While most Democrats seem to be celebrating Specter’s decision, I stand by my afternoon analysis: This move could soon be viewed by Democrats as a blow to their hope of building a solid Senate coalition that fights back against Republican filibusters and supports progressive priorities.
The short take: Welcoming Specter with open arms could be a long-term mistake for the party, as it could mean living with the unreliable Specter instead of a more mainstream Democrat for the next seven years; at the very least, Democrats are making a grave short-term mistake by putting no pressure on Specter and treating him as if he is terrifyingly powerful when he has never been so politically weak.
And now for the long take.
With Specter unlikely to make it to the general election when he was still a Republican, Democrats were favored to pick-up this Senate seat in 2010 anyway. All they had to do was suffer through the burden of a 59-seat majority for the next year and they would be able to get a Pennsylvania Democrat to take the seat through January 2017.
While none of the Democrats mentioned as potential Senate candidates were likely to join Bernie Sanders on the chamber’s left flank, Torsella, Sestak, Schwarz, Murphy, Wagner would all have been far more reliable Democratic votes than Specter. Just look at Bob Casey: He is not a liberal, but he does not give his party daily headaches. And that’s all I mean by “Pennsylvania Democrat:” No Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh or Mary Landrieu.
Yet, Democrats have condemned themselves to just that: Living with another member of the Nelson/Bayh/Landrieu coalition instead of replacing him with a mainstream Democratic Senator. And we are talking about a 6-year period here - all the way through the end of a second term for Barack Obama!
As I have said many times before, Specter is just not that centrist - especially by historical standards of the GOP’s moderate wing. The reason he has come under such intense conservative anger is that the ranks of centrist Republicans have been decimated (particularly in the House). Besides EFCA, let’s take a look at some of Specter’s other moves over the past few months: He voted against Obama’s budget, proposed to scrap tax legislation in favor of a 20% flat tax, and announced his opposition to the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Council.
Specter reiterated his opposition to EFCA today; in his press conference, he added that he would support cloture - “I would illustrate that by my position on employee’s choice, also known as card check. I think it is a bad bill, and I’m opposed to it and would not vote to invoke cloture;” he also said that he still opposed the nomination of Dawn Johnsen.
I am hearing many comparisons to Senator Jim Jeffords, who switched parties in 2001 and became a reliable liberal vote, or to Senators Shelby and Campbell, who left the Democratic Party in 1995 and became conservative Senators. But the situation is not comparable: Shelby and Jeffords did not switch parties for electoral reasons (Jeffords had just been re-elected a few months prior to his switch) but because they had truly broken with their party ideologically. That is not the case with Specter.
(There is some hope for EFCA’s supporters, however, as Specter used the words “card check.” As readers of this blog know, card-check is only one part of the legislation, and one that already looks dead because of Blanche Lincoln’s opposition. It looks like Specter might be positioning himself to support a compromise version of EFCA that does not contain card-check but does contain labor’s second priority: binding arbitration.)
It would be a very different situation if we were talking about Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, who is likely to keep her seat for as long as she wants to. (This might not be purely hypothetical talk: While she dismissed talk of switching parties today, she did sound like it is something she has been thinking about.) In Maine, the two alternatives are a Republican Snowe and a Democratic Snowe; here, the two alternatives were Specter and another Democrat. Why choose Specter?
Perhaps the Senator promised the Administration and the Democratic leadership some specific key votes in return, though it is worth bearing in mind that the Senator also pledged to move rightward when he won President Bush and Senator Santorum’s support back in 2004. And we just saw how that ended.
At the very least, Democrats should recognize that Specter is stunningly weak: He cannot win as a Republican (and he certainly not go back to the GOP now), and he needs Democratic support. But instead, the Democratic establishment has rushed to embrace Specter and assure him that he will get their support no matter what he does. Obama’s press secretary said that the President is willing to campaign and raise money for the Senator, explicitly specifying that this included a Democratic primary. Ed Rendell also signaled his delight. And Senator Menendez, the DSCC Chairman, said that he looked forward to supporting Specter.
Democrats have also agreed to honor all of Specter’s seniority, which could mean that the Pennsylvania Senator will outrank senior Democrats in the next Congress. In particular, this could be a blow to Tom Harkin, currently the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies. (On the other hand, Specter should not be able to get the Judiciary Committee Chairmanship since Pat Leahy was elected in 1974.)
In short, Specter is being treated as if he is in a terrifyingly powerful and politically unbeatable; that should encourage him to buck the party leadership at the first opportunity.
All of this begs the question: Will there be a credible Democratic challenger to Specter? Somewhat unexpectedly, the answer is maybe.
While state Rep. Shapiro - recognizing the enormity of the task he would be facing - announced that he was no longer considering a Senate run, National Constitution Center head Joe Torsella declared that he would stay in the race. Arguably more importantly, Rep. Joe Sestak issued one of the most skeptical statement of any Democratic official and pointedly refused to say whether he would run for re-election. “I believe that the principles of what he is running for and his commitment to accountable leadership are questions that still need to be addressed,” Sestak wrote. This is surprising as Sestak is sounding more interesting in a Senate race today than he had been over the past few months!
Even though Specter should be considered favored since he will have the support of Obama, Rendell, the DSCC and perhaps unions if he does scale back his opposition to EFCA, the possibility that Torsella or Sestak mount a strong primary challenge should not be dismissed. Specter has far more votes that should be anathema to Democrats than he has that should be anathema to Republicans.
All a Democratic candidate would have to do is air this video (via Yglesias) over and over again to put Specter in a very awkward position - not to mention what the Senator said two weeks ago: “All that is standing between the Democrats and an avalanche are the 41 Republican Senators to to filibuster. If [Toomey is] the nominee we lose the seat and you have card check, and you have tax increases and you have all of the big Obama spending programs.” Is that why Specter changed parties?
If Specter faced a primary, he would have to justify why he became a Democrat, why Democrats should trust him, what is he running for (as Sestak said). This is why it is so incomprehensible that the entire Democratic establishment - not to mention countless labor leaders - are rushing to embrace Specter without even ensuring that the Senator feels the need to integrate the Democratic mainstream.
One last potential problem for Democrats down the road: They have no more excuse not to pass legislation. The public will see a Democratic White House, a Democratic majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Whether or not Specter changes anything to his voting habits, the point is that it is much harder to accuse Republicans of obstruction when they do not have the votes to do so! And here lies the problem: There is for now little evidence that Specter will change much to his voting habits.
As I said in the comments section of yoru previous post, Democrats are strongly favored to pick up a net gain of a couple of seats, at least one if Dems lose CT but win in NH and KY, and possibly more with Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida if Crist doesn’t jump in (and even if Crist did jump in and win, he could very well replace Specter and join the Maine ladies as part of the Moderate Republican Trifecta). Therefore it wouldn’t be too long until Spectar would matter alot less. To predict a total ecnomic recovery by the fall of 2010 is probably too much, but it will take a sustained econmic weakening for the GOP to get a net loss of seats in the U.S. senate. The Moderate Democrats will definitly have a golden opportunity to make demands from Obama so that he wouldn’t be embarssed upon legislation not passing through, but I doubt that they would destroy Obama’s agenda. Especailly when cloture vs actual vote on a bill could be used.
Jaxx,
I agree that Dems are still likely to pick-up Senate seats in 2010 (even if we don’t count PA as a switch), which should put them beyond 60 in the 112th Congress. A few points, however: (1) That does not mean that they will not come to regret not having Schwarz or Murphy in Specter’s place. (2) Democrats are almost guaranteed to lose some seats in 2012 and in 2014 (how could they protect everything they gained in 2006 and in 2008?), so the number of reliable Democratic vote will matter greatly in the 113th and 114th Congress - i.e. in the entirety of Obama’s second term, if he wins re-election.
(3) We can’t reduce the list of endangered Democratic seats to CT: There’s Bennet in Colorado, Kirk and Castle could make IL and DE competitive, and Reid and Lincoln can’t be considered fully safe. Right now, it’s hard to imagine more than one of these losing. But it’s definitely enough endangered Democrats that the GOP could have a good night if they get even a breeze in their favor next year.
I don’t think the Democrats are looking forward all that much to 2010. Obama’s main agenda is going to be passed (or not) in the next year and they are keyed on making that happen. I agree they are likely to pick up 2 - 3 seats in 2010 and therefore Specter will be less important post 2010.
He is also likely to vote more liberally than he did as a Republican without the threat of losing a primary hanging over his head.
Lastly Arlin Specter is 79 and in debatable health. This will likely be is last campaign and he will want to be a major force in the Senate in the years he has left. I expect he will be a leading advocate of the Obama agenda and not a Ben Nelson style Democrat.
I think the Democratic party and Specter is a good enough fit. The Democratic party is a big tent party, much more so than the GOP. He is independent minded, and therefore less reliable than other rank and file Democrats. But that’s not a bad thing at all. He will add some additional gray hair to the party and will probably moderate some of his more conservative political positions.
The next congress won’t begin until January 2011, 20 months from now. Having Specter on board for these next 20 months is a big coup for the Dems. It also will make the GOP reassess some of their more hard-line conservative stances. The GOP have taken the dying moderate wing of their party for granted for too long.
Certaintly CT is not the only race that Republicans can conceivably pick up, but it’s the only Democratic held race that I see as a toss-up. Dodd is almost a Democratic version of Jim Bunning, and if the ecnomny indeeds doesn’t pick up, then Dodd is as good as gone. If Castle jumps into the Deleware Senate race then that be a very tough race for Democrats but other than that I don’t see the Republicans having much of a chance in some of the other races because the incumbent is either not weak enough or the opposition is not strong enough, and often both. While Bennet ratings are mediocore, so are his prospective opponents and he still has alot of money and time to build his name recognition. Even if the ecnonmy is the same in 2010 as it is now it will be pratically impossible for the GOP to win back the Senate, let alone actually get any net gain of Senate that is more than one. Perhaps in 2012 if the ecnomny hasn’t gotten back together again can the GOP make a big comeback. But if does come back, then I don’t think the GOP will have any realistic chance.
I’m not convinced that the Democrats are doomed to lose seats in 2012. Indeed, the thing is that most seats up for reelection in 2012 will be mostly Democratic thanks to the significant gains made in 2006. If Obama doesn’t become very unpopular and/or the GOP continues to move mostly to the right, it will be difficult for them to make Senate gains. I would say that 2014 gains are more likely because it is very common for Presidents in their last midterm election to get a slump, even Reagan had one thanks to Iran-Contra.
It will be of interest to see whether Kay Bailey Hutchison bolts the Senate sooner rather than later, now that the Dems have 60 seats (Franken included, of course). If she does, would her seat not be a possilbe gain for Dems? And is there any chance that McCain could lose his primary to Simcox? If so, would the Dems have a credible candidate to take on the far-right GOP nominee? Finally, I’ve been reading Olympia Snowe’s recent comments carefully and wonder if she, too, may find the GOP an inhospitable place in which to carry out her work. I am not conviced she will leave, but Specter’s move has certainly given her pause. That would add an extra two seats and one additional Democrat to figure into the 2010 mix.
While I would like a more progressive candidate then Specter, trying to primary opponents because they don’t pass the party litmus test ALWAYS leads to trouble (See the current Republican party or the Democratic party (circa 1994).
I think instead of spending time worrying about what Specter will or won’t vote for, the Democratic party needs to expand their majority in moderate states. The more people you have in your party the greater the chance you’ll find 60 that agree with you (or at least agree to vote for cloture). I’d rather have 67 senators who I agree with most of the time, then 55 senators who I agree with all of the time.
i agree with a lot of the posters here. this is about the next 8 years, not the 6 starting in ‘10. further, we could lose to specter in ‘10 (like we have every other time).
we will have to see how he votes/leads on the issues that come up in the next year and a half, but i’m inclined to trust obama and rendell that they understand PA & US Senate politics better than I do.
It will be interesting to see how Specter votes when his vote is really needed. Schumer’s knock on the “moderate” Susan Collins is that she’d be the 62nd or 63rd vote, but when her vote was needed for 60 (or 51 as the case may be) she’d look at McConnell to get her instructions. And what’s the use of being a moderate if you never act on your moderation when it might really matter?
So I wonder with Specter to what extent he’ll really buck his new party when the chips are down. While he talked a good game on a number of issues, it seemed to me that he always voted with his party or otherwise did their bidding whenever it really mattered. If that’s the way he’s going to vote as a Democrat, they’ll be happy to have him around. (And on most legislation, Democrats will need him for cloture but he’d be free to vote however he wants on the legislation itself.)
There’s also the threat of a primary challenge if Specter bails on important votes, though the prospect of taking on an incumbent senator who seems to have the backing of the DSCC would be daunting. It would be a big risk for a sitting House member to take (since it would mean giving up the seat to run) and require a ton of money, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility.