Reality Check on Specter and PA Voters

Just a quick word on Specter's dropping out of the Republican party to avoid a primary challenge that he might well lose. The Republicans have been playing up this angle of the story, not only to emphasize Specter's narrow political motives for the switch as opposed to broad disagreement with what the Republican party has come to stand for, but also to imply that Spector's move proves he's afraid of rejection by Pennsylvania voters.

That's fine, except that the last sentence should read "he's afraid of rejection by Pennsylvania *Republican* voters" -- i.e., those who would vote in the Republican primary. In fact, given that his erstwhile opponent Pat Toomey (whom Specter beat 51-49 in the 2004 primary) is now running unopposed and will probably get the nomination, Specter will indeed face off against Toomey again, but in the general election rather than the primary. And here, Spector seems right now to be odds-on favorite to retain his seat.

The logic is clear in this new poll of party ID, showing that Republican registration has dropped 7% in the past five years in PA, while Democratic registration has held steady. Thus the Republican primary electorate has gotten smaller and, since most party switchers are moderates rather than extremists, more conservative. So sure, Specter might have lost the primary, but whoever comes out the winner in such a primary is more than likely to lose in Pennsylvania, a moderate state overall if there ever was one.

So the switch, once again, says more about the weakness and extremism -- or the weakness due to extremism, if you will -- of the Republican party than its leaders care to admit. Make no mistake about it; the Republican party will bounce back eventually. We live in a competitive two-party system that over time is balanced between the parties. But it's going to take a while for the GOP to recover from their present sorry state, and when it does, it will be with a new set of leaders, different in tone, experience, and values from those that sit atop the party now.

Comments

[flea1989]

A brief history of the financial crisis, part 2
2005: Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-NY) says “…I think Fannie and Freddie over the years have done an incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world …if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they’ve done a very, very good job.”
2006: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) again calls for reform. “For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac … and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the marketplace … the GSE’s (government sponsored enterprises) need to be reformed without delay.”
2006: Democrats again block reform legislation.
2008: housing market collapses; Democrats blame the Republicans!

[johnwinner]

Pennsylvanians on the whole define "conservative Democrat" which was once amost interchangeable with "moderate Republican" when such was possible. My guess is they'll stick with Scter because they know him. And the Republican Party has become so savagely and incoherently far-right that no one knows it anymore but the wing-nuts who think they can bully America into submission.
And Specter's claim that he hasn't changed he basic positions does not indicate mere political expediency, but an admisssion that the GOP just doesn't have a place for "moderates" anymore.

[andygaus]

I believe the gentleman's name is Specter, with an E.

[Spud777]

I find it interesting what extremes politicians go through so they can keep their cushy jobs in government (on the republican side a government they claim is the problem), while many of their policies have caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes and health insurance. These people are not "public servants" anymore, they are self-serving people that only care about themselves and money.

[flea1989]

Don't say it was the Republicans that caused this financial mess!
A brief history of the financial crisis, part 1
1977: Jimmy Carter (D) signs the Community Reinvestment Act, guaranteeing home loans to low-income families
1999: Bill Clinton (D) puts the CRA on steroids, pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the number of sub-prime loans.
2003: The White House calls Fannie and Freddie “a systemic risk.” The Bush administration pushes Congress to enact new regulations.
2003: Barney Frank (D-CN) says F&F are “not in a crisis.” He bashes Republicans for crying wolf and calls F&F “financially sound.” Democrats block the Republican­-sponsored regulation legislation.
2005: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan voices a warning over F&F accounting. “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.

[flea1989]

A brief history of the financial crisis, part 2
2005: Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-NY) says “…I think Fannie and Freddie over the years have done an incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world …if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they’ve done a very, very good job.”
2006: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) again calls for reform. “For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac … and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the marketplace … the GSE’s (government sponsored enterprises) need to be reformed without delay.”
2006: Democrats again block reform legislation.
2008: housing market collapses; Democrats blame the Republicans!