Master Index of Archived Threads


Specter flips!

Benjamin Grimm Apr 28 2009 11:55 AM

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter is switching parties. He'll become the 59th Democrat in the Senate. And eventually, I suppose, Al Franken will be the 60th.

metsguyinmichigan Apr 28 2009 12:07 PM

My problem with guys doing this mid-term is that they accepted money from the party when they sought re-election. If there were people who donated to him because they thought they were keeping a Republican in the Sentate, they have a right to feel betrayed. I also heard he was getting hammered in the polls against a primary challenger, so this might have been his only chance to stay on a November ballot.

sharpie Apr 28 2009 12:17 PM

Still don't think he'll be on the November ballot. I would guess that PA Democrats will end up nominating a regular Democrat rather than Specter. I think it's sad that he got hammered so hard for his vote on the stimulus package and that the GOP is being so doctrinaire. In a two-party system parties are only healthy if they have a reasonable spectrum and don't insist on ideological litmus tests. Specter is from a blue state and it's tough for a Republican to win (Pat Toomey will be crushed). Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln often don't vote with the Democrats but the party isn't funding opponents to unseat them with a more "pure" candidate.

Nymr83 Apr 28 2009 12:20 PM

]Still don't think he'll be on the November ballot. I would guess that PA Democrats will end up nominating a regular Democrat rather than Specter. I think it's sad that he got hammered so hard for his vote on the stimulus package and that the GOP is being so doctrinaire. In a two-party system parties are only healthy if they have a reasonable spectrum and don't insist on ideological litmus tests. Specter is from a blue state and it's tough for a Republican to win (Pat Toomey will be crushed). Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln often don't vote with the Democrats but the party isn't funding opponents to unseat them with a more "pure" candidate. The Democrats did the same thing to Leiberman, only he had the conviction not to switch parties (which would have made Cheney the tie-breaker in the Senate at the time) ]My problem with guys doing this mid-term is that they accepted money from the party when they sought re-election. If there were people who donated to him because they thought they were keeping a Republican in the Sentate, they have a right to feel betrayed I don't care about the money, I care about the people who cast a vote for him expecting him, if nothing else, to caucus with the Republicans.

sharpie Apr 28 2009 12:29 PM

Difference with Lieberman is that he was a Democratic Senator in a blue state. Plus the party establishment lined up behind him until he lost the primary and then welcomed him back after he worked hard for the opposition.

RealityChuck Apr 28 2009 01:28 PM

="Nymr83"]I don't care about the money, I care about the people who cast a vote for him expecting him, if nothing else, to caucus with the Republicans. You're confused. People cast a vote for Spector expecting him to represent their interests (and those of the state) in the Senate. Who he caucuses with is only important as a way to represent those interests, and if he would do better to represent the people who voted for him by changing parties, then he'd be doing his supporters a disservice not to do so.

sharpie Apr 28 2009 01:34 PM

The caucusing part isn't that important anyway unless, in the case of Jeffords a few years ago, it flips control of the Senate.

Vic Sage Apr 28 2009 01:56 PM

Specter was more liberal than most of his party, and had originally been a Democrat when he started in politics. Changing party affiliation is not a "betrayal" of anything, except of the misguided notion that some voters might have that party affiliation is an accurate shorthand for how their representative might vote on a particular issue or group of issues. He was pro-choice, fought the Bork nomination, was critical of Bush wiretapping, fought Republican efforts to empeach Clinton. Now, he views the Obama policies as important to his constituency, hit hard by the recession, and is taking the obvious step of supporting it against his party's reactionary stance. Since he was going to vote as a "60th democrat" anyway, the fact that he's changing party affiliation is more symbolic than anything.

Farmer Ted Apr 28 2009 02:37 PM

There are two potential contenders in the GOP in PA vying for Specter's spot. Specter would have come in third in the primaries. This was his only hope for survival.

Frayed Knot Apr 28 2009 05:01 PM

]... This was his only hope for survival. Which is what party flipping is usually about.

RealityChuck Apr 29 2009 07:27 AM

="Farmer Ted":zs4cp2d5]There are two potential contenders in the GOP in PA vying for Specter's spot. Specter would have come in third in the primaries. This was his only hope for survival.[/quote:zs4cp2d5] This is true, but it also indicates the flaws in the primary system. If there had been no primary, then Spector probably would have won the election as a Republican. Primaries are flawed because they don't take independent voters into account and they tend to attract the more radical of voters within a party. There were also flaws before primaries, of course, but the people choosing candidates had an incentive to choose someone who had the widest appeal. Primaries favor candidates who can appeal to the base, even if the base is not representative of the voters in the district. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 07:30 AM I'm fine with primaries. I'm not fine with us consenting to a two-party system. I keep wanting this thread to be about Phil Spector fessing up. RealityChuck Apr 29 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":2nn6znzo]I'm fine with primaries. I'm not fine with us consenting to a two-party system.[/quote:2nn6znzo] It's an inevitable result of our election system. Countries (like ours) where the winner is chosen by simple plurality from defined election districts always have two-party systems. Countries where there are other arrangements -- requiring a majority, assigning seats to a party in a legislature as a proportion of their votes -- have multiple parties. This is due to the nature of the election arrangements. If, for instance, you assign legislative seats based on what percent the party gets in elections, a party can win 20% of the vote and be a force in Parliament. If there's a district and a majority is required, the "third" party can finish second and win the runoff on specific issues. But in our system, if you finish second, you're done. Unless there's a massive change in demographics (like in the UK when Labour replaced the Liberal Party -- and that was due to the fact that Labour's power base had not been able to vote), a third party doesn't stand a chance in the US. The Republicans managed to do it because of the slavery issue and the fact that they were acceptable to the remnants of the Whigs. With all the problems the Republicans have now, they are not going to be supplanted because you'd need to convince their base that your new party is better. But since the Republican base these days is happy with the direction the party is going, they aren't going to vote for a new party. Eventually, people will tire of the Democrats and the Republicans will realize what every US party realizes: you win elections by appealing to the middle. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:54 AM I know about proportional representation. Nymr83 Apr 29 2009 09:19 AM ] Primaries are flawed because they don't take independent voters into account that depends on your state, in some states anyone can vote in a party primary. RC- in our system parties evolve rather than get supplanted, and i prefer our system to a multi-party one like Italy where they have a new unstable government every year or two. RealityChuck Apr 29 2009 10:00 AM ="Nymr83"] ] Primaries are flawed because they don't take independent voters into account that depends on your state, in some states anyone can vote in a party primary.. Are you sure? I've seen that in presidential primaries, but not in others. Which states? I'd be surprised if there were many, since, after all, a party primary is to determine the party's candidate. Why would you let outsiders do that? Willets Point Apr 29 2009 11:19 AM Any word on the politician to be named later that the Republicans will be getting in the trade?