(POL) Arlen Specter switching parties

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

From what I can gather from the reports, it seemed that Reid told Specter he would keep his seniority when Specter first talked about switching. Then, after he made the move, Reid reneged on that promise under pressure from other democrats.

I agree with you in principle, but the way Reid handled looks pretty seedy.

It's not seedy, it's just further evidence of Reid's weakness as majority leader.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, I'm going with "amateurish" as opposed to "seedy".

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's not seedy, it's just further evidence of Reid's weakness as majority leader.

This applies specifically to Reid but can be applied to nearly all Democrats...

Is his leadership truly "weak"? Think about what his goals are. Not what the Democratic party platform is, what you think it should be, or heaven forbid what a politician actually said. Why are they in the game? I'd posit that Reid's goal, along with 99% of most pols, is to increase his own power/wealth/influence as effectively as possible. That's a)why most politicians get in the game int he first place and b) what makes most of them stick around.

From Reid's perspective, he's doing a helluva job for himself. His actions have the added benefit of making people think he's trying but just not quite good enough to get everyone else to come around. This has been the Democrats shtick for about as long as I can remember. Sorry we couldn't stop the war or torture, we tried. Sigh.

What's sad is there's so many Dem followers who keep on believing this tripe. Well they tried. They didn't mean it. Please.

At least Republicans tend to have the decency to say how they are going to fuck me over(whether on purpose/directly or not).

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

At least Republicans tend to have the decency to say how they are going to fuck me over(whether on purpose/directly or not).

On August 14th, you will get up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom. I will be hiding in a dark corner and will trip you with a broom handle as you walk by. I will then cackle in the darkness before I am whisked away by Dick Cheney's private gyrocopter.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

On August 14th, you will get up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom. I will be hiding in a dark corner and will trip you with a broom handle as you walk by. I will then cackle in the darkness before I am whisked away by Dick Cheney's private gyrocopter.

PUMPY ALREADY DID THAT

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

PUMPY ALREADY DID THAT

Not exactly. It wasn't a broom handle that he tripped you with......

[ISiddiqui]

Appears Ridge is not running for Senate, according to Jake Trapper's Twitter feed.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

What's sad is there's so many Dem followers who keep on believing this tripe. Well they tried. They didn't mean it. Please.

I'm not sure this is true. It certainly isn't true for me, and I know Reid has gotten a lot of abuse over this from the Democratic activist groups.

Maybe you're saying that he's targeting this image at the electorate in general, but that runs a very thin line between working and just looking ineffective, and I'd argue it has less of a chance of working with a good majority and a Democrat in the Oval Office than it did with a Republican in the White House and a slim majority.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

This applies specifically to Reid but can be applied to nearly all Democrats...

Is his leadership truly "weak"? Think about what his goals are. Not what the Democratic party platform is, what you think it should be, or heaven forbid what a politician actually said. Why are they in the game? I'd posit that Reid's goal, along with 99% of most pols, is to increase his own power/wealth/influence as effectively as possible. That's a)why most politicians get in the game int he first place and b) what makes most of them stick around.

From Reid's perspective, he's doing a helluva job for himself. His actions have the added benefit of making people think he's trying but just not quite good enough to get everyone else to come around. This has been the Democrats shtick for about as long as I can remember. Sorry we couldn't stop the war or torture, we tried. Sigh.

What's sad is there's so many Dem followers who keep on believing this tripe. Well they tried. They didn't mean it. Please.

At least Republicans tend to have the decency to say how they are going to fuck me over(whether on purpose/directly or not).

If your theory is true Reid is doing the opposite. Look at his approval and reelect numbers. He might be the only Dem loser in 2010.

[path12]

I had hopes for Reid when he became Minority Leader. Unfortunately those hopes were misplaced.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm not sure this is true. It certainly isn't true for me, and I know Reid has gotten a lot of abuse over this from the Democratic activist groups.

Maybe you're saying that he's targeting this image at the electorate in general, but that runs a very thin line between working and just looking ineffective, and I'd argue it has less of a chance of working with a good majority and a Democrat in the Oval Office than it did with a Republican in the White House and a slim majority.

Then why do you (Democrat supporters collectively) continue to self-identify with and vote for Democrats?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Appears Ridge is not running for Senate, according to Jake Trapper's Twitter feed.

That means Specter just won re-election.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That means Specter just won re-election.

If he gets through the primary .

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by path12

I had hopes for Reid when he became Minority Leader. Unfortunately those hopes were misplaced.

Being Minority or Majority Leader often requires Dems to toe the party line too mmuch, and Reid was more of his own Democrat years ago. That's why, supposedly, Byrd left the post.

[RainMaker]

New Deal: Specter Gets a Subcommittee Chairmanship | 44 | washingtonpost.com

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If he gets through the primary .

Exactly. Given that Toomey will almost certainly be the Republican nominee, I'd bet a few Democrats get in the race for what will likely be a lifetime Senate seat.

[larrymcg421]

I don't foresee Specter having problems in the primary if Obama campaigns for him.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Appears Ridge is not running for Senate, according to Jake Trapper's Twitter feed.

Yeah, the 200k salary is not nearly enough for Ridge to support his family.


I remember him saying something stupid like that when he left his cabinet post, despite making well over 100k per year for the past 20 odd years. Erie PA is not an amazingly expensive place to live.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Then why do you (Democrat supporters collectively) continue to self-identify with and vote for Democrats?

Harry Reid's not the entire Democratic party.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by stevew

Yeah, the 200k salary is not nearly enough for Ridge to support his family.


I remember him saying something stupid like that when he left his cabinet post, despite making well over 100k per year for the past 20 odd years. Erie PA is not an amazingly expensive place to live.

He was not looking good in polls next to Toomey. He probably didn't want to be the guy who lost a primary to a guy who lost by 30 points in the general election.

[SirFozzie]

I was going to say, encouraging sign from the NRSC, looking like a tack back to the middle, but wondering how badly the right of the right wing would respond to any such attempts to moderate things...

Most Emailed News Stories

....the GOP is quietly pursuing a 2010 strategy that relies heavily on candidates nearly identical to Specter. The party’s road to winning back a Senate majority, it seems, is paved with moderates whose records are sure to make conservatives blanch.

For the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s recruitment list for 2010 reads like a roster of some of the party’s best-known RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and squishes — the derisive terms applied to centrists by movement conservatives.

But, there's already an answer:

Most Emailed News Stories

Social conservatives are blasting the National Council for a New America, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) nascent effort to rebrand the Republican Party, as a misguided and weak-kneed initiative that is out of touch with the GOP rank and file.

The council, unveiled last week by Cantor and Sen. John McCain, is designed to be a “forward-looking, grass-roots caucus” that formulates policy prescriptions and communicates with voters in a way that could expand the Republican ranks. In announcing the formation of the group, McCain said he hoped the group would attract moderates and “like-minded Democrats” to a series of public forums around the country.

But social conservatives couldn’t help but notice that the policy areas the group will focus on included no mention of same-sex marriage, immigration or abortion. And the roster of GOP luminaries who signed on to the effort was missing a few of the pols who are most popular with values voters.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by stevew

Yeah, the 200k salary is not nearly enough for Ridge to support his family.


I remember him saying something stupid like that when he left his cabinet post, despite making well over 100k per year for the past 20 odd years. Erie PA is not an amazingly expensive place to live.

If you had the choice between 200k and 1mil+ which would you choose?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Harry Reid's not the entire Democratic party.

And the rest of them are different how exactly? We'll have to agree to disagree.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

And the rest of them are different how exactly? We'll have to agree to disagree.

Ah, OK, I finally see what you were driving at. Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Like I said, a weak ass candidate like McCain did nothing for the GOP except ensure a defeat.

My Way News - Voting rate dips in 2008 as older whites stay home

WASHINGTON (AP) - For all the attention generated by Barack Obama's candidacy, the share of eligible voters who actually cast ballots in November declined for the first time in a dozen years. The reason: Older whites with little interest in backing either Barack Obama or John McCain stayed home.

Census figures released Monday show about 63.6 percent of all U.S. citizens ages 18 and older, or 131.1 million people, voted last November.

Although that represented an increase of 5 million voters - virtually all of them minorities - the turnout relative to the population of eligible voters was a decrease from 63.8 percent in 2004.

Ohio and Pennsylvania were among those showing declines in white voters, helping Obama carry those battleground states.

"While the significance of minority votes for Obama is clearly key, it cannot be overlooked that reduced white support for a Republican candidate allowed minorities to tip the balance in many slow-growing 'purple' states," said William H. Frey, a demographer for the Brookings Institution, referring to key battleground states that don't notably tilt Democrat or Republican.

"The question I would ask is if a continuing stagnating economy could change that," he said.

According to census data, 66 percent of whites voted last November, down 1 percentage point from 2004. Blacks increased their turnout by 5 percentage points to 65 percent, nearly matching whites. Hispanics improved turnout by 3 percentage points, and Asians by 3.5 percentage points, each reaching a turnout of nearly 50 percent. In all, minorities made up nearly 1 in 4 voters in 2008, the most diverse electorate ever.

By age, voters 18-to-24 were the only group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout, with 49 percent casting ballots, compared with 47 percent in 2004.

Blacks had the highest turnout rate among this age group - 55 percent, or an 8 percentage point jump from 2004. In contrast, turnout for whites 18-24 was basically flat at 49 percent. Asians and Hispanics in that age group increased to 41 percent and 39 percent, respectively.

Among whites 45 and older, turnout fell 1.5 percentage point to just under 72 percent.

Asked to identify their reasons for not voting, 46 percent of all whites said they didn't like the candidates, weren't interested or had better things to do, up from 41 percent in 2004. Hispanics had similar numbers for both years.

Not surprisingly, blacks showed a sharp increase in interest.

Among the blacks who failed to vote last fall most cited problems such as illness, being out of town or transportation issues. Just 16 percent of nonvoting blacks cited disinterest, down from 37 percent in 2004.

Among other findings:

_The decline in percentage turnout was the first in a presidential election since 1996. At that time, voter participation fell to 58.4 percent - the lowest in decades - as Democrat Bill Clinton won an easy re-election over Republican Bob Dole amid a strong economy.

_The voting rate in 2008 was highest in the Midwest (66 percent). The other regions were about 63 percent each.

_Minnesota and the District of Columbia had the highest turnout, each with 75 percent. Utah and Hawaii - Obama's birth state - were among the lowest, each with 52 percent.

The figures are the latest to highlight a generational rift between younger, increasingly minority voters and an older white population.

A recent Pew Research Center poll found almost 8 in 10 people believe there is a major difference in the point of view of younger and older people today, mostly over social values. It was the largest generation gap since divisions 40 years ago over Vietnam, civil rights and women's liberation.

Last November, voters under 30 cast ballots for Obama by a 2-to-1 ratio. Still, because of their smaller numbers - in population and turnout - young voters weren't critical to the overall outcome and only made a difference in North Carolina and Indiana, according to Scott Keeter, Pew's director of survey research.

The census figures are based on the Current Population Survey, which asked respondents after Election Day about their turnout. The figures for "white" refer to the whites who are not of Hispanic ethnicity.

[Dutch]

According to census data, 66 percent of whites voted last November, down 1 percentage point from 2004. Blacks increased their turnout by 5 percentage points to 65 percent, nearly matching whites. Hispanics improved turnout by 3 percentage points, and Asians by 3.5 percentage points, each reaching a turnout of nearly 50 percent. In all, minorities made up nearly 1 in 4 voters in 2008, the most diverse electorate ever.

This is one of the paragraphs of data that always make me cringe. Can you please just give us a stat table and then explain what you want to explain? This is 2009, can't journalist figure out how to add statistical tables into their news pieces? Grrr...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This is one of the paragraphs of data that always make me cringe. Can you please just give us a stat table and then explain what you want to explain? This is 2009, can't journalist figure out how to add statistical tables into their news pieces? Grrr...

Actually they probably could, but it's a risky proposition for wire services since those tables are often dropped for layout reasons (as are companion photos) and you end up with less information than you intended.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Like I said, a weak ass candidate like McCain did nothing for the GOP except ensure a defeat.

I don't know about that. If you have a more conservative candidate, those staying home may come out to vote. But he also loses a ton of support from moderates and independents.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know about that. If you have a more conservative candidate, those staying home may come out to vote. But he also loses a ton of support from moderates and independents.

Not if they're smart

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not if they're smart

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

[sterlingice]

Oh, what a difference a few months makes *long, sad sigh*

SI