I’m very happy with Arlen Specter and I think he has the best chance in the general election. Congressman Sestak is an American hero and I absolutely appreciate his service in the House, but I think he can do the most good staying there – at least for right now.

I think the charge is pretty pathetic actually. Sestak has been a Democrat all along, voting for Democratic Presidential candidates. Mere months ago, Specter was campaigning to put Sarah Palin a 70-year-old heartbeat away from the Presidency. Would Specter take back his vote for the Patriot Act? The odious Military Commissions Act that whitewashed over Cheney’s omnipotent executive gulag? Specter may not have been there for Bush on every vote, but he certainly was there for the worst of the worst when it mattered. And his record is still more conservative than every other Senate Democrat. Bottom line – I think PA Dems are better off with a nominee who actually has a future in the Senate – not an 80 year old with known health problems who could die at any minute.

I’m an undecided Democrat, and although I’m leaning towards supporting Arlen Specter, I think this game-changing argument gives Joe Sestak an important opportunity – the opportunity to make his campaign about Joe Sestak and not Arlen Specter. Joe doesn’t stand a chance unless he presents actual ideas, not just contrasts.

Adam-
I agree that it was time for Specter to stop taking in on the chin, and take a shot in Sestak’s direction.

At this point, Specter already knows how much money he raised. I’m wondering how much of this attack strategy is based on confidence/insecurity about the warchests.

Specter made himself look quite foolish by criticizing Sestak for something he did while and because he was an Officer. Sestack should be smart enough to take it to Specter.

Julia

I agree that Sestak has to make the campaign about what he will do and not simply criticize Specter; but how do you convince people to vote for you if you don’t contrast what you have done and will do with the record of your opponent? That, I think, is the challenge of any campaign: contrasting records/positions on the issues without becoming shrill, personal or predominantly negative. Of course, that applies to both Specter’s and Sestak’s campaign.

One factor that I believe could play heavily against a Sestak campaign is the existing state of the economy and the stimulus he unequivocally voted for.

Right now, 45% of Americans favor cancelling the remainder of earmarked stimulus funds (discretionary spending, not tax cuts or mandatory/contracted wage increases) over 36% who oppose. Additionally, only 31% of Americans believe that the stimulus has actually helped the economy, down from 38% in February. As only 38% of the stimulus will have been spent by the end of 2010, I think it reasonable to expect that this percentage will rise as either a) the economy improves and people begin to view the excess spending as superfluous or, b) the economy stagnates or worsens, and people begin to view the excess spending as useless. A third option would be increasing support for a second (actually third if you count Bush’s $186B injection) stimulus, something which I wouldn’t expect if the current $787B fails to do the job, and which won’t even be on the table if the economy improves. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the 38% of stimulus funds which will be spent by the end of 2010 does not necessarily factor in the timetable for such spending; the $110B slated for 2010 might all be spent at the beginning or all at the end, but it is safe to assume that not all of it will be spent by the early November election day.

The problem Sestak would have in a fiscally moderate/conservative state is that he would then be presented with two basic choices, especially given the likelihood that this will become an increasingly important campaign topic over the next year. These two choices would be either to a) uphold his support for the whole stimulus package, thus risking the ire of PA’s moderate swing voters or, b) eat crow by throwing his support behind canceling the remaining stimulus funds, a line that the Republican challenger will surely take. How would this latter option play out if the Obama administration and main party line supports continuing stimulus spending? It’s certainly worth considering. Also, as the Democrats will surely remain in control over the next year, any fluctuations in the economy will likely positively correlate with their public approval ratings. With Republicans now trusted by the public more with handling the economy, and 60% of Americans viewing the stimulus package as a partisan (read: Democrat) effort, there are disturbing trends on the 2010 horizon for Democrat incumbents in fiscally moderate districts.

Now, I say that this is Sestak’s campaign problem more than Specter’s, because Specter can stand on his record of forcing a modicum of fiscal savings in exchange for his vote. This won’t appease many of PA’s Republicans, especially since it was likely Specter’s vote for the bill which forced him to switch parties so as to stay relevant. However, the draw here is for PA independents, many who will be comfortable enough with Specter’s compromise to somewhat overlook his stimulus participation. It will also be much easier for Specter to withdraw his support for additional stimulus spending without losing face. Sestak doesn’t have this advantage, and baring any unforeseen circumstances (and I realize that one year from now is a political eternity), he will have a tough economic choice to make, neither of which offers Sestak an enviable position to be in. Again, all of this depends on the economy being the question of 2010, and unfortunately for Sestak, I expect that it will be.

I’m sorry, I should clarify: “I think it reasonable to expect that this percentage will rise” refers to the percentage of Americans looking to cancel remaining stimulus funds.

As you said, Brian, it was Specter’s vote in favor of the same stimulus bill which caused him so much grief and resulted in him switching parties. I don’t know how you spin that against Sestak.

You said that Specter forced “a modicum of fiscal savings in exchange for his vote”. However, Specter’s solid support for the record deficit Bush budgets far outweigh any modicum of savings in a single bill.

Lee,

I encourage you to check out Sestak’s website, where he states, and I quote: “I also joined a bi-partisan effort on behalf of the President, the House of Representatives, and the Treasury Department to pass the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008 (”Stimulus Bill”).” If you remember his position, you’ll remember that Sestak offered no resistance to the original near-trillion dollar package. Spector, on the other hand, made headlines for being one of the few Republican crossovers who negotiated their votes for a lower price tag. You may or may not like Spector as a candidate, but the above analysis simply pointed out that Specter is more authentically associated with the Stimulus Bill’s attenuated cost, while Sestak is not. That’s not spin, that’s an unfortunate fact.

And true, Spector’s support for the previous-record Bush deficits (I believe we’ve just recently topped that) was shameful, but I believe that most voters will be thinking about their existing economic climate which more tangibly and immediately includes the stimulus package than Bush’s economics. Trying to tie a Republican (or former Republican) candidate to Bush as a smear tactic has already lost its power, as the most recent Quinnipiac pole on the NJ Gov race shows (quote: “Only 10 percent of voters say Corzine’s attacks that Christie is too close to former President George W. Bush are fair…”). Another year and it’ll be ancient history.

You may feel that you have a more nuanced view than most voters. But think about what will show on TV most effectively to your next door neighbor, or the guy down the block who gets his news from sounds bites. Like it or not, that’s who the majority of voters are…

I’d also like to remind you that the Stimulus Bill was no “single bill.” It was by far and away the heaviest, most monumental, and reverberating bill of modern times. It wasn’t simply just some pet project that passed under the radar…

We’ll see Brian. I don’t argue with your analysis; but I think your reasoning is the far more nuanced one for the average voter. I think most voters do, and will a year from now, associate Specter with the Republican party and the Bush deficits. If he pins his election on trying to explain that he’s the lesser “big spender” because he forced a modicum of reduction in the stimulus (series of) bills, he’s in trouble.

Lee,

I hear ya. I seems that our differing analysis is rooted in where we think voters will look, to explain their existing economic state when they actually vote. You may be right, they may look to Bush’s policies as the root of their problems. However, the latest Rasmussen poll (from June 22) on this shows a clear directional shift in where voters are placing economic blame. One month before the poll was taken, 62% of voters blamed Bush’s policies and only 27% blamed Obama. As of June 22nd (the latest availbale poll I could find), 54% blamed Bush and 39% blamed Obama. If that kind of shift can occur in a month’s time span, then my gut tells me that one year from now, an improved or depleted economy will be seen as an extension of President Obama’s economic handling. By that time, Bush’s economic mishandling will be stale news. And the center piece of Obama’s handling will undoubtedly be the $787B Stimulus Bill.

Two cents,
B

Brian

I agree that, a year from now, voters will see it as Obama’s economy — for better or for worse. I’m not sure how that will translate to the senate primary. Both having supported the stimulus package, how do Sestak and Specter, a year from now, distinguish themselves from each other on the issue? I think that an argument by Specter that he lowered the price tag of the stimulus by withholding his vote will be too subtle to make an impact on the typical voter. I believe voters will focus on other things. It’s going to be one hell of a campaign and I plan to enjoy it.

Word up. This will be fun.