Well said, Adam. Without a boost in enthusiasm by Dem favoring voters, either Sestak or Specter will have a difficult time beating Toomey.

That begs the question as to which of the two is more likely to generate that enthusiam in the general election campaign. I find it hard to believe that it will be the guy who has spent 30 years in the senate, who supported George Bush for 8 years and who switched parties less than a year ago.

Sestak has the fresh face and at least a chance to enthuse the voters.

That same poll showed Sestak with a huge percentage of people saying that they didn’t know enough about him to make a decision. He won’t get the chance to enthuse anyone if he doesn’t start to advertise in the media now. Doesn’t he know when the primary election is?

Lee-
Sestak still has to put together a campaign team.

If (when) Hater’s allegations become breaking news, the 70% that have no opinion of Sestak will get an opinion.

Back to Adam’s point, I agree there is a serious enthusiasm gap. I don’t see Sestak generating a lot of enthusiasm. When he was new on the scene in 2006, he could get away with the empty platitudes and few answers to questions about his past.
Specter’s not Mr. Excitement, but the rematch against Toomey should be quite the battle.

You make some excellent points, Lee. Sestak has gained ground against Specter, but he still hasn’t sustained even a single point margin between himself and Specter. True, Sestak still isn’t much of a known element in the state, but come primary day, but that could cut both ways. More likely, its all going to be about whether or not the people who show up at the polls want to put their faith in Arlen Specter for the next six years. Sestak IS the anti-Specter vote, and is banking on people who actually make the effort to cast votes in the Democratic primary to break for him.

Sestak might enthuse, or he might pull a Coakley. On the other hand, Specter might suffer a Santorum. The threat of a heartbreaking loss in this upcoming Senate race should be all too real for Democrats in Pennsylvania and across the country. Its hard to say which man stands a better chance at beating Toomey come election day. Specter seems like the safe choice, but how safe is an incumbent who can’t pull within 5 points of a majority approval rating? I think both men still have a good amount of persuading to do.

Right now Specter and Sestak are at each other’s throats. When the dust settles whoever wins can focus their attention on extreme rightwinger Pat Toomey.

Toomey is red meat for someone like James Carville. And his connection to Club For Growth, and donations they’ve made in past years, could prove embarrassing.

Adam

I’m not a big believer in the strategy of being merely an alternative to an unpoular incumbent as a winning plan. Although I certainly don’t dismiss it as a part of the campaign for Sestak, he also needs to present a positive image to drive a turnout for him. Otherwise, lots of potential voters will just take the easy way out and stay home on primary day, which typically has a much small turnout than a general election.

Getting known is not a one week or one month process. Sestak should have been on the media since at least the beginning of the year. It almost seems as if he doesn’t know how to run a statewide campaign.

Lee-
While most of Sestak’s campaign has been negative attacks on Specter, most of those attacks are for votes Specter made BEFORE his 2004 re-election. So, people had already made their judgment about him on those. Joe hasn’t focused on Specter’s record since 2004.

Also, Joe is attempting the “present a positive image” strategy, but he’s doing it poorly. He’s doing the 3-stars, jacket, and daughter routine. While it might be “positive” image, it’s not the kind that will “drive a turnout for him”.

“It almost seems as if he doesn’t know how to run a statewide campaign.”
There is no “almost” about it.

His campaign is rudderless. His brother and sisters have ZERO experience in statewide politics, let along statewide campaigns. Joe knows even less about the rest of the state than he knew about Delaware County after a 35 year absence since high school.
In 2006, Joe had layers of backup that he never fully appreciated or acknowledged. He had the local Delco Dems infrastructure as well as the Rendell/Casey coordinated campaign. Additionally, Weldon’s machine was rusty, and the FBI raid had an impact.
In 2008, Joe had so much money, that the GOP ran the 11th choice from their top 10 list. So, that race was a complete cakewalk.
So, in 2010, what does Sestak have in (or lost from) his holster?
Money. Yes. $3 million of which was left over from his 2008 congressional run.
No party infrastructure support.
A group of siblings who are in way over their heads, and whose 2008 experience is irrelevant to a hard campaign.
The loss of experienced staffers in key positions.
Former staffers and supporters who will be actively working against him.
Former supporters (pretending to current supporters) who won’t lift a finger for Joe and are giving him lip-service that he can’t count on.

Adam: You’re completely mis-reading the situation. Don’t stop looking at polls. Check out some polls on the issues. Those will tell you that the peoeple, a majority of the people, do not support the Washington Democrats’ agenda. The people didn’t vote for sweeping change in policies, they voted for a change in politics. What they got was more of the same with a different name attached, hence the tea party rebellion. This has all been populist swings from one failed administration to another. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves (no offense intended to the believers here).

We political junkies tend to see things through rose-colored glasses. Everything that goes wrong is because things aren’t going the way we believe they should. All that goes right is because we’re right! But the problem is, most people don’t think like us. If they did, this board would be filled with visitors (no offense to the site, it’s one of just 2 blog sites that I frequent).

EK

I agree with you, to an extent. I agree that people voted for a change in politics and that they didn’t get it. It will take more than one person, even if he is the president, to make that change. The changes that Obama has made are refreshing, but modest.

Also, the Tea Party (how many of those people actually voted for Obama?) is only one reaction to the non-realization of the change sought and not experienced. The far more dangerous one, in my view, is apathy. Disappointed and disillusioned voters simply will stop voting and participating in the political process.

Obama based his campaign on the promise of change and impressively raised people’s hopes. Unfortunately, during 2009, he gave us, instead, the Audacity of Disappointment. I think he’s off to a better and more aggressive start in 2010; but he’s got a lot of ground to make up, starting with healthcare insurance reform.

Well obviously most of the Tea Partiers didn’t vote for Obama, though some did… and the sentiments that their movement is based on are similar to those shared by many of Obama’s voters. We’ll see how he plays it I guess, but he’s got to realize that this status quo isn’t helping anyone but Republican candidates.

How can anyone possibly say that the Tea-Bag movement is in any way based on disappointment in not seeing enough change???? Any move that Obama and the Congressional Dems attempt — and admittedly, the health reform and stimulus bills have been montrously hard to move along — is met with howls of “Socialism!” and “Nazi-ism!” and “Marx-ism!” on the part of those Tea-Baggers and others who are stirring the pot. The Repub enthusiasm isn’t for change; it’s for defeating Democrats, and they smell blood in the water precisely because they’ve been able to scare people away from the very change they said they wanted.

Bruce

You, like so many other observers, are failing to distinguish between the masses of the Tea Party movement and the Republicans who are manipulating them. The masses do want change — not the same change that you and I want; but change nevertheless.

As EK wrote, some of the TPs did vote for Obama. So some are, or at least were, winnable for the Dems. EK’s larger point, I believe, with which I agree, is that Obama has acted far too cautiously and the changes that he has made are imperceptible to non-poltical junkies. That creates frustration and disillusionment which makes the TP masses easy raw material for shameless manipulators.

The TP masses oppose healthcare insurance reform with cries of “socialism”, etc. because that’s what they are being spoon fed and because they have been led to believe that the reform is more of the same “big government”. They believe that they are standing up for change.

I trust that you will agree with what now seems generally accepted by pundits and politicians as true: Obama lost control of the messaging about healthcare insurance reform almost from the outset. I think that’s also true for the Stimulus and other issues. It’s hurt him among progressives, independents, and even frustrated TPs.

He’s proceeded too cautiously and, as EK said, adhered far too closely to the status quo.

Joe Vod Varka wants to save Christmas