Pennsylvania has retired Democrat-turned-Republican-turned Democrat and all around political opportunist Arlen Specter tonight. This is great news for Republicans because it means the seat is firmly in the toss-up category. Cue tomorrow’s media coverage about the “anti-incumbent mood,” etc.
.
If anything, this is a lesson to would be party switchers – if you do it when the environment is bad, it won’t save you. While I can’t condemn every person who has switched parties, it is rare for anyone to have been so brazenly opportunist about it. Pennsylvania deserves better representation in the Senate and I look forward to seeing a Republican in that seat come November.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
May 18th by Brian S
How do you figure that Sestak isn’t a much better Dem candidate than Specter? This is bad news for Toomey.
Because Sestak doesn’t have the name recognition that Specter does. They’re both Congressmen (or former Congressmen) and Sestak has been in Congress during the last four years and Toomey hasn’t. If there’s truly an anti-incumbent mood, it should hurt Sestak and not Toomey.
Durn it! I thought Brian would be crying in his wine spritzer, or whatever panzies drink nowadays. If Specter isn’t the epitome of what “Too Conservative” stands for, then I’m durned if I know what it is that they “stand” for!
At any rate, Bri, let’s bury the hatchet! At least for tonight: Ding dong the wicked witch is dead!
What encourages me is the Dem turnout. Turnout even in precincts like my parents was five times higher than what they were predicting. That tells me two things — that people in Western PA were coming out and voting for Sestak (which is absolutely necessary if he wants to win in the fall) and were excited about the chance to do so.
As always, I think you should start every election with the expectation that you are down 20 points. (Fortunately, the Sestak campaign actually has been, and knows how to handle that.) I also will continue to say that Democrats should be the last people to have any irrational exuberance about November, because I still think it’s going to be unpleasant. But maybe not as dreadful as I once thought. Maybe.
Either way, it’s coming, and I would rather be where the party is tonight than where we were yesterday!
Brian, Specter does have great name recognition and that name is dogshit. Sestak won pretty handily, and he doesn’t have all of the baggage that Specter does.
Dems are very happy on all sides tonight, with the win in PA-12, Sestak bumping off Specter, Conway winning the nomination in KY and Halter forcing a runoff with Lincoln in AR. Republicans now have two newbie teabaggers running for what should be solid Republican Senate seats.
I don’t know of any Dems who aren’t happy tonight.
AAAAhhhhhh………..Specter’s lost was SO VERY satisfying!
Brian, A year ago weren’t you were arguing for Specter to stay in the R party, that those of us that have wanted him out for the past 25 years were misguided and short sighted?
*
I’m glad the POS is gone, regardless of his party affiliation.
*
It sucks about PA12 – but they run for it again in Nov. I believe the R’s had a primary in conjunction with this special election.
“I don’t know of any Dems who aren’t happy tonight.”
*
And they should be, especially about PA12. Look at how you had to win that district though – by running a conservadem. Our side is going to have to do a better job of nationalizing these local elections if we’re going make outsized gains in November. I happen to think Sestak with his Jim Webb type resume is going to be a much tougher candidate to knock down than Specter, but PA12 is really what I’m looking at this morning. Given the resources deployed, we should have achieved a more respectable outcome, you guys were aided in no small part by GOP incompetence.
Specter was an opportunistic, self serving POS. Good riddance!
Lose the crass references to the Tea Partiers, NJM. If you can’t make your points without resorting to them you’re showing your lack of anything serious to say on the matter.
I agree Cato, however it is hard to run against Murtha’s former aide that knows where all the pork treats are hidden. Murtha would have held that seat for next 30 years because of the odd demographics (older constituents, blue collar ethics, dying economy but traditional values) in that district. Changing the minds of the consituents to suddenly accept a candidate that will not be bringing home the bacon seems almost impossible. Plus, the R’s had a bit of situation picking their candidate, with Bill Russell being told – thanks for working this district for 2 years, but we have our own guy.
*
The incompetence of the local and national GOP hold blame, but taking the teet away and replacing it with a viable (believable) solution is not so easy.
Snarlin Arlin I hear is headed to Glasgow to practice law and switch to the Scottish National Party.
Murtha held the seat for 30 plus years. They will have to defend it again in November.
LL, I was arguing that we in the party bore the blame for pushing him out. Folks like Specter give those of us who are moderate a bad name because they reinforce the belief that we’re all just one primary fight away from switching parties, which is generally not the case. At least, it certainly isn’t for me.
.
Sestak will be tough to beat, but I think he’s beatable. He’s got a great story, particularly with his daughter’s illness. He’s a workaholic – I remember him scheduling a meeting with me for 6:30 in the morning in his DC office because he wanted to be able to get home that night to see his daughter. But I think we can beat him. Toomey will just have to run a good campaign.
.
The Murtha special is not indicative of how things will go in November. As Cato noted, they ran a conservative Democrat for that seat (which they have to – it’s a Republican seat that went for McCain). But the real reason why they won was because they had the Specter/Sestak ticket at the top of that ballot. Ed Rendell is no idiot and putting the special election on the same day as a primary fight that turned out over a million voters across the state was critical to their winning. They won’t have that luxury in November. I’m confident we can take the seat back.
It’s apparent that if you’re a Republican, the only elections that really mean anything are the ones you win. In that case it’s clearly a sign of the times and how people really feel. When you lose, it’s always because the Dem cheated or lied or there were special circumstances or god was smiting you or whatever excuse is handy.
Glad he’s gone. And with that, the generic ballot predictions remain entact. It’s going to be a very bad year for any sociaslistic-leaning excrement-laden democrat. Take that, Not Mosby.
to bad we lost murtha’s seat….
Cato, you are right about PA-12 being the race to look at this morning. But I don’t understand your surprise that the Democrats ran a conservative candidate. Many of the seats gained in 2006 and 2008 were picked up precisely because the Democratic candidates were moderates and conservatives who fit the districts in which they were running. There is nothing novel about nominating a candidate who can win.
.
I agree that Sestak will be the stronger candidate in the general election for the Senate. And while the establishment was obligated to support Specter, I don’t think they are too upset by last night’s outcome. They realize Sestak is the better candidate for November too.
.
I don’t think you are right about nationalizing these elections. As Tip O’Neil said, “All politics is local.”. Good candidates and good campaigns win. That is not to say that there aren’t times when it is possible to nationalize elections. But there has to be some overwhelming discontent that makes that possible. I think the Republicans are grossly misjudging that.
.
The Democrats were able to run the table in 2006 in large part because the country’s opinion of George W. Bush was so low at that point. That made it possible. But it wouldn’t have happened without good candidates and good campaigns. Many Republicans believe they have a similar opportunity in 2010 because they seem to have convinced themselves that President Obama is as unpopular as President Bush was in 2006. They must never leave their echo chamber.
.
With a difficult economy that is improving but has a long way to go and with troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan seven and nine years respectively after they were first deployed, Obama’s approval rating hangs right around 50%. He may be wildly unpopular with the right wingers who wouldn’t vote for a Democrat if you were holding a gun to their heads, but the country as a whole doesn’t seem to share their assessment of him. Hardly the stuff wave elections are made of. The seeming inability of Republican leaders to objectively assess the terrain is their first problem.
.
But if I am wrong and they are right and the circumstances exist for larger than expected Republican gains, they still have to provide the essential ingredients for electoral success. Good candidates and good campaigns. Without that you won’t be maximizing whatever opportunities exist.
.
Those candidates have to fit their districts too. The Democrats have shown a willingness to nominate and support such candidates. The Republicans seem to be demanding ideological purity over electability. Regardless of the character of the state or district. The tea party (which, let’s be honest, is simply a rebranding of the far right wing of the Republican Party) is holding the party hostage and preventing it from following the path to a majority that the Democrats followed during the last two cycles. They’d rather lose an election than nominate a moderate or even a conservative who they deem to be insufficiently conservative. I love the tea people!
Last night’s results give Democrats much more reason to smile than Republicans.
“It’s apparent that if you’re a Republican, the only elections that really mean anything are the ones you win.”
NotJohnSMosby, do you mean to say that if the Republicans had won PA-12 they would be saying something completely different? That it had great significance for November and was a harbinger of dramatic Republican gains to come?
You are such a cynic!
This is great! This is something that Democrats and Republicans alike can come together on! We all dislike Arlen.
“Many Republicans believe they have a similar opportunity in 2010 because they seem to have convinced themselves that President Obama is as unpopular as President Bush was in 2006.”
*
No, we don’t think there’s comparison – yet. It takes a lot of screwing up to get that low. However, he’s just unpopular in enough districts to flip the house. You need to thread the needle between now and November, nearly everything (jobs, housing, economic growth) needs to go your way. You’ve still got something like 1-1.5 million state govt jobs that need to be shed to balance books, a new round of forclosures with rate resets, and the circus that is the Eurozone to contend with. Oh, and perhaps an economic disaster brewing with the oil spill that could easily be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and sends us into double dip territory. All this could beat Obama down into the low 40s by election day.
*
However, I agree with you in that R’s don’t seem to be able to get out of their own way, and I haven’t been very impressed with the ability of the NRCC to execute thusfar.
Brian, I accept the blame (on the behalf of myself, the party, etc….) for pushing Specter out, yay for me! Holy cow, if we can’t push him out because of how if might appear, or make people feel, or it might give someone the heebie-jeebies – shame on us. Shame on us anyways, but double shame for not telling Specter to stick it where the sun don’t shine 15 years ago. The man has been a menace since he entered politics 30 odd years ago, and if our Party had had some balls and let him get primaried out last go around – we might be better off today. Boo-frickin-hoo for Specter and everyone that stood around this old turd for several decades just to keep up appearances.
*
It must be pointed out, the D’s can run “conservative” democrats to win in states like PA – but once in office they vote with Obama, and we have to say “We told you so”. My hope is Toomey tells it like it is, that the D’s ran “conservative” and/or “blue dog” candidates with tiny-dancer Rahm at the helm in 2 election cycles. They came to Washington and voted with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama 90% of the time. If Toomey points out the blatant bait and switch, he has a chance.
*
I await someone posting me how centrist Sestak is, how he is his own man, standing up for the little guy, bucking his own party….(laughing again).
Loudoun Lady, I imagine there are many people who would thank you for pushing Specter out of the Republican Party. His vote was instrumental for the passage of health care reform. Which wouldn’t have been possible if he had remained a Republican trying to appease a Republican primary electorate that is well to the right of Pennsylvania as a whole.
.
I’m still pleased that Specter will be enjoying retirement come January. I think Sestak will be a much more reliable Senator in many respects. And the Senate has more than its quota of octogenarians.
.
You seem to scoff at the idea of conservative Democrats. We have covered this ground before. You seem to define conservative as far right wing while I use a more traditional and widely accepted definition of the term. Hence your penchant for referring to moderates and even many conservatives as leftists. However you define terms, there is clearly a much wider diversity of political views in the Democratic Party at the present than in the Republican. This is one of the reasons why a sizable Democratic majority exists in the Congress. We appeal to a broader cross section of the population rather than a narrow ideological subset.
.
Bait and switch you say? Tell that to the progressives in the 8th District of North Carolina who worked to elect Larry Kissel in 2008. They are furious with Kissel over some of his votes including the one he cast against health care reform. But he will likely be re-elected. In part because the Republicans in his district seem bent on proving that everything that has been said about the insanity, incompetence and disorganization of the modern Republican Party is true.
.
But please, keep thinking the reasons for Republican failure are all about the Democrats being evil or underhanded. Or about the voters just being too stupid to see the wisdom of voting for Republicans. There are no problems with the Republican Party. The Organization, the message, the execution are all pitch perfect.
.
Don’t you go changin’.
So Cato, your hope is that the economy craters later this year so that Republicans can win some House and Senate seats.
That’s awesome, do you also hope a school bus full of kids slams into a tree in your front yard that you’ve wanted to cut down for years, just so you can have the insurance company pay for it?
LL, if we lose the seat in November, we can have another discussion about Specter. In the meantime, let’s both enjoy being on the same side of this issue for a few more hours.
I predict a Democratic loss of around 20 seats. The inability of the Republicans to win even in a white, elderly, rural district last night was pathetic. Yes, it was during the primary election, but I bought the mighty Republican wave was suppsed to sweep everyone away? Some “wave” they can’t even pick up districts John McCain won.
NotJohnSMosby, Cato certainly doesn’t need me to speak for him, but I didn’t interpret his remarks as rooting for disaster to aid Republican electoral chances in November.
.
I think he was just expressing the same thought I had that the economy is the factor that will most greatly influence the outcome. And he pointed out a few things that might happen to dramatically change the economic picture.
The economy is rebounding, just look at the jobs lost/gain charts since Dec.2007. We had the stock market go up, then GDP growth, then job growth. Next, the unemployment rate falls.
“That’s awesome, do you also hope a school bus full of kids slams into a tree in your front yard”
*
I’d be OK with that if you happened to be the driver and if the only passengers were your kids.
RichmondDem, I concur. I think we are most probably going to be looking at a better economic picture in November than today. More importantly, I think the public will perceive it as better and improving. But many things can happen.
.
I wouldn’t count on much improvement in unemployment numbers in time for the 2010 election though. But by 2012 when we have a lot of seats to defend in the Senate things should be rolling.
But Cato, I’m a Dem, so I had all of my fetuses (fetusi?) aborted. Now I spend my days working with the devil to turn Republican leaders gay.
Geez! Just hire somebody to cut the damned tree down and let’s stop all this ugly school bus accident talk.
Well perceptions of the economy are locked in several months in advance. And while it will look better than when Brown was elected, the perception won’t be that great. What will really limit our losses is Republican incompetence. In Kentucky they just nominated, even by the rapidly declining standard of the modern Republican Party, a complete loon.
NotJohnSMosby, those Republican leaders are not gay. They just have sex with gay guys in order to be able to share the word of God with them and try to bring them to Christ. But they are not gay.
.
Please stop disparaging these fine men who are willing to do such distasteful things in order to promote Christ and his political party.
RichmondDem, I am thrilled with Paul’s nomination. It makes the race competitive. I want to see some polling now that the nominees are chosen. This one could be fun.
.
In the event that Paul wins the election he will likely be a major pain in the ass for McConnell. Mitch may wish he had Jim Bunning back.
.
Ain’t that a bitch?
“But Cato, I’m a Dem, so I had all of my fetuses (fetusi?) aborted. Now I spend my days working with the devil to turn Republican leaders gay.”
*
Ha!
*
Guys look – I don’t want to piss all over the recovery parade, but I think you guys are failing to appreciate the gravity of what’s going on in Europe and how it’s going to effect us. In terms of hard GDP growth, the empirical data tells us that we should expect no more than a .5 hit to our GDP. However, the real problem is that there’s a crisis of confidence in a major currency and you’ve got state economies built on fraud and bullshit set to implode in slow motion over the next six months. That’s going to cause our markets to reprice and our companies to reassess hiring as they try to digest what a global growth slowdown will mean for business. I think our best hope is tepid and perhaps even flat growth.
Shorter Cato: don’t worry, guys, some Deus ex Machina will save our electoral chances.
RichmondDem, please don’t speak Latin here. English only. Do you want to start a discussion about immigration and all those Latinos who are taking over our country?
.
Oh, wait. I am thinking of BVBL.
.
You can speak Latin here.
I think Cato’s right, that the European questions are big ones. But I’ll throw out another suggestion- given that notions on the economy and voting trends are more perception based than reality based (something Dems have been better grasping than Republicans since the 1930’s) might the further collapse in Europe not make the early and aggressive steps taken here in the US look better in retrospect? A person might think, yes that TARP bailout was awful, but at least we don’t have to do it this year. Or perhaps, the whole world seems to be economically collapsing, but we are at least holding steady. Things like that. Suddenly the party in power isn’t hated any more. They may not be loved and admired, but the aren’t hated. (Think 1982).
**
Dems lose seats this fall. They will lose a lot of seats. But perhaps more importantly, what kind of Republican can win? If it is someone like Rand Paul, then I think both parties are reshaped by extreme anti-government entrenchment. The larger issue, of course, is that most Americans like their unemployment insurance, the parks, their social security and even their public schools (actual parents sending actual children consistently rate their schools 80% and higher ). So as a long term strategy for Dems, I’ll live through the extreme anti-government entrenchment of the Republican party. It will be unpleasant, but in the end, I believe that it benefits Dem ideas. Does it help the Republican party? I don’t know. But as someone who lived through intense party infighting over ideology in the late 1970’s-early 1980’s, I will admit I’m glad it isn’t my party this time.
All those guys having sex with little boys aren’t gay either, Dan?
Jack, apparently not if they are Republicans or religious conservatives.
.
Larry Craig says he is not gay. Ted Haggard says he is 100% heterosexual after undergoing a three week speed de-gayifying program. George Rekers claims that having gay sex with his rentboy was just part of his ministry and that he isn’t gay either.
.
It would seem that if you go around telling others how to live their private lives and preaching that homosexuality is sinful and a threat to the Republic you can suck all the cocks you want without being gay.
.
Doesn’t make sense to me, but then maybe you have to be a Republican or a religious zealot to understand it. I think these guys are gay, but they claim they aren’t. Go figure.
OK Dan, we get your point! Enough with the you-know-what!
Although not reported much in last night’s results, Arizona voters agreed to raise the sales tax there temporarily from 5.6 to 6.6% Anyone have thoughts on that? I mention it because after watching the Herrity ad over at NLS, I was struck by the slightly subtle difference in energy I felt when he talks about reducing the deficit compared to “fighting against tax increases.” (Did he claim he would lower them? I’m trying to remember?)
*
If a state like Arizona can vote to raise taxes, what does this mean?
Dan, I’m so glad you came up with one – ONE – “conservative” Democrat! Thank you. I’d like to Kiss Rep Kissell. I do scoff at the term “conservative” in your party, but if you want to keep pretending you have lots ‘o moderates and fiscal conservatives – that is good. I’ll use your tactics – Hey fine with me! Let them pretend! I love it when Democrats make assumptions!
*
My hope for R candidates running in 2010 is this, if the Democrat you are running against voted with Obama, Reid and Pelosi 90% of the time and ran as a “moderate” last time around – exploit the hell out of it. Our party has not had much back bone in this area for the better part of a decade, but my hopes are we grow a set.
Brian, I concur, but I must point out that we already lost Specter’s seat when he jumped ship. Dem win in Nov = nothing, a win is a net gain.
Yeah, because running against Nancy Pelosi worked out so well last night in Pennsylvania, and the other six house special elections Republocans have lost since Obama took office.
But hey, maybe you can run on returning to the gold standard!
“Dan, I’m so glad you came up with one – ONE – “conservative” Democrat!”
.
Loudoun Lady, I gave one example. He is far from the only one. You don’t even have to leave North Carolina to find another example. Shuler in NC-11 who was first elected in 2006 fits the bill. The folks in the liberal oasis that is Asheville may not be crazy about Shuler, but they are not going to elect a Congressman in the 11th who is to their taste. They would want a liberal. Which ain’t gonna happen.
.
Now put the shoe on the other foot. Pick a moderate/liberal district with a Democratic incumbent. And let’s say the Republican base in that district is as conservative as the folks in Asheville are liberal. What do you think the chances are of the Republicans in that district nominating a moderate liberal who can compete? Pretty slim? In the current climate they would most likely nominate a “pure” conservative who would go down to glorious defeat. This may make them feel somehow superior to others, but it is no way to construct a legislative majority.
.
And you might want to be careful talking about people pretending to be fiscal conservatives. The Republicans have been pretending to be fiscal conservatives for many years now. They talk the talk, but a whole generation of voters has never seen them walk the walk.
RD, If you feel so strongly about the influence Nancy Pelosi has on individual races, will you please contact the DNC and ask that her face be included on each candidate’s webpage and literature? I suppose you could look at NP as a winning factor in a D winning a D seat in a special elections, but you could also believe in the tooth fairy. I suspect you might.
*
I’ll pull another Dan – Pelosi should be plastered all over everything this Fall! Make her a mascot! Fill our ears with the music of Pelosi and Company! It’s too delicious! I can’t stand it! Help me Rhonda!
Shuller pissed of NP, we’ll see if he gets any help being re-elected. As far as I have read he is persona non-grata with NP and co.
RichmondDem, they ARE running on returning to the gold standard. Didn’t you hear? Paul won the primary in Kentucky.
.
The gold standard thing probably resonates with Glenn Beck fans. The commercials hawking gold are amazingly numerous on his show. Of course, Glenn sets the marks up perfectly with his predictions of the apocalypse just before going to commercial.
.
Thank God these poor fools have a liberal like Congressman Weiner looking into how badly they are being fleeced by these gold salesman. Apparently a couple of state AGs have been on this one too. And it seems several FTC regulations have been ignored.
Shuler will be re-elected. If you have that on the fantasy board as one of those hundred seats you are expecting to pick up you need to scratch that one off.
Republicans will plaster her face all over negative ads and mailers, like they did in that Pennsylvania race last night, and it will do nothing for them. Most swing voters don’t care about Nancy Pelosi, if they even know who she is at all. They care about local issues, getting money to their districts, and job growth.
RichmondDem, you obviously don’t understand. If you are so far to the right that you are falling off the edge you believe all that crazy talk about Obama and Pelosi and Reid being socialists bent on destroying America and turning it into an Islamic Republic that enforces Sharia Law. If you believe that then you think putting unflattering pictures of Pelosi in your campaign ads and mailers is the key to victory because you are convinced that the majority of voters believe the same crazy stuff you do. Such is the danger of living in an echo chamber.
.
It doesn’t seem to occur to these folks that the majority of voters don’t view Pelosi as some sort of demon. In fact, as you point out, many of them don’t even know who she is. Many couldn’t name the Speaker or the Majority Leader to save their souls. They have other more immediate concerns than following politics and government closely.
.
Saying crazy things about Pelosi is fine for fund raising letters to the base. It is no different than the crazy stuff they said about Hillary Clinton when she was the villain du jour for fund raising. But what appeals to the overwrought and unspooled base to get them to write checks is not what appeals to regular voters. Apparently a good many Republicans think otherwise.
.
Don’t discourage them.
.
If they want to send out mailers with Obama with a bone through his nose flanked by swastikas and the hammer and sickle, let them. The voters are perfectly well equipped to sort it out.
“If a state like Arizona can vote to raise taxes, what does this mean?”
*
Interesting question. It’s worth mentioning that AZ’s top income tax bracket is 5%, lower than most (even than ours). Also, the measure is sunset in three years. As a fiscal conservative, I’d be a lot more likely to approve of something (new program, whatever) that that self funds and sunsets after a specified period of time. If it worked out well, great, we can vote for it again. If not, it just goes away. I also believe that the additional revenues were specifically targeted at education (not like this means anything – see: VA transportation lockbox).
*
But the biggest reason was that supporters of the measure outspent opponents 2000:1. Folks who wanted to see the measure passed raised 2.3m, while opponents raised 1,215 (yes you read that correctly). This is probably a case of “he who has the gold makes the rules” more than anything else.
“hawking gold”
*
It’s going to be really ugly when gold starts to correct.
I’m sure Schuler will get re-elected, he has made it prety clear he wants little to do with his leadership. Good Lord Dan, do you ever just stop with the ‘Don’t discourage them, clap at the idiots (yuc, yuck yuc)” remarks. It’s just filler and beneath you.
*
RD: As for how well know NP is, I think you’d be surprised. But let’s assume no one knows who she is is any district – it’s not hard to tie the majority leaders in both houses to the unpopular Healthcare/Bailout bills and the reps that voted for them. Republicans will suffer for voting for TARP, etc too – as well they should if they have lost their way on fiscal restraint. Some like Eric Cantor will survive, as will Wolf. Your party just happens to have WAY more Reps that voted for all 3 budget busting mammoth bills. The odds are against the D’s in the fall, period. 6 months is a lifetime in politics, but I’m thinking the projectory is in our favor.
About voter information: I once worked as a minion in a very well regarded law firm in DC. One afternoon, to pass the time, my office mate and I started asking everyone we ran into if the could name all nine justices on the Supreme Court. We asked partners, associates, legal secretaries, administrative assistants, paralegals—anyone. Know how many could? One person (and at the time, I couldn’t do it either.). Now, granted, this was a strongly Republican firm (the one headed by former SG Ted Olsen) but I’m guessing Dems wouldn’t fare much better.
*
It’s really hard for any of us here to imagine what it means to be an “average voter” or a “low information” voter. But I often think of the inability of dozens of people in a powerful DC law firm to name the nine Supreme Court justices, and try to keep what I can expect from voters in perspective.
Your party’s record inComgressional special elections in 2009 and 2010 is 1-7. In House races alone you’re shut out, 0-6.
RD, you would think there would be a lesson there, but nooooo, they’re going to keep going further and further hard right.
LI and RD – Wow. You mean right after Obama was elected he picked up some house seats, most of which were already democrat seats? Did you 2 forget about VA, MA and NJ? Pffft, means absolutely nothing!
*
I suspect RD is still full of Obama pride, which is so cool. It’s a pity I don’t see or read more of it. Really!
Monday, May 17, 2010
Republican candidates now hold a five-point lead over Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot, a further narrowing of the gap between the two parties to the smallest margin this year.
But a five point lead, to be sure.
“But a five point lead, to be sure.”
.
Well, a five point lead if you ignore every other major polling organization that tracks the generic ballot question and simply cherry pick Rasmussen out of the pack. And since Rasmussen always skews several points more favorably toward Republicans than all the rest you can make the false assumption that they are spot on and ignore all the other data if you like.
.
That is if you want to fool yourself. But what the hell is the point of that. Why fool yourself? And you aren’t kidding anyone else. If they can use the Googles and can read they can see what the picture really is.
.
The Gallup survey that was conducted at exactly the same time has it at +1 for the Republicans. The RCP average has it at +0.3 for the Democrats. The TPM average has it at +0.1 for the Republicans.
.
The generic ballot is useful in a limited way. And, for people who understand the dynamics of midterm elections, a dead heat on the generic ballot question is good news for Republicans. You don’t need to cherry pick to paint a false picture. The real picture is good news for you.
.
But, you are welcome to ignore all data other than the most favorable. I wouldn’t want to discourage your overconfidence. Hell, you will probably retake the Senate and pick up a couple of hundred seats in the House. Then Obama and Biden will probably both resign, bowing to the will of the people, so that Speaker Boner can become president. Shortly thereafter Jesus will return to Earth and will then ascend into heaven with Sarah Palin at his right hand.
.
I think there may be a Rasmussen poll that supports these conclusions.
Virginia and New Jersey were not Congressional elections. Scott Brown is your 1 win in your 1-6 record. That’s also the only one the RNC and RSCC pretty much stayed away from, which is part of the reason he won.
.
Three of those Congressional elections you lost were in Republican districts. One of them hadn’t voted for a Democrat since the Civil War. The fourth, PA-12, was a white, rural, elderly district, the kind of district the Teabaggers are supposedly going to show their mighty power in this year. Why, they’re so numerous and powerful that, uh, they couldn’t overcome a Democratic turnout advantage because they couldn’t be bothered to show up for a primary.
.
The “Tea Party” is more oversold and full of hot air than Pets.com circa 1999.
RD, Please ignore the state races and put all your eggs in the congressional seats that were already in your hands (from the past year). You know that is called “an advantage” – don’t you? 2 years ago no one would have give Christie or Brown an advantage or even a chance. Oh how the landscape has changed – but keep on those rose colored glasses that have “hope and change” filtered in.
Dan,
If you’re going to go all Rasmussen on us, take a look at Obama’s polling numbers. They were the worst of any president when taken one year into each’s presidency, and they’ve only gotten worse.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
In short, “28% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15.”
Wammo!
Dan and RD are too busy high-fiving each other and reliving the glory days of the 2008 election. When you are unwilling to realize that the hope and change was just a crappy slogan, that is all you have.
Lloyd, I think you just made my point by quoting Rasmussen rather than a cross section of polling. I wasn’t going “all Rasmussen” on you. I was simply pointing out to BPM that basing his assumptions about the midterms only on the one poll that can be counted on to skew its sample toward Republicans is not very sound. Just as drawing conclusions about presidential popularity by cherry picking the one poll that tells you what you want to hear and ignoring the rest is not very sound either. Unless your goal is simply to make yourself feel good.
.
If your goal is to try to make a realistic assessment of what is going on with the general public then you might want to take a different approach. But since my policy is to encourage Republican overconfidence where ever it exists, I will say no more on the subject.
Yes, Dan – Your sarcastic posts are taken to heart by so many serious members of the Republican Party. Often I think to myself “Self, how do I stop the DAN on TC from encouraging the vast right wing conspiracy to go all nutty? He really mean it!”
*
My policy is to call BS on your BS.
“Dan and RD are too busy high-fiving each other and reliving the glory days of the 2008 election.”
.
Gee, that was fun, wasn’t it? We didn’t really get to savor election night very late into the evening though. The result was apparent so early into the evening. Oh, well. I assure you I will have a bottle of Bushmills at the ready on November 6th, 2012 to toast his re-election.
.
If you find the slogans to have been so unsatisfactory perhaps you could suggest some others. Hope and Change may not be as memorable as “I Like Ike” or “All The Way With JFK”, but you have to admit it isn’t as lame and moronic as “Drill Baby Drill”.
Loudoun Lady, they hardly need encouragement to “go all nutty”. I think they have already completed that trip. But I didn’t comment on their nuttiness. We were talking about the self deception of only considering data that supports the outcome you hope will occur while ignoring all other data. Which is not conducive to developing an effective strategy.
The regein of the RINOs is over an we real CONSERVATIVES are going to take the party back from you “big tent” let’s try to become Democrats too RINOs. I am loving it, everytime you all try to have us run candidates like John McCain or “Russ Potts Reagan Repulicans” we loose! Now we need to win and having leaders that will adhere to our principles will help us run strong candidates who will win. Stay home RINOs, you aren’t helping us win and only cause us to waste time and energy that should be spent on defeating the Democrat party candidates!
Dan, Thank you for bringing up self-deception. I know this is a specialty of yours – but Don’t Stop Believin, hold on to that dream, yeah-yeah, street lights and people, oh, oh, ohhhhhhhhhh!
Loudoun Lady, I know you are intentionally pretending to miss the point. But you are missing it nonetheless. We are not talking about being mistaken about something or making a judgement about future events that turns out to be incorrect. We are all capable of that. I know I haven’t been walking on water lately and I don’t imagine you have either.
.
The point is making inaccurate assumptions through willfully ignoring data that one finds unpleasant. The examples in this case being Monk and Lloyd ignoring all polls except the one that reflects what they hope to be the case. People of all political stripes have been known to engage in such self deception. I simply commented on the examples within the thread.
.
They apparently have a great deal of company because I have spoken with more than a few Republicans who seem to be convinced the Rs are going to pick up 80-100 seats. Although they must have some doubt because they all have refused to place a serious wager on that outcome.
Dan, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Remember what I posted a month or so ago, “schooling” people on obvious points comes across as arrogant? It’s happening again. My sympathies to the Republicans that have to listen to you in person.
*
On totally unrelated note, go relax and have a beer, whiskey, wine or taco – and start your weekend!