Rasmussen Says Specter May Have Made a Mistake

[Lunar]

rasmussenreports link

Senator Arlen Specter is one of only three Republicans to support the economic stimulus bill in Congress, and the latest Rasmussen Reports survey in Pennsylvania shows that his position is costing him support back home.

Just 31% of Keystone State voters say are more likely to vote for Specter because of his position on the stimulus package while 40% are less likely to do so.

A look inside the numbers shows the problem for Specter may be even more significant. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Republican voters in the state are less likely to vote for Specter. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, just 27% are more likely to support the long-time incumbent while 48% are less likely to do so.

These numbers are not surprising given the partisan response to the stimulus bill itself. Nationwide, support for the stimulus legislation increased following President Obama’s nationally televised press conference earlier this week. Still, the legislation is perceived as being what Democrats want rather than a bipartisan product.

In Pennsylvania, 69% of Republicans oppose the package while 73% of Democrats favor it. Those not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided. That partisan divide places Specter in a difficult position. Even though Specter has aligned himself with the president and other Democrats on the stimulus, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has announced that the Pennsylvania Republican is one of their top targets for the 2010 election cycle.

Specter won re-election in 2004 by a 53% to 42% margin. However, he barely survived a conservative primary challenge from then-Congressman Pat Toomey. Even though he had the support of the state’s Republican establishment, Specter was able to defeat Toomey only by two points, 51% to 49%.

Overall, Pennsylvania voters support the stimulus measure by a 47% to 41% margin. Still, 52% say the legislation is at least somewhat likely to make things worse instead of better.

In December, Rasmussen Reports polling showed Specter in a tight re-election match-up against MSNBC television anchor Chris Matthews. Matthews has since indicated that he will not run for the seat.

In that December survey, 60% of Pennsylvania voters had a favorable opinion of Specter, including 20% Very Favorable. Specter was viewed unfavorably by 37% percent, including 13% who had a Very Unfavorable opinion.

[Lunar]

We will be able to say whether he made mistake or not after a year.

If the economy is still tanking then he will take the heat for his vote.

But if the situation starts to improve, then his vote for the stimulus could become his ticket for reelection, and an easy one to boot.   

There is no easy way to say  “it worked” or not.  I imagine most Republicans will still oppose the bill retroactively even if five million jobs are saved/created.

[Lunar]

Rasmussen: providing talking points for the right-wing for a year and counting.

His poll historically has been among the best.  You don’t like accurate statistical polling?

[Lunar]

Indies can't even vote in primaries in PA.  That's why the recent registration shift could hurt Specter's challenges.

They'd have to change their registration, which probably won't be done in noticeable numbers

[Lunar]

I have to agree with Phil.  Specter is indeed done.  Even if he wins the primary (doubtful), he will still lose to a Democrat.

If people who had a stake in the system believed that (some of the most informed people), then a top tier Democratic candidate with something to lose, like Schwartz, would have declared by now.

[Lunar]

Perhaps Tom Allen's status as a top tier challenger and subsequent utter failure served as a bit of a warnin'.  I mean, to imagine back then that Dole would solidly lose in a wave but that Collins, the more conservative of the Maine twins, would clear it with plenty of room to spare...

My point was simply that if it was 100% obvious that Specter would lose in either the primary or the general, I think we'd see someone more credible emerging.  I mean, we'll see someone more credible emerge eventually, but if it was obvious as Tweed implies...

I mean, Joe Torsella just doesn't have anything to lose by declaring before the fog clears.  Although he may be slightly more credible that he seems since he's a Rendell ally, but I'll defer to PA people on his credibility since I don't follow the scene like I do NY or IL.

I'll def be following Specter's health in the next two years and will be interested to see how it plays out.  As Phil said, even if it doesn't retire, it could affect his campaign skillz.  I imagine that if he did retire, it'd almost be the same as someone primarying him in that there'll be a movement to get a solid conservative who will be there on the votes.

The Fix, last Friday, has Pennsylvania as the 8th most likely state to switch parties in 2010, which I almost agree with, but I'd it put it behind Nevada but ahead Louisiana and Illinois.

[Lunar]

Of course, it'd require a real health issue greater or equal to Ted's for him to retire.  Specter is part of the Byrd-Kennedy-Bunning-Johnson-etc. establishment that wants to be in the Senate until death do us part.

Thanks for the Torsella analysis.  I'd be surprised if three or more credible candidates emerged in the primary though, it is an off-year election and some of these cats do have their futures on the line should they lose. I think Torsella's candidacy not only depends on who his opponents are but additionally when they emerge.  As of now Torsella is out there fundraising and of course that's a big assistance.  But, you can see that the most credible candidates in a number of states (Rubio & Mack in Florida, anyone-besides-that-dude-Mongiardo-who-lives-in-his-in-laws'-basement, challengers in Nevada and North Carolina) have yet to declare, so it's still open season and whatnot.  But for states that are almost sure things, as that green NY avatar implies  PA is, someone would have declared by now just like Hodes or Carnahan have done.



And all of those green New York avatars are confusing.  It's why I switched my avatar to Ireland, I couldn't tell my own posts apart from Jfern's and Xahar's (and not just because I'm soooo socialist).

[Lunar]

Christ, that's nearly two years away.  Nobody will care - a, if the economy's doing well, or b, if it is doing badly we'll have had more stimulus bills anyway (next year spring/summer). 

People just don't care that much about these silly little spending bills.

Specter barely squeaked by 51%-49% in 2004, thanks largely to two big conservatives, Santorum and Bush, strongly endorsing him.  What did those people in 2004 care about?

[Lunar]

Strategically, the best way to beat a liberal Republican like Specter is to fracture his base, much more important than holding your own together.  You get a pro-lifer, etc. otherwise he takes more from you than you can get from him

[Lunar]

2010 is awful close to 2008 though, the numbers are very close

[Lunar]

Denied?  Please.  Arlen's in hot water because he sides with the Democrats 80% of the time.  He's pro-choice, pro-Union, pro-Obama etc.  I think the GOP is dumb to try and purge him, but let's not pretend like he's being persecuted unjustly here.  If a Democrat voted the opposite of him, say in California, casting a critical vote sinking a number of Obama's big plans, you know you would support primarying him just like Democrats support primarying Lieberman (despite Lieberman following his heart or whatever).

Of course, the larger issue for the GOP is whether a true conservative who primaries a moderate is viable in PA

[Lunar]

80% wasn't exactly accurate, I was semi-joking.   I think a lot of rankings are deceiving though. It's the big votes that are close that what matter. Specter is clearly willing to bargain -- again I think the GOP is stupid to want so badly to purge him because it'll drive away some large percentage people who supported Specter.  Besides, while PA isn't quite like Maine, it's closer to it than any other state with GOP senators.

I'm 200%  behind the effort to purge him if a good Dem candidate emerges

[Lunar]

Obviously I have like a sample size of 0 in terms of Dems comparable to Specter.  I gotta search for the closest Senator buddy yo. It'd be pretty easy to poke holes in any example I give, especially if you withdraw it from my very carefully crafted context! 


'S all good though

[Lunar]

I think Specter just likes power.  Being a self-proclaimed "moderate" just like Nelson gives you an incredible amount of power.  Perhaps he's willing to risk a more competitive election just for more political power

[Lunar]

. On taxes,guns, school choice, foreign policy, etc.

So would any Democrat that's electable in PA

[Lunar]

Specter may have made a mistake ...  but he is still in office and Santorum isn't.  Representing a swing state is tricky business, you have to pay very careful attention to be successful.  I've always thought that senators representing states like PA, OH or MO have a more difficult life than senators representing states like TX, ID or UT on one hand or MA, RI or CA on the other.  Casting votes on highly ideological issues is simply more difficult.

The potential power of being a centrist also comes with a lot of peril.

I'll tell you this, Dick Durbin gets to make a LOT more mistakes than someone normal does.  Him publicly trying to get that Republican governor before Blago a pardon, and then calling for a special election, and then retracting that...

[Lunar]

. On taxes,guns, school choice, foreign policy, etc.

So would any Democrat that's electable in PA

Ohio is arguably more conservative than PA, and we elected a very progressive candidate to the Senate.

He's a good fit for Ohio (anti-trade and stuff) and he's not vulnerable.  I wouldn't try and stretch it further than that.