[PassedOut]

Just noticed this: Specter to Switch Parties

Quote

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

It seems to me that this does change the equation in Washington, and serves the republicans right for vilifying Specter for doing the best thing for his country.

[hrothgar]

Damn! You beat me too this...

Be interesting to see whether he can survive the Democratic primary.

[cherdanno]

Will it change all that much?

[Phil]

Shift in his ideology or just political expediency?

[cherdanno]

Phil, on Apr 28 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

Shift in his ideology or just political expediency?

Wrong question. Shift in the GOP's ideology, and his political expediency.

[hrothgar]

cherdanno, on Apr 28 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

Will it change all that much?

This could be very significant:

This is a dramatic oversimplication; however, here's a useful way to understand the dynamics.

Votes in the Senate fall into one of two categories:

1. Votes on policy
2. Votes on proceedure

Proceedural votes typically fall along party lines. These votes are a litmus test for party loyalty. Defections are VERY rare.

Even if Specter's policy oriented votes remain completely unchanged, flipping his votes on proceedural matters suddenly becomes decisive. The Republicans no longer have enough votes to sustain a fillibuster, which means that policy votes can now pass on a simply up and down vote.

As a practical issue, the Obama administration will no longer need to use budget reconciliation as a mechanism to sidestep the threat of a Republican filibuster.

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Apr 28 2009, 12:27 PM, said:

Phil, on Apr 28 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

Shift in his ideology or just political expediency?

Wrong question. Shift in the GOP's ideology, and his political expediency.

Well, it isn't anyone elses political expediency for sure

[Lobowolf]

Any presumed effect on his chances for re-election?

[cherdanno]

Lobowolf, on Apr 28 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

Any presumed effect on his chances for re-election?

He was losing the Republican primary by 20% in latest polls. So I presume good.

[PassedOut]

Yes, both factors were surely involved. If you don't hew strictly to the republican line, there's no place for you in that party. Only one place left to go.

As Richard pointed out, this has interesting ramifications for the 2010 election. It was very likely that the democrats were going to pick up a senate seat in Pennsylvania anyway, no doubt a person more in tune with other democrats than Specter.

Still, Specter is old and sick and who knows what the situation will be like in 2010? Obama is certainly happy to have him in the caucus right now, with so much yet to be done. (I read that Obama got Specter on the phone around 10:30 am, 7 minutes after he had gotten word about Specter's announcement.)

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Apr 28 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

Yes, both factors were surely involved. If you don't hew strictly to the republican line, there's no place for you in that party. Only one place left to go.

Two places, actually. See also: Lieberman, Joseph.

[hrothgar]

Phil, on Apr 28 2009, 08:46 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Apr 28 2009, 12:27 PM, said:

Phil, on Apr 28 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

Shift in his ideology or just political expediency?

Wrong question. Shift in the GOP's ideology, and his political expediency.

Well, it isn't anyone elses political expediency for sure

I think this is unclear

I suspect that there was some kind of quid quo pro involving primary challenges. I expect that the Democratic party establishment to firmly back Specter in the upcoming primary. (This is nothing if not expedient)

It will be interesting to see how the net roots reacts to this all.

Specter originally backed the Employee Free Choice Act. When he started to get pressure from Toowney, he flipped his position and started opposing it. From the looks of things, he's not going to flip back. EFCA is an important issue for the Democratic base and might be enough to cause them to back a primary challenge.

Personally, I'm torn. On the one hand, I'd prefer to see a real Democrat seated. On the other hand, if we can turn Collins and Snowe, we can completely extinquish the Republican party throughout the North East. Don't see much chance of that happening if Specter goes down in the primary. Moreover, we want to encourage as many Republican voters as possible to defect.

Ultimately, I think that I'm in favor of letting Specter run unchallenged in the primary. Not sure that I'd say the same thing if his health was better.

[jdonn]

I'm very glad this happened, regardless of how he does going forward.

Is anyone laughing at how it was such a major argument used against Obama during the election that he voted with his party too much of the time? And yet when a Republican dares to vote against his party on one major issue, they drive him out the door....

Btw since it got mentioned, how long can this Minnesota thing possibly drag on, dare I ask?

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Apr 28 2009, 12:59 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Apr 28 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

Yes, both factors were surely involved. If you don't hew strictly to the republican line, there's no place for you in that party. Only one place left to go.

Two places, actually. See also: Lieberman, Joseph.

If that's a "different place", then why is the "Democratic majority" of the late Bush years so often referred to by Republicans (and maybe Democrats too)?

[Lobowolf]

Because Lieberman (and Sanders) caucused with the Democrats. Sorry if I'm being dense, but if you don't perceive "different places," are you saying Lieberman is still a de facto Democrat, because of this? Or that if he didn't caucus with the Democrats, he would be a Republican for all intents and purposes?

Other things being equal (e.g., not if I had a major party candidate I strongly preferred), I'd much rather have a non-affiliated candiate say "Screw both your teams" and beat the major party candidates.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Apr 28 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

Because Lieberman (and Sanders) caucused with the Democrats.  Sorry if I'm being dense, but if you don't perceive "different places," are you saying Lieberman is still a de facto Democrat, because of this?

It seems to me he is treated and referred to that way.

Sorry if I'm being dense in return, but must an independant caucus with either major party?

[jdonn]

This just keeps getting better. This has caused Jim DeMint, Rush Limbaugh, the Pennsylvania GOP representation, Club for Growth, and many others to sound like fools today. But the biggest was one of my favorite people every time he opens his mouth, quite possibly the biggest idiot in the universe, Michael Steele. THIS is the guy who will lead the Republican party back?? I just love when he gets an opportunity to open his mouth, because he never fails to take advantage of it.

[luke warm]

i think he just made a political decision to try to get reelected... odds are he'd have lost the republican primary and odds are a dem would have gotten his seat anyway, he just wants to make sure he's that dem

[mike777]

It is nice to know that elections still matter. Now right wing, liberal Democrats and the New President should be able to pass what they ran on without the idiot GOP stopping them with a fake filibuster.

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Apr 28 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

This just keeps getting better. This has caused Jim DeMint, Rush Limbaugh, the Pennsylvania GOP representation, Club for Growth, and many others to sound like fools today.

I don't think this is a complete failure for the club of growth. They boxed Specter into an anti-EFCA stance, and now as a democrat he will likely be an anti-EFCA vote in the senate for quite a while.