Pat Toomey is thinking of challenging Arlen Specter again. There might be enough conservative base rage to get it done, but a moderate-seeming incumbent like Specter is the GOP’s best chance to hold on to that seat, so… go Toomey!
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
2 Democratic Senators From PA?
March 2nd, 2009
15 Comments
I think the only way Arlen Specter remains a senator past 2010 is if he goes back to the Democrats.
If Toomey managed to beat Specter in the GOP primary, I think he would stand a pretty good chance at winning the general. Outside of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (and maybe Scranton), the state is pretty much conservative Republican territory.
“If Toomey managed to beat Specter in the GOP primary…”
And it’s a closed primary, and the GOP has decided the reason they lost in 2006 and 2008 was they were not conservative enough.
This will be interesting to watch. I just hope the Democrats get a top tier challenger.
Outside of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (and maybe Scranton), the state is pretty much conservative Republican territory.
And yet Obama won here by eleven points.
Of course, saying that ‘outside of Pittburgh and Philly is GOP territory’ is sort of like saying, ‘aside from Brady & Moss, the Patriots really don’t have any elite players on offense.’ Santorum, an incumbent two-term Senator got his ass kicked. Toomney would be destroyed in a general.
Pennsylvania = 12.48 million people.
Philadelphia = 5.8 million people.
Pittsburgh = 2.5 million people.
Scranton = 550,000 people.
Total = 8.8 million people, or 70% of the population.
Toomey can’t win the general election, but he can win the primary.
Any top tier Democrat can beat Specter, but it will be close.
Any second tier Democrat would beat Toomey, hard.
Pat Tooney loves being a militia camp counselor
This is the canary in the mine shaft for moderate Republicanism.
Unlike Repubs, I’m glad our party has a handful of moderates and blue dogs. It means we can appeal to a broad swath and actually get the votes on really important things. In other words, a pragmatic strategy v. the ideological puritanism of the Republicans.
Could someone explain the difference between Specter today and Joe Lieberman in 2006? To me, the parallels are fairly obvious.
J.
Taken out of context, JT, I see your point. In context, Specter’s shaky status reflects a greater trend of the Republican leap to the right, whereas in ‘06, Lieberman’s situation was the exception, as Democrats actually moved a little toward the middle as a whole.
Put into common bloggerspeak, Lieberman was a bug, Specter is a feature.
Could someone explain the difference between Specter today and Joe Lieberman in 2006?
Joe Lieberman was to the right of the Democratic party in a state that was heavily Democratic. Specter is to the left of the Republican party in a state that is not friendly to his own party.
The only similarity is that in both cases, the candidates are generally more conservative than their own electorate.
The Democratic version of Specter would be someone like Ben Nelson.
Tyro, what I was hinting at was how Lieberman disagreed with the whackos of his party on one — and only one — issue, the war in Iraq, and was targeted for removal by the nutroots. They got someone to beat him in the primary, but lost in the general — and succeeded in replacing a reliable Democrat with an independent who needs to be catered to every now and then to keep him in line.
Specter also crossed a hefty chunk of his party’s base, and now the leadership is toying with the same idea — finding someone to take him on in his next primary.
I was attempting to point out how Oliver views Lieberman, versus how he’s portraying Specter — traitor vs. victim, opportunist vs. person of conscience.
J.
Actually, Lieberman disagreed with the Democratic voters of Connecticut, since he lost his primary. If it was just the ‘nutroots’ that was against him, he would’ve easily won his primary.
So, Jesse, how are things working out for Senator Lamont?
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Tyro, what I was hinting at was how Lieberman disagreed with the whackos of his party on one…”
There you go. That’s your problem there. Lieberman was against the MAINSTREAM of his party. He wasn’t against the wackos. In fact, at the time, Lamont’s position was in the mainstream regardless of party line. It was Lieberman who was the wacko.
“Specter also crossed a hefty chunk of his party’s base, and now the leadership is toying with the same idea — finding someone to take him on in his next primary.”
That’s not what happened. So are you ignorant or are you lying? Lamont was a netroot / grassroot movement. The party supported Lieberman, until he lost in the primary.
“I was attempting to point out how Oliver views Lieberman, versus how he’s portraying Specter — traitor vs. victim, opportunist vs. person of conscience.”
Has Specter gone on TV over and over again attacking the Republicans?
If not, then your analogy is false.
“I was attempting to point out…”
And you are doing a shitty job of it, because the situations are not the same.
“So, Jesse, how are things working out for Senator Lamont?”
Ask him in a few years. I don’t think 2012 will be kind to Lieberman.