Yeaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh Chris!!! This is great! Chris is one of the most influential political bloggers.

A sign for sure that other influential Netroots bloggers/activists will be supporting Sestak, making this race bigger than Lamont-Liberman was in 2006.

Um, Net RN, you do remember how the Lamont-Lieberman race turned out in the general election? Despite the support of the Democratic establishment for Lamont (after supporting Lieberman in the primary), Lieberman triumphed in the general. Unlike CN, Specter can’t run as an independent if he runs in a primary, but the battle between Sestak and Specter may damage the surviving candidate so badly, the Republicans may win in the general.

And unlike CT, Specter can’t run in the general as an Independent………….Duh.

There’s absolutely no way Pat Toomey will win the PA Senate race. PA voters learned their wingnut lesson the hard way with the ever-embarassing Rick Santorum. As far as I’m concerned, the Dem primary IS the general election. Furthermore, Sestak is no lefty – just a moderate Democrat in the Bob Casey mold who will be a more reliable vote on progressive issues than Specter. Nobody in their right mind who votes in the Dem primary is going to defect to a hard-right nutjob like Toomey.

Can you guys define hard right?

Jon-
I was talking to a friend of mine who is sort of a “recovering Republican”: She went from hating Hillary to voting for Obama and is on the fence about changing her registration. Her republican “friends” told her that Toomey was a moderate republican, despite his ultra conservative voting record. The problem is not that Toomey is a right-wing-nut, but that it’s not well known.

Sestak and Specter are going to bash each other so hard and drain their primary funds so badly, that the winner will be unnecessarily weaker against Toomey (or a more moderate GOP).

A bloody PA primary is a foolish waste of money and Dem resources that could be used to win the half dozen other Senate GOP races in other states where we can pick up some seats.

THINK ABOUT IT: how much will $10 million buy the Dems if it isn’t wasted in a useless PA primary?

definition of hard right = President of the Club for Growth, Pat Toomey

David, I hear you, but I simply don’t agree. On the point of Toomey’s name recognition, there’s still a year and a half to go. That’s plenty of time to air his whole voting record in the press, and as I’m sure you know, there’s some really extreme, even scary positions there. Pennsylvania has been trending Democratic for a while now, and I would argue that voters are more inclined at this point to elect a generic Democrat than a generic Republican even without knowing anything about the candidates. In fact a Gallup poll released earlier this year showed Toomey losing by 10 points or more in potential matchups with Democrats I’ve never even heard of. On the point that primaries somehow weaken candidates, I think the verdict is still out on that and really depends on the candidates running. Sestak, for instance, doesn’t have a long career in politics. His career has been in the Navy, and his voting record in the House has been decidedly moderate. As a progressive, I’m actually a little disappointed that the most likely Specter challenger isn’t someone even a little more progressive than Sestak. But I wouldn’t expect this primary to damage Sestak significantly. The point about money is moot – this is looking like one of the easiest lifts of the 2010 cycle for Democrats from everything I’ve read, and I’ve been following it very closely. The DNC and the DSCC and the netroots are going to raise as much money as they need to to win this. I don’t agree that there’s somehow a limited pool of funds. And finally, I don’t agree that this primary is “useless.” Everything about Specter’s record shows that he starts to vote a little closer to where the primary electorate is right up to the primary, and then does whatever he wants for 5 years. He’s unaccountable. He did it to the Republicans, he’ll do it to Democrats, and I frankly don’t see any reason that PA Democrats should be asked to accept a nominee who can’t be trusted to vote with the Democrats at least as often as Bob Casey does. And Bob Casey is not some wild-eyed liberal. Another important angle to the primary is how confident you feel that Democrats will retain the Governor seat. Because in case you hadn’t noticed, Specter (a 4-time cancer survivor) will be 80 years old in 2010. How confident are you that the person tasked with naming his replacement will be a Democrat? Near as I can tell, the Dem bench for the gubernatorial race looks pretty second tier. Anyway, sorry to write a book in response, but I think there are some good reasons to want this primary campaign which, for me at least, significantly outweigh having to hold my nose and vote for Specter.

Jon-
All excellent points, but you seem to make the point that Specter is mostly an independent with a moderate voice:
“Everything about Specter’s record shows that he starts to vote a little closer to where the primary electorate is right up to the primary, and then does whatever he wants for 5 years. He’s unaccountable. He did it to the Republicans, he’ll do it to Democrats, and I frankly don’t see any reason that PA Democrats should be asked to accept a nominee who can’t be trusted to vote with the Democrats at least as often as Bob Casey does.”

After Sestak campaigned and won on the promise he would fight for timetables and accountability, and then voted to give Bush a blank check (twice), I lost ALL faith in Sestak and his promises. He’s ranked 200/255 by progressive punch. I have grave fears that he will move even further to the Right in a more conservative body like the Senate and if he has to appeal to conservative elements statewide. I personally think that Sestak is far more of a conservative at his core and he can’t be trusted with a 6-year term after he betrayed his most basic campaign promises on Iraq.
He’s “pro-military” in the sense that he’s pro-defense-contractors and big military budgets without civilian control/criticism/accountability. When you consider the WELL-DOCUMENTED manner in which Sestak treats his own workers (14 hour days, 7-days a week for months on end without vacations or holidays as well as being abusive to them), I don’t think that Sestak will a good advocate for worker rights. In the business world we live in, a boss like that would be violating tons of HR department rules.

I think you are dead-wrong on the overall money issue for Dems. Around the country, Dems are getting complacent because we control the white house and have Dem majorities in both houses of Congress. Times are tough and fundraising will be more difficult. The DNC and Dem Senate committee DO have limited resources. They are going to waste a lot of money defending Specter against Sestak’s challenge. There are a lot of states were the GOP incumbent is not running or weakened and the Dems have a change to take the seat. According to fivethirtyeight.com the most vulnerable GOP seats to a switch over are:
Missouri, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, Louisiana, Florida
Also, at risk to use LOSING Dem seats we have: Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois

Imagine an extra one million dollars pumped into each of those races instead of a PA Primary.

Jon, if we lose focus and worry about whether
Specter or Sestak will be the 60th vote, we lose sight of the opportunity to have a 63 Dem majority.

Also, if you are so concerned about not having a Dem governor, then why waste over $10 million in a Specter/Sestak primary when we’ll need it for Governor?
Sestak collected over $3 million he didn’t need under the guise of his congressional reelection. This money will now be unavailable for that seat and Lentz will have to start from scratch and be competing with Sestak for $$$ in the district. We spent over $4 million putting Sestak in place and he hasn’t made one single vote that I’m aware of that changed an outcome, though he has given political cover to some Blue Dog votes on some close votes where he voted WITH THE GOP.
Sestak has wasted enough Dem money, time and resources and probably has the least bang-for-the-buck.
BTW, he likes to tout his record on constituent service requests handled. Try dividing that by the number of staffers and hours worked and I doubt it’s much of a record.

To sum up:
1) Waste of Dem resources already spend to get seat in PA-7
2) Risk of losing losing PA-7 starting with ZERO funds and an energized GOP hungry to retake the seat.
3) Drain on DNC/Senate Committee resources that could be spent elsewhere on critical races.
4) Dubious “liberal/progressive” credentials for Sestak, limited track record and lots of red flags.

There is no guarantee Toomey will be GOP nominee, so we can’t risk winner of Dem our primary bruised, battered and drained of funds.

BTW, if (when) Specter votes for EFCA, Sestak will NOT have the backing of the Unions (which is the ONLY long shot he has).

We should be working on the BIG picture: Dem Governor, other Senate races. PA-7 is going to turn into a black-hole sucking up even more money.

What policies at the Club for Growth do you guys specifically define as hard right?

Also, how is Sestak a moderate? Which issues, positions get him that label.

He votes w/ Pelosi 97% of the time per Wash Post.

Highlights of Toomey’s voting record
http://www.ontheissues.org/PA/Pat_Toomey.htm

The “Club for Growth” is all about the rich and big businesses avoiding paying their fair share of taxes. Sample Toomey votes:
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax.
Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

As for Sestak’s rating, check out Progressive Punch.org
http://progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?chamber=House&sort=overall-current&order=down&party=All&x=19&y=12

Sestak gets 1 star out of 5 for being progressive.

His score for the current session is slightly less progressive than his “lifetime” score (which means that Sestak is moving further to the Right to have some votes to appeal to conservative Dems statewide).
On the CRUCIAL votes, Sestak’s score is only 72% of the time. That means that 28% of the time, on crucial votes, Sestak does not vote progressively. (Blank check for Bush in Iraq, twice)

Sestak also votes LESS progressively than the tilt of his district.

Sestak’s the real “flight risk” here.