if Specter runs as a Democrat and loses to Sestak or someone else, and then decides to run as an independent (”I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat”) trying to appeal to centrist Dems and Repubs? Depending on the appeal and voting strength of right wing Repubs in PA, the conservative could be the next Senator for 6 years or run for President in 2012.”
in other words, the connecticut /leiberman scenario?
certainly that could happen, but there’s a very real difference here.
in connecticut, the gop candidate was not a serious candidate, and therefore, leiberman was able to siphon off a very large percentage of the republican vote. by the time of the general election, state and national republicans had made it pretty clear that they supported traitor joe, rather than their pathetic candidate.
with that large percentage of the republican vote – it was actually his “base” – and enough democratic votes, leiberman won.
because the gop candidate here will be a very serious candidate, i doubt that specter would be able to get the same coalition. for the equivalent thing to happen, the dems would have to field a chump candidate.
if a dem defeats specter in the primary, he will have demonstrated that he’s not going to be that chump candidate who will lose 60% or so (that may not have been leiberman’s percentage, but he did get a very large percentage of republican voters to vote for him) of his democratic voters to specter. and without that large percentage of dem voters, specter cannot win, even in a 3 way race.
at least, that’s how i’d see things.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if Tom Ridge winds up being the GOP candidate instead of Toomey.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
If Specter loses the Democratic primary, he can’t run as an Independent. He would be done for.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I guess if became clear to Specter that he stood a good chance of losing the Democratic primary (say Shestak jumped in now and polls had him 25 points ahead for the next three months) then there is no reason why Specter wouldn’t just jump again before being locked into the Democratic primary and run as an Independent.
Sure, whatever’s left of his credibility would be shot, but that could still be his best chance.
Does anyone know by what date he will be locked in for sure?
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Part of this is due to Rendell’s machinations. One piece I read said that Rendell wants to be a senator, and hopes that Specter can keep the seat warm for him until 2016. (Of course, Rendell could just run in 2010 – but he apparently likes Specter, for whom he used to work, and supports him.)
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
This is what Specter is counting on, and we have to do everything possible to disabuse him — and BHO — of this certainty. He — and BHO and Rahm and whoever else is doing the political calculating — has to understand that misbehavior by Specter will have consequences.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
If Specter ends up consistently acting like a Bayh/Nelson type when it counts, he will be, and should be, primaried. But I wouldn’t count on it just yet–Specter says a lot of things, but in the long run he does what he deems to be in his political best interest.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
To 18: a Ridge-Specter general election is probably Democrats’ worst nightmare. Toomey would have to make the primary about abortion, and if Ridge could win anyway, his name would end up plastered all over every paper in Pennsylvania talking about the pro-choice Republican who proved that it’s possible! Then Specter’s one major advantage with suburban women is largely neutered, but he won’t have nearly the establishment left support (minorities, labor, other activists) he would need to win on energy & activism. And if that’s your general election, as unfortunate as Specter may be (caveat, as always, that time will tell), Ridge is far worse.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
This is what Specter is counting on, and we have to do everything possible to disabuse him
Oh, I agree entirely. But I remind you that the shape of the Connecticut Senate race was that Lamont was a dark horse until about a month before the primary, when Lieberman’s vulnerability became clear. Lieberman’s friends jumped to attention and, with the help of an infusion of AIPAC money, he came back in the polls but with insufficient time to overtake Lamont. But of course Lieberman lined up his ducks in the general and won.
In Pennsylvania, things are if anything worse for the forces of good:
1. Lieberman had no undisputed party leader to stand with him in the primary, nothing like a popular elected President.
2. Lamont ended up doing well in Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford. Specter will have no trouble in Philadelphia with Obama at his side.
3. Pennsylvania is both less liberal than Connecticut and presumably more expensive. Both militate in Specter’s favor.
I’m sure Obama’s support in a primary was a condition of Specter’s defection, and Specter (and Obama, I would assume) correctly calculated that it means Specter can vote however he pleases. That is, of course, why Specter would want to switch: he’s out of the straightjacket of the Toomey challenge. We can try as we might to make Obama change his mind, but my detached judgment is that the primary would be a suicide mission for Sestak.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I find it interesting no one is mentioning that Joe Torsella is still in this race. People don’t need to wait on Sestak if what they are seeking is a Democrat who isn’t Specter.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I can’t really imagine a primary challenge getting off the ground unless things change drastically–no one who matters in liberal politics is going to be caught dead donating to a candidate expressly opposed by Obama and his friends.
You don’t know much about liberals, do you? Obama isn’t the boss of us. We’re the boss of him. That’s the foundation of democracy. And liberals take that idea seriously. Just ask Joe Lieberman. (And as several people have already pointed out, Specter can’t follow his example, it’s against the law in PA.)
I’m sure Obama’s support in a primary was a condition of Specter’s defection, and Specter (and Obama, I would assume) correctly calculated that it means Specter can vote however he pleases.
This makes no sense. A nominal Democrat that doesn’t vote with the Democrats is completely useless. Why let him take up a seat in a blue state, which could easily be filled by a Democrat that *does* vote with the Democrats?
Giving Specter any cover to run in the Dem primary, let alone an outright endorsement, is a huge favor *to Specter* – the most likely outcome in the absence of this deal was Toomey winning the primary and going down in flames in the general, and everyone knew it (except perhaps Toomey, who probably wouldn’t be doing what he’s doing if he didn’t believe at some level that Pennsylvanians really deep down want ardent conservatism and will follow it if they see it). It does the Dem leadership no good to cover Specter’s ass unless they get some favorable votes out of him.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
You don’t know much about liberals, do you?
Look, nothing would make me happier than if you’re right and I’m wrong. But my prior comment was aimed at pointing out how much more difficult it would be to topple Specter than Lieberman, and you’ll recall that the attempt against Lieberman wasn’t successful (though well worth doing and ultimately beneficial in many ways).
An Obama endorsement is extremely valuable to Specter, but a Specter defection was extremely valuable to Obama. No matter how Specter actually votes, Obama appears as the center of the political universe. I would bet Obama’s people are perfectly happy with a Specter voting profile that’s literally no different as a Democrat than it would have been as a Republican without the Toomey challenge. For one thing, the Republican Specter with the Toomey challenge is worse, and for another, Obama looks good regardless, which is NOT to say that liberalism in general benefits.
Furthermore, I agree with Matt’s argument throughout this episode that Specter will probably move to the left from where he would have been, even without Toomey.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Torsella’s still in? He’s not that popularly-known even inside Philly, but I think he could be a potent force. He’s a very bright and well-connected. He’s former Rhode Scholar, part of Rendell’s renaissance team, connected to Philly big money circles from his tenure at the Constitution Center. Just how close he currently is with Rendell matters. Also, he can overcome name recognition issues if he remains the only quasi-mainstream candidate, as both national and local media are already watching this race. But yeah, don’t write this guy off just yet.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I think some people may be underestimating an important difference between Specter and Lieberman. Lieberman was Connecticut’s longtime Democratic senator before he lost the primary to Lamont. Specter is Pennsylvania’s longtime Republican senator. It doesn’t seem to me that there’s any particular guarantee that Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania will want to vote for a guy who most of them have been voting against for years. Sure, Specter’s won a lot of elections by comfortable margins, but his votes have been coming from the Republican base and from independents and marginal Democrats, not from people who are so committed to the Democratic Party that they bother to vote in primaries (at least when there isn’t a contested presidential primary going on).
Organized labor is presumably going to be against Specter. So if you’re a Pennsylvania Democratic politician, and Obama is backing Specter, you might ask yourself: whose support do I need more — that of Obama, or that of my local unions? Different politicians are likely to come to different conclusions on that question. But it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a genuine Democrat could beat Specter in the primary.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Yes Phillyguy (@ 3.06), You’re right. That’s the way it works. And look how well it’s working out for the respective sides. The reality is that most people are fairly middle of the road so when you act bat-shit crazy going either direction you tend to scare off those people in the middle.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
This is the third post I’ve read talking about how PA is historically reliably Dem statewide, so losing Specter for Generic Dem A wouldn’t be much of a risk in the general. If that is the case, then I really would like to hear a coherent explanation for Rick Santorum. Something more satisfying than “We lost our damn minds for twelve years, but we’re feeling much better now.”
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
However appealing, the knife-sharpening may be premature. Specter never said he would be a loyal Republican either, but he was.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 pm
I look forward to writing a check…to the Sestak for Senate committee.
We’re told that markets are the thing, but now were told that business cannot compete with a government sponsored health plan.
So we will not let the most efficient payer enter the market. So, which is it? Pro-market, or pro-profiting off peoples illness and insecurities?
I know the answer…as do all the high buck lobbyists and the Congresspersons enjoying the campaign largess being aimed their way right now.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Meh, where is Obama’s motivation to stick it to Dems that support a primary opponent to Specter. What is he going to do, jump again? You can pull that trick once pretty easily, but it doesn’t work so well the second time around. I see Specter getting the national Dems nominal support. We’ll see what happens on the ground in Penn.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:20 am
[...] left-wing bloggers are beginning to sound like the regretful kidnappers of Red Chief. From Matthew Yglesias: If Arlen Specter was trying to think of things he could say on Meet The Press this morning that [...]
May 4th, 2009 at 10:01 am
An Obama endorsement is extremely valuable to Specter, but a Specter defection was extremely valuable to Obama.
Only if it moves the ball on substantive issues. When Obama comes up for reelection nobody will care about Specter – his reelection campaign will be ancient history and 49 states only saw it secondhand to begin with. Obama will look good if his agenda (a) passed and (b) worked. Otherwise he won’t. He has a crisis presidency and he either leads the country through the crisis to a successful resolution and becomes FDR, or fails and becomes Hoover. There is no middle ground and the side issues become irrelevant as the electorate sees everything through the lens of the crisis.
Problem (b) is up to the technocrats and experts: how to craft a solution that will actually solve the problem. Specter has nothing to do with that. Where he might be relevant is (a), getting the important legislation past the Senate in the first place. But only if Obama gets his vote in exchange for his support. A Specter who doesn’t help pass Obama’s agenda (and yes, I know he isn’t writing it by himself, but it is largely politically owned by Obama) hurts Obama more than he helps him – especially if Obama maneuvers himself into a corner that makes it difficult to replace him in 2010 and pass something in the next congress that wouldn’t get through this one.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I think folks are spending too much time complicating the Specter situation. He should be challenged in the primary and defeated because he represents a sense of almost aristocratic entitlement that is poisonous to democracy. Specter is NOT a Democrat in any sense. He’s a Republican who doesn’t think GOP primary voters should be allowed to throw him out of office.
Mike