Pennsylvania

[anvi]

I lived in Philadelphia and surrounding counties for about six years a while back, and so what happened today looked kind of ominous, though it is the culmination of a trend for the GOP in the northeast.

Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic party today appears to mark a significant moment in the political future of the state for the forseeable future.   While everyone is focused for the moment on how Specter will vote, whether the Dems will get 60 in the Senate for the next year and a half, is clouding out what will happen in the state.

Specter will be a problematic Democratic candidate in 2010, since 15% of Pennsylvania voters are union members and he will have a hard time getting them to come out for him, and there will be a lot of very angry Republican moderates who will vote for Toomey to strike back at Specter's breech of loyalty.  So, the PA Senate race in '10 will be, to say the least, interesting.

But, in the long run, the loss of a moderate Republican senator looks to me like looming, long-term misfortune in the state for the GOP.  Half of the voters in Pennsylvania self-identify as moderates on both sides of aisle, large numbers of Democrats now populate both the Philly suburbs in the southeast and a string of counties on the entire east side of the state, Democratic registration is up and so all the Democrats have to do is run relatively centrist candidates for the Senate and for the presidency and run up big numbers in the east and in Pittsburgh and they will have a lock.  (Democrats currently hold an 11-8 lead in state House representatives).  In the next few election cycles, it looks to me like Pennsylvania will move from being "the reddist of the blue states" to a pretty safe blue state, and those are two significant Senate seats and a big basket of electoral votes to just cede on purpose.

Pennsylvania looks to me like a pretty clear clarion call to the GOP to make more room for moderates again or suffer pretty dire political consequences in the next several years. 

Agree or disagree?

[Keystone Phil]

I hate when we see something posted about twenty different times (as if it's new) and then asking if people agree with it when the poster knows how people here feel.

[anvi]

I've seen posts scattered around different threads about this general issue of moderates vs. conservatives in the GOP and what the implications would be.  I was just wondering if the Specter defection crystalized the problem in a new way, and I wanted to ask specifically about Pennsylvania.   Democrats made a very similar mistake regarding their party's alignments with their insanely boneheaded and prejudiced "metro vs. retro" electoral strategy in 2000 and 2004, and they were hard lessons to swallow, and the party had to readjust.  So, I just thought I'd ask if Republicans are of a mind to learn some lessons from what happened today, or if you all think it's politically insignificant and should just be blown off.  But hey, if you all have made up your minds about it and think what happened is totally insignificant and irrelevant to the future of the GOP, then fine, cede the rest of the easten seaboard above South Carolina while you're at it. 

[Keystone Phil]

So, I just thought I'd ask if Republicans are of a mind to learn some lessons from what happened today, or if you all think it's politically insignificant and should just be blown off.  But hey, if you all have made up your minds about it and think what happened is totally insignificant and irrelevant to the future of the GOP, then fine, cede the rest of the easten seaboard above South Carolina while you're at it. 

Oh, yeah. We learned our lesson all right - plenty of GOP apologists that constantly made excuses for RINOs like Specter learned that you get burned by spineless opportunists.

We need to learn to abandon our principles and go with the "more electable" people when their only argument is "Vote for me if you want to win." This is why I'm really starting to dislike politics.

Anyway, keep feeding into this myth that the GOP will be politically insignificant. Remember when the Dems were going to be stuck in the permanent minority? Remember when you guys had to nominate someone like Mark Warner to ever stand a chance nationally?

[Smash255]

So, I just thought I'd ask if Republicans are of a mind to learn some lessons from what happened today, or if you all think it's politically insignificant and should just be blown off.  But hey, if you all have made up your minds about it and think what happened is totally insignificant and irrelevant to the future of the GOP, then fine, cede the rest of the easten seaboard above South Carolina while you're at it. 

Oh, yeah. We learned our lesson all right - plenty of GOP apologists that constantly made excuses for RINOs like Specter learned that you get burned by spineless opportunists.

We need to learn to abandon our principles and go with the "more electable" people when their only argument is "Vote for me if you want to win." This is why I'm really starting to dislike politics.

Anyway, keep feeding into this myth that the GOP will be politically insignificant. Remember when the Dems were going to be stuck in the permanent minority? Remember when you guys had to nominate someone like Mark Warner to ever stand a chance nationally?

Fact of the matter is the two situations aren't even comparable.  Yes, similar things were said about the Dems a few years ago.  Can things change?  Of course, however the GOP is in FAR worse shape than the Dems were four years ago.

 So to dismiss the idea that the GOP doesn't need to change because the Dems didn't have to when the same things were said about them is absurd, because the circumstances are totally different.

[Lunar]

four years ago, Kerry was % in one state from winning the presidency against one of the more unpopular presidents to be reelected...

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

We need to learn to abandon our principles and go with the "more electable" people when their only argument is "Vote for me if you want to win."

I'm so glad you agree with me now

Seriously, I am sick and tired of "conservatives" defining themselves as principled as if moderates are "unprincipled".  Libertarians are principled.  Islamo-fascists are principled. Socialists are principled.  Anarchists are principled.  There is neither prize nor valor in how fervent you are in your ideological principles.  Everybody has principles, Phil - but some of us realize that politics is all about getting one more vote than your opponent, and in order to do that, you have to build sustainable coalitions that can put some of their differences aside in order to put their shared principles in actions.

Remember when you guys had to nominate someone like Mark Warner to ever stand a chance nationally?

Your point?  They did nominate someone like Mark Warner, and Warner strongly supported Obama in the primaries.

[Scam of God]

Pennsylvania is a truly vile and disgusting state, and, I fervently hope, when the bombs drop in the Second Civil War to put an end to the Rebs in the South, one or two happen to accidentally land just north and west of Philly to finish the goddamned thing once and for all.

Their chief ideology is collectivism; they are the Communists of the United States of America. They want their God and their dole, and not necessarily in that order, but they always want their dole handed to them by someone wearing the frocks of God. Every moralistic monster is lifted to divinity and beyond in that dive; it would be the only northern state William Jennings Bryan would be assured of winning today.

[Landslide Lyndon]

So, I just thought I'd ask if Republicans are of a mind to learn some lessons from what happened today, or if you all think it's politically insignificant and should just be blown off.  But hey, if you all have made up your minds about it and think what happened is totally insignificant and irrelevant to the future of the GOP, then fine, cede the rest of the easten seaboard above South Carolina while you're at it. 

Oh, yeah. We learned our lesson all right - plenty of GOP apologists that constantly made excuses for RINOs like Specter learned that you get burned by spineless opportunists.

We need to learn to abandon our principles and go with the "more electable" people when their only argument is "Vote for me if you want to win." This is why I'm really starting to dislike politics.

Anyway, keep feeding into this myth that the GOP will be politically insignificant. Remember when the Dems were going to be stuck in the permanent minority? Remember when you guys had to nominate someone like Mark Warner to ever stand a chance nationally?

Fact of the matter is the two situations aren't even comparable.  Yes, similar things were said about the Dems a few years ago.  Can things change?  Of course, however the GOP is in FAR worse shape than the Dems were four years ago.

 So to dismiss the idea that the GOP doesn't need to change because the Dems didn't have to when the same things were said about them is absurd, because the circumstances are totally different.

Another important difference is that after the 2004 defeat the Democrats didn't try to ostracize their moderates like Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Max Baucus. Only Lieberman was actively chased, but he was from a safely blue state where any Democrat would get elected.

And as much as some people forget the Democrats actually gained seats in 2004 in the House and the Senate, outside the South. 

[Keystone Phil]

We need to learn to abandon our principles and go with the "more electable" people when their only argument is "Vote for me if you want to win."

I'm so glad you agree with me now

Seriously, I am sick and tired of "conservatives" defining themselves as principled as if moderates are "unprincipled".  Libertarians are principled.  Islamo-fascists are principled. Socialists are principled.  Anarchists are principled.  There is neither prize nor valor in how fervent you are in your ideological principles.  Everybody has principles, Phil - but some of us realize that politics is all about getting one more vote than your opponent, and in order to do that, you have to build sustainable coalitions that can put some of their differences aside in order to put their shared principles in actions.

Don, I'm tired of you telling me that I'm saying moderates are unprincipled. I've never said that. I've never implied it. You don't win at anything you argue anymore; you bitch and moan and twist words.

Arlen Specter isn't principled. His move wasn't principled.

You're all about winning at any cost and refusing to admit you're wrong about people that stick it to this party. Some of us have realized that you don't make a "sustainable coalition" with snakes and plenty of your moderates have realized this as well. Wake the hell up, Don. You were wrong about Specter. You were wrong about Chafee. You were wrong about others. Man up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

Ideology wise they're similar?

I think I and everyone else know why Warner strongly backed the major opponent of the woman who dug up dirt on him...

[Keystone Phil]

four years ago, Kerry was % in one state from winning the presidency against one of the more unpopular presidents to be reelected...

And McCain lost by only about seven points as the nominee of a party that was extremely unpopular and with the endorsement of a President with an approval rating at 28%. Your point?

[Keystone Phil]

McCain only lost PA by 7 points?  nvm

...

I'm talking nationally just as you were.

[Lunar]

oops, it's too early really

[anvi]

I think it's true that Democrats had ideological litmus tests in the past; the way that Ted Kennedy tried to shove Jimmy Carter around in '80 is the most glaring example, but there are many others that sundered the Democrats all the way through the '80's. 

But really, this term RINO that has been popularized by the conservatives, it's a symptom of a very bad sickness.  By modern conservative standards, were Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon and Bush 41 RINOs too?  To say that moderates should not be elected or supported by the Republican party in politically moderate states just because they have to represent those constituencies in legislative votes sometimes is like a football coach saying he is only going to put eleven linemen on his defense, or a chessplayer trying to win a game with sixteen pawns, as if one position should be used to play the whole field.  It's stupid political suicide.  I guess a party just has to lose lots of elections before the message sinks in.  But hey, go with it, I'm rather enjoying the spectacle.

I have no doubt that Republicans will come back; American politics has historically shown itself to run in cycles, and so I'm sure it will happen, but it will only happen when conservatives take some medicine.  I think what is happening out there is plain as day; if you leave the middle no room to play on your team by casting aspersions like "unprincipled" at them constantly, they will run to the other side and you'll be left watching the other guys win on election night.  It's a platitude but it's true; elections are won in the middle, and if you willingly abandon it, you have no one to blame for losses but yourself.  Why did McCain get 46% in an election year when the Republican brand name was in the doghouse:  HELLO...HE WAS AN OLD-SCHOOL MODERATE REPUBLICAN REFORMER...GET IT??

[pbrower2a]

I lived in Philadelphia and surrounding counties for about six years a while back, and so what happened today looked kind of ominous, though it is the culmination of a trend for the GOP in the northeast.

Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic party today appears to mark a significant moment in the political future of the state for the forseeable future.   While everyone is focused for the moment on how Specter will vote, whether the Dems will get 60 in the Senate for the next year and a half, is clouding out what will happen in the state.

Specter will be a problematic Democratic candidate in 2010, since 15% of Pennsylvania voters are union members and he will have a hard time getting them to come out for him, and there will be a lot of very angry Republican moderates who will vote for Toomey to strike back at Specter's breech of loyalty.  So, the PA Senate race in '10 will be, to say the least, interesting.

But, in the long run, the loss of a moderate Republican senator looks to me like looming, long-term misfortune in the state for the GOP.  Half of the voters in Pennsylvania self-identify as moderates on both sides of aisle, large numbers of Democrats now populate both the Philly suburbs in the southeast and a string of counties on the entire east side of the state, Democratic registration is up and so all the Democrats have to do is run relatively centrist candidates for the Senate and for the presidency and run up big numbers in the east and in Pittsburgh and they will have a lock.  (Democrats currently hold an 11-8 lead in state House representatives).  In the next few election cycles, it looks to me like Pennsylvania will move from being "the reddist of the blue states" to a pretty safe blue state, and those are two significant Senate seats and a big basket of electoral votes to just cede on purpose.

Pennsylvania looks to me like a pretty clear clarion call to the GOP to make more room for moderates again or suffer pretty dire political consequences in the next several years. 

Agree or disagree?

100% true. The GOP must be something more than a Party of extremists and ideological purists, just as the Democrats must be.