Hopefully, by then folks will be thoroughly exasperated by Toomey’s negative ads.

Good investment. That Toomey even has a shot shows how much this is a flukey year. No sense in losing a seat for 6 years on a fluke.

“drop” seems to be the operative word.

How come Sestak cannot raise money on his own? Must be a fluke. Could it be that people don’t agree with his message?

Sestak can raise money on his own, just not as much as Toomey can from his Wall Street banker friends.

Better Answer…
In his fight against Specter, Sestak spent over $3 million he had previous raised for his CONGRESSIONAL reelection. Sestak had $3 million CASH ON HAND in November 2008 AFTER the election and $4 million by the time he finally entered the race in Aug 2009.
It’s the money he got under the guise of holding the seat that was the bulk of his funding for the Senate primary. He ran the tank to empty for the primary, leaving himself far behind Toomey.

If there had been no primary, Specter would be siting on $10 million dollars, and the DSCC could be spending millions on other races where it could make a difference.

I’d rather the DSCC spend $1.1 million on 4 other races than dump $4.4 million into this one.

RE: “’Id rather the DSCC spend $1.1 million on 4 other races than dump $4.4 million into this one.” – Glad they don’t ask you Diano.

Sestak is raising boatloads of money and people are happy to give. I’m throwing a fundraiser for him Saturday night and folks are falling all over themselves to come. There is a lot of excitement among the grassroots.

My prediction: both Sestak and Onorato win, but Sestak gets more votes. Probably 80,000 more.

rplina-
What’s better: spending $4.4 on one seat, or $1.1 million each on 4 seats that might be saved?

Is it worth putting all those eggs in one basket? You need to be only 25% successful with a 4-way distribution to equal one win in PA.

There are races much closer than Sestak/Toomey and in less expensive markets where $1 million would go a lot further.

Imagine if Al Frank had had an extra 1/2 million. He could have gotten enough extra votes to skip that whole challenge.

It’s going to take a miracle for either one of them to win. If you want to help Onorato’s chances, then when you see Sestak at your Saturday event, ask him to get on board with the coordinated campaign.

Former Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel endorses Sestak

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/23/4954673-hagel-endorses-sestak

The real tragedy would have been watching Republican Arlen Specter run as a Democrat and drop $10+ million to lose to ultra right wing Republican Pat Toomey. Democrats are fortunate to have someone to vote for, instead of just someone to vote against. That’s why Sestak won his primary election with ease.

Tony-
Hate to clue you in and burst the “shill” bubble (because you are already sharp enough to know this), but Sestak won because Dems voted AGAINST Specter rather than FOR Sestak. That’s just the reality of it. Joe won on negative campaigning that questioned Specter’s integrity and motivations.

Now, the whole Democratic campaign is that Toomey is someone to vote against, because of his positions/associations with Wall Street.

I still think that Specter could have beaten Toomey. We’ll never know.

And why did they vote against Specter? Because they wanted a real Democrat to support in November.

Actually, I thought it was because Sestak’s ads portrayed Specter as sickly and untrustworthy. It was about revenge for past sins rather than what Specter would do as a Dem.

It will be fun on Election Night watching Sestak along with many other Democrats lose their races. Sestak makes Obama look like a Conservative! The DSCC along with the DNC don’t know it yet, but the majority of their candidates are T O A S T!

Rob-
“Sestak makes Obama look like a Conservative!” ??

I think you are looking at life upside down. Sestak is not a real liberal, but voted very liberal this last term to win the nomination. The only thing he can be “trusted” to do is look out for his own interests. Specter was a amateur at this, by comparison.