BREAKING NEWS: Arlen Specter switching parties to give Democrats 60 votes in Senate

[Meister]

Specter wasn't a moderate republican, he was a liberal republican. He always said he didn't vote for his party, but voted for the people of his state. If this is so, he will continue to vote that way, which will also go against the democrat party line, as he did with the republican party line. Just sayin...

 

[midcan5]

I've always voted for the man, this will make it easier now that he's come over from the dark side party. I heard only 21% claim to be republicans today, amazing how a party that had so much power sank so fast. Best thing republicans can do is stay on the fringes and pretend they know a bit about governance, just don't let them govern.

 

[editec]

Wow, that is big news.

Now all the Republicans have to do is persuade the Senators from Maine and the other state they excortiated for voting in favor of the stimulus bill, and the Republicans will make themselves trully impotent to do anything more that whine and criticize Obama's every breath.

Not gonna happen I think.

Not unless soemthing is happening behind the scenes that we are not aware of.

These gals seem to me to be those 1950s Republican types that I get nostalgic about to be honest.

Hell, I vote for O and you know what a kneejerking lefty I am compared to most of you.

 

[Newby]

why shouldn't he keep his seat?

the repub party wants everyone to be a radical right winger.... and they were going to stick it to him by giving him a primary.

Quite the false assumption there, jill

you presume both that it's false and that i'm making an assumption.

2. Pennsylvania (R-Specter)
There's been some contradictory polling in Pennsylvania, with Quinnipiac placing conservative challenger Pat Toomey, who would be a heavy underdog in the general election, 14 points ahead of Arlen Specter. Franklin and Marshall, meanwhile, gives Specter a 15-point lead. I don't know that there's any a priori way to say which poll is correct. Polling primaries is intrinsically pretty difficult, and polling races more than a year in advance is intrinsically pretty difficult, which means that polling primaries a year in advance is really difficult. If you simply average the two numbers, you get the Republican primary being a toss-up. Each of these polls, it should be noted, were taken before Specter's intention to vote against the Employee Free Choice Act became known to voters, a position which will presumably help him the primaries while probably harming him with Pennsylvania's fairly union-friendly general electorate.

Let's do some fuzzy math here. Assume that there is a 80 percent chance that Specter's health is such that he chooses to run for re-election. If Specter runs for re-election, there is a50 percent chance that he survives the primary. If he survives the primary, there is a 80 percent chance that he wins the general election, where the Democratic opposition has been a bit disorganized. If he loses the primary, however, or chooses not to run, the Republican nominee (presumably Toomey) will probably only have about a 10 percent chance of retaining the seat for the Republicans. Run all the numbers, and that yields a 62 percent chance that the Democrats pick up the seat. Granted, it's fairly dubious to imply any sort of precision when we're dealing with guesstimates like these. But my impression is that the Democrats' odds in New Hampshire, with Hodes now having the primary field to himself, are a just a touch better than that. Also, Specter's nay vote on EFCA probably eliminates the chances of the Democrats picking this seat up through a party switch.

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Senate Rankings, April 2009 Edition

plus, the dems will then owe him H-U-G-E... because it gets rid of the filibuster.

and he won't have to vote against the Employee Free Choice Act just to win a primary.

brilliant political strategy.

It's called saving your ass. If he had been beat in the primaries, he would have had to run as an Independent which would have placed his precious political career in jeapordy. He should have never been in the Republican part to begin with anyway. What's funny is the reaction to it by the left wingnuts, as if it means anything. He's voted with the Dems for years, but yet this is some kind of a radical message. He's been my senator my entire life, and I've never voted for him once, despite the letter after his name. Whatever makes you people happy I suppose.

 

[DavidS]

The bigger concern is how long will we continue to have a Republic with one party in control and no one to stop them.

The Republican Party is dying, thankfully, so until the conservatives get a 3rd party for themselves and/or until the Democratic Party becomes too centrist and the Liberals create a 3rd party for themselves.

The war is over. Coke won. Ford won. And now the Democrats have won.

congratulations to the American hating party.. you won you indeed have won.. and America died. obamal lied America died.

Sore loser. Why can't you have class and say "You guys won - but we still have valid ideas and I think it's time the Republicans stopped being the party of NO and the party of working together."

Of course, because you have no class.

The party that once claimed to be the "moral majority" has no morals.

 

[Newby]

Quite the false assumption there, jill

Ah, leave them be. It's quite amusing reading the assumptions made by the left wing loonies on this board.

moron, i'm not a left wing loony... you should really pull your head out of your butt... now be a good boy and go read my last post...

you might actually learn something.

or not.

either way... it makes me no nevermind.

What an arrogant ass you are. And you are most definitely a left wing loonie, unfortunately not a very bright one either.

 

[editec]

And you think one party having a strangle hold on the power in this country is a good thing for its people?

Perhaps they should ask how well that went for Germany in the 1930s

Or we could just ask ourselves how well it went fro America in the early aughts of the 21st century, too.

 

[jillian]

Jill... and you ignore your ASSumption that the party wants everyone to be a "radical right winger"

but nice try

i was right on the last one, so that's what your left with, DD?

lol...

I can only go by the radical right wing positions taken by your party over the last eight years.

 

[jillian]

Ah, leave them be. It's quite amusing reading the assumptions made by the left wing loonies on this board.

moron, i'm not a left wing loony... you should really pull your head out of your butt... now be a good boy and go read my last post...

you might actually learn something.

or not.

either way... it makes me no nevermind.

What an arrogant ass you are. And you are most definitely a left wing loonie, unfortunately not a very bright one either.

okie dokie, ignoramous.

or maybe i know enough to actually get what's going on.

try it sometime... you might like it, wingnut.

 

[Newby]

moron, i'm not a left wing loony... you should really pull your head out of your butt... now be a good boy and go read my last post...

you might actually learn something.

or not.

either way... it makes me no nevermind.

What an arrogant ass you are. And you are most definitely a left wing loonie, unfortunately not a very bright one either.

okie dokie, ignoramous.

or maybe i know enough to actually get what's going on.

try it sometime... you might like it, wingnut.

What ever you say, dearie.

 

[Meister]

I've always voted for the man, this will make it easier now that he's come over from the dark side party. I heard only 21% claim to be republicans today, amazing how a party that had so much power sank so fast. Best thing republicans can do is stay on the fringes and pretend they know a bit about governance, just don't let them govern.

One party? That's what you want? That is a dangerous scenario. Throw check and balance out the window, and you have a disaster in the making of this nation. I do hope you reconsider.

 

[DiamondDave]

Jill... and you ignore your ASSumption that the party wants everyone to be a "radical right winger"

but nice try

i was right on the last one, so that's what your left with, DD?

lol...

I can only go by the radical right wing positions taken by your party over the last eight years.

1) Spector is doing this, not for the people of his state, but for his own chances... Good political move? Possibly...
2) Your statement of "radical right winger" was indeed the assumption I referred to
3) Over the past 8 years, it has hardly been a radical RW agenda... I would not argue if you said it was grabs for power, or even if you stated that they went against what they supposedly stood for... but to say the past 8 years have been RW rule, is absolutely freaking absurd

 

[Newby]

I've always voted for the man, this will make it easier now that he's come over from the dark side party. I heard only 21% claim to be republicans today, amazing how a party that had so much power sank so fast. Best thing republicans can do is stay on the fringes and pretend they know a bit about governance, just don't let them govern.

One party? That's what you want? That is a dangerous scenario. Throw check and balance out the window, and you have a disaster in the making of this nation. I do hope you reconsider.

They don't want 'check and balance', they want everything done their way, period. The Constitution isn't going to stop them either. If it weren't for the fact that I have children that will have to finish growing up here, I'd watch them tear this country apart and laugh at what they are doing to themselves and their future generations. Most of them are too damn stupid to realize what they're doing, but someday they're going to figure it out the hard way, unfortunately.

 

[jillian]

1) Spector is doing this, not for the people of his state, but for his own chances... Good political move? Possibly...
2) Your statement of "radical right winger" was indeed the assumption I referred to
3) Over the past 8 years, it has hardly been a radical RW agenda... I would not argue if you said it was grabs for power, or even if you stated that they went against what they supposedly stood for... but to say the past 8 years have been RW rule, is absolutely freaking absurd

1. I agree that spector is doing it for political advantage. but now the "people" of his state will get to vote for him... not just repubs.

2. I know.

3. Of course it was a radical right wing agenda... well, to be fair, it was actually a reactionary agenda.

what it WASN'T was a republican agenda as it was historically represented or a conservative agenda.

if you think they were "liberal" you might want to ask someone who believes in reproductive choice or separation of church and state what THEY think.

 

[Newby]

3) Over the past 8 years, it has hardly been a radical RW agenda... I would not argue if you said it was grabs for power, or even if you stated that they went against what they supposedly stood for... but to say the past 8 years have been RW rule, is absolutely freaking absurd

It is if you're a left wing loonie that apparently falls for every piece of propaganda put out on every left wing media outlet. Therein lies your problem with understanding her comments. She doesn't know what the hell she's talking about b/c she doesn't educate herself based on reality, only what she reads at the Huffington Post, etc..

 

[oreo]

YES----Who cares? Why would we worry about a "filibuster" proof senate when Arlan Spector would have voted with Democrats anyway. Now--if we could get 3 others who have an R behind their names--declare their citizenship to the D party--IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL!
Then him actually declaring that Republicans have moved too far to the right, ha.ha. It is because Republicans moved to far to the left--that they have been loosing elections--DUH!

BTW--Arlan Spector is on record just three weeks ago, declaring he had no intention of removing the R from his name to a D--stating "we cannot have a one party system." Spector did it TODAY--because he is getting his arss.... kicked by his Republican opponent in his own state.

ANYTHING to keep that life-long seat in the Senate--but sorry Arlan--you're chances of staying in the senate are fairly REMOTE.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY WE NEED TERM LIMITS!

 

[Newby]

YES----Who cares? Why would we worry about a "filibuster" proof senate when Arlan Spector would have voted with Democrats anyway. Now--if we could get 3 others who have an R behind their names--declare their citizenship to the D party--IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL!

BTW--Arlan Spector is on record just three weeks ago, declaring he had no intention of removing the R from his name to a D--stating "we cannot have a one party system." Spector did it TODAY--because he is getting his arss.... kicked by his Republican opponent in his own state.

ANYTHING to keep that life-long seat in the Senate--but sorry Arlan--you're chances of staying in the senate are fairly REMOTE.

ANOTHER REASON WHY WE NEED TERM LIMITS!

Absolutely.

 

[Sarah G]

Specter was ok with being a Republican, he said it in his statement. I'm sure he was getting a lot of pressure from his fellow Rs to toe the line. He's been there a long time, why get his marching orders from them?

I've always thought that Joe Lieberman would jump to the Republican side sooner or later.

The Republicans might lose the other moderates if they aren't careful.

 

[DiamondDave]

1) Spector is doing this, not for the people of his state, but for his own chances... Good political move? Possibly...
2) Your statement of "radical right winger" was indeed the assumption I referred to
3) Over the past 8 years, it has hardly been a radical RW agenda... I would not argue if you said it was grabs for power, or even if you stated that they went against what they supposedly stood for... but to say the past 8 years have been RW rule, is absolutely freaking absurd

1. I agree that spector is doing it for political advantage. but now the "people" of his state will get to vote for him... not just repubs.

2. I know.

3. Of course it was a radical right wing agenda... well, to be fair, it was actually a reactionary agenda.

what it WASN'T was a republican agenda as it was historically represented or a conservative agenda.

if you think they were "liberal" you might want to ask someone who believes in reproductive choice or separation of church and state what THEY think.

I don't think they were "liberal" either.... and I agree that there was a lot of reactionary things done.. but to be fair.. we had a lot to react to.. .did I agree with it ALL? No.... there were lots of reactionary things I did not agree with, just as a lot of their spending and other policies were not things I agreed with

I think, just as we have seen many times before with both parties here and throughout the history of governance in this world, they did become infatuated with their power and what they could get... and it came back to bite them in the past 2 elections... but I don't necessarily think it is/was a bad thing for the REP party... it very well could be the shock to the system that brings it back stronger and on the right track

 

[jillian]

ANOTHER REASON WHY WE NEED TERM LIMITS!

spoken like a true sore loser is afraid people actually get to vote for whom they want to.

i sure as heck don't want anyone telling ME I can't vote for someone who represents my interests as i see them.