Specter Switches Parties

[Bando]

(WaPo Link)

Hello, filibuster-proof majority. This was probably the best of two options he had for remaining a Senator (the other being a Joe Lieberman-esque independent campaign). I'm assuming that the Dems' part in this agreement will ensure no primary challenge from the left, so it would seem Specter should cruise to re-election.

[jgalt]

i thought this was going to be about Phil Spector and was very intrigued how his political orientation had anything to do with being a murder.

[thebin]

There seems to be something awfully un-democratic about switching parties mid-term. The Dems now enjoy an enormous political power not via the ballot box but because of the decision of one man, swayed as surely it was by promises of this or that committee chair....

[strummer8526]

Apr 28, 2009 12:10:34 GMT -5 thebin said:

There seems to be something awfully un-democratic about switching parties mid-term. The Dems now enjoy an enormous political power not via the ballot box but because of the decision of one man, swayed as surely it was by promises of this or that committee chair....

It's no more political power than they had before. 60 Democrats ≠ automatic filibuster. They still need to convince all 60 to do it, same as they would have had to convince 59 + Specter before.

Also, 59 were elected, so I don't think the country will be up-in-arms about the Dems having power. That seems to be what we've been consistently voting for since 2004.

[AustinHoya03]

The GOP says good riddance, and suggests the switch is not based on any promise from any committe chair, but on Specter's waning popularity with R primary voters.

Steele: "Let's be honest-Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.
Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."

blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/04/arlen_specter_switching_to_dem.html

I have two comments: First, thebin is absolutely correct that switching parties mid-term cheats the voters and undermines democracy. The effect is lessened somewhat since Specter is near the end of his term, but the Dems can now freely pass legislation in the Senate for 1+ year. I am sure that many of those who voted for Sen. Specter did not expect they were voting for a filibuster-proof D majority.

Second, it is sadly not surprising that the GOP has reacted to this event by making a statement sure to alienate moderate voters and by slapping the "left-wing" label on a Senator most moderates like and respect.

[vcjack]

I think the more undemocratic thing about this is that the casual assumption that all Pennsylvania Democrats will accept the judgment of the DNC that Specter represents their interests or the worse slap to the face to all of the Republicans who voted for him under the assumption that they were voting for a member of the Republican party.


When the inevitable GOP rebound happens in 2010, they will go headhunting.

[quickplay]

Just playing a bit of devil's advocate, but voting for party could be seen as more undemocratic than switching parties. More a comment about the un-democratic nature of our two-party system than a comment on this specific event.

[TC]

I'm glad you guys have your own Lieberman now.

I guess I'm confused here - why the uproar? Having 60 Democrats does not mean having 60 Democratic votes, and I'm guessing that Collins/Snowe/Specter/Bayh will continue to be a block that shifts legislation, regardless of whether Specter runs as a Democrat or Republican.

[HealyHoya]

Primary campaigns tend to to accentuate the extremes. Among Pennsylvania Republicans living in the socially conservative T (think vertical running N-S between Philly and Pittsburgh and horizontal running E-W across the top of the state) a Republican primary challenge from someone like, say, Pat Toomey, former PA Congressman and current President of the Club for Growth, becomes the most likely reason -- strategic -- for the switch, and the timing of such a switch.

Specter will most likely win the Democratic primary though those positing that he will do so without a single legitimate primary challenger from that side are perhaps overstating things a bit. Specter is disliked by traditional GOPers but he is far from in line, position by position, with the more socially and fiscally liberals Dem Congressmen from urban Philly.

That said, he has a better chance of winning the D primary than the R primary. After that, the demographics of PA (see: Santorum, Rick and the Ring Counties) make the switch to the Dem party a strategically smart move for Specter.

There will be a lot of money spent in PA on that race by the attendant ancillary interest groups and DC-based funding organizations.

[Bando]

Apr 28, 2009 12:31:37 GMT -5 vcjack said:

I think the more undemocratic thing about this is that the casual assumption that all Pennsylvania Democrats will accept the judgment of the DNC that Specter represents their interests or the worse slap to the face to all of the Republicans who voted for him under the assumption that they were voting for a member of the Republican party.


When the inevitable GOP rebound happens in 2010, they will go headhunting.

Well, he'll have to go before voters in a year, this time running as a Democrat. My guess is that he'll win easily. In fact, that's why he made the switch: he was favored to win the general, but was going to lose handily the GOP primary. Since PA has a sore loser law, he couldn't pull a Lieberman and run as an independent.

Also, I wouldn't call a 2010 GOP revival "inevitable" by any stretch. The last polling I checked, the GOP was still playing defense.

[The Stig]

And the Republican presence in the northeast becomes even smaller. The party is drifting more and more to the right.

[PhillyHoya]

As a native Pennsylvanian and a moderate Republican, I was never much of a Specter fan (for personal family reasons) but he was always better than the alternative. I supported Toomey on '04 and am supporting him again now. It was a very smart move for Arlen to switch. Toomey had a 20 point lead on him and I really don't think the people of Pennsyalabama (what we so fondly call everything but Philly and Pittsburgh) want two Dems in the Senate. Obviously there is a LOT of time before the election but Healy is right, this will be one, if not THE, hot race in 2010.

[Boz]

Some thoughts:

1. A filibuster-proof majority -- in either party -- is not a good thing for our government. I hope many of us here, no matter which side of the aisle we are on, would acknowledge that. With such a majority, you are basically enabling one party to shut down debate.

2. While this move is a victory for Democrats and a defeat for Republicans, it was simply a matter of desperation for Specter. This was his only option if he wanted to continue being a Senator (I think going independant would have been too difficult in Pa., Bando). He can say all he wants about ideology in his statement -- and certainly there is no love lost between conservatives and him -- but this does not happen if Pat Toomey is not trouncing him by 21 points. And I agree with Steele that this move does not make for an easy re-election by ANY means...but it does give him the possibility of being re-elected, which didn't exist otherwise.

3. If was a good, if somewhat "jilted teenager-ish" statement by Steele, but that guy is NOT doing a real good job thusfar in his tenure. Between NY-20 and this, he needs to get himself a victory soon or he is going to be replaced even before we get to the mid-terms. And seeing as how the next news to come down is probably going to be that the embarrassment in Minnesota is now a Senator (OK, they're both a bit of an embarrassment, but Franken is a joke), that's three big losses under his watch. Not that he could have done much about MN, but its still the perception that this happened during his chairmanship. It's unfortunate, I think Steele could be good, but he hasn't shown very much so far.

[AustinHoya03]

Apr 28, 2009 12:40:50 GMT -5 The Stig said:

And the Republican presence in the northeast becomes even smaller. The party is drifting more and more to the right.

The weird thing is, PA isn't even really the Northeast, where local GOP parties are practically nonexistent. Specter's move seems to be another sign that the Mid-Atlantic may become as inhospitable to R's as the Northeast in coming years. Don't forget, Obama won PA, VA, and NC (21, 13 and 15 electoral votes, respectively), and won by a considerable margin in two of those states.

[DFW HOYA]

Apr 28, 2009 12:40:50 GMT -5 The Stig said:

And the Republican presence in the northeast becomes even smaller. The party is drifting more and more to the right.

I'm not buying it--it's more of a regional issue and a CYA move by Spector for the primary. Northeastern voters fell prey to the stereotypes of the GOP that are out there instead of developing their own regional base of leadership within the party.

In Texas, there have been a number of Democrat judges that went Republican in the 1990's and switched back in 2006-08 when it was politially expedient to do so. Their rulings don't change but since all judges are elected, they act in their own self-interest.

Remember, all politics is cyclical. A generation ago, the GOP was strongest in California and the Northeast, and any Democrat on a ticket in the South was a slam-dunk.

[Bando]

Apr 28, 2009 12:47:13 GMT -5 Boz said:

Some thoughts:

2. While this move is a victory for Democrats and a defeat for Republicans, it was simply a matter of desperation for Specter. This was his only option if he wanted to continue being a Senator (I think going independant would have been too difficult in Pa., Bando). He can say all he wants about ideology in his statement -- and certainly there is no love lost between conservatives and him -- but this does not happen if Pat Toomey is not trouncing him by 21 points. And I agree with Steele that this move does not make for an easy re-election by ANY means...but it does give him the possibility of being re-elected, which didn't exist otherwise.

I actually looked this up after initially posting this: PA has a sore loser law, so he wouldn't have been able to pull a Lieberman and run as an independent after the primary. Becoming a Dem was pretty much his only option, then.

[AustinHoya03]

Apr 28, 2009 12:40:15 GMT -5 HealyHoya said:

Primary campaigns tend to to accentuate the extremes. Among Pennsylvania Republicans living in the socially conservative T (think vertical running N-S between Philly and Pittsburgh and horizontal running E-W across the top of the state)

Your map and my map do not match. ON EDIT: Never mind. I read that as "a N-S line from Philly to Pittsburgh."

Also, do you think that with PA becoming more and more Democratic, it's possible that more and more primary voters will not be rabid liberals, making Specter's chances of success in spring 2010 far more likely?

[TC]

Counting Al Franken/Norm Coleman as a loss for Michael Steele is cynical beyond anything imaginable - Steele was elected two months ago - that's basically blaming Steele because Republican lawyers can't work the courts to get a 300 vote swing.

[Bando]

Apr 28, 2009 12:55:48 GMT -5 TC said:

Counting Al Franken/Norm Coleman as a loss for Michael Steele is cynical beyond anything imaginable - Steele was elected two months ago - that's basically blaming Steele because Republican lawyers can't work the courts to get a 300 vote swing.

I don't think Boz said it would be fair to blame it on Steele, just that it might be perceived that way since it happened on his watch.

[atlasfrysmith]

It's true that the Dems need 60 votes regardless of what party they come from, so in that sense Specter's move doesn't automatically give them anything. However, when you think you need to run in the Republican primary, you might cast a few votes differently than you might otherwise have done. Remember when Specter got blackmailed into approving the judicial nominees? He had to do that against his better judgment to get the chairmanship he was due and maintain his scant GOP street cred. Now he's free to vote how he really wants to. That may not always be with the Dems, but I can't see how his overall voting pattern would shift anywhere but left now.