Bye Bye Specter

[ira82]

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2009/03/25/4084235.htm

[/dev/null]

Geez - lets hope that he doesnt make it past the primaries. Good article - thanks for sharing

[2dogs]

I truly look forward to voting against him. I don't care who runs against him, they will get my vote.

[Swarner793]

Here is perhaps one example of Obama being right, now is the time for change

Be safe (and hope Toomey has a magic bullet of a different sort).

Scott

[eXceLon]

When a party is out of power and attempting to rebuild itself, that's generally the time that you want to embrace the more moderate elements of the party. See how the Democrats ran a number of relatively conservative pro-gun candidates for congress in 2006 and 2008. The middle is where elections are won, particularly in Pennsylvania.

It might be tempting to push for the more conservative candidate, but the result might very well be just giving the Democratic opponent an advantage in the general election.

I'd like to see a little more balance in government, so the prospect of Democrats widening their majority doesn't really appeal to me. I know I probably come off as a Liberal Democrat to a lot of people here since I tend to argue a different point of view, but I really have no desire to see one party in complete control. We desperately need a more competitive Republican party.

[2dogs]

When a party is out of power and attempting to rebuild itself, that's generally the time that you want to embrace the more moderate elements of the party. See how the Democrats ran a number of relatively conservative pro-gun candidates for congress in 2006 and 2008. The middle is where elections are won, particularly in Pennsylvania.

It might be tempting to push for the more conservative candidate, but the result might very well be just giving the Democratic opponent an advantage in the general election.

I'd like to see a little more balance in government, so the prospect of Democrats widening their majority doesn't really appeal to me. I know I probably come off as a Liberal Democrat to a lot of people here since I tend to argue a different point of view, but I really have no desire to see one party in complete control. We desperately need a more competitive Republican party.

I agree that more balance would be good, but we are now on a freight train heading left. The balance to that is a true conservative. I would love to one replace Specter. I don't think the Republican party needs to "reinvent itself" and become more moderate. If the party members had been true to the principles, we would be in a lot better shape.

[adymond]

When a party is out of power and attempting to rebuild itself, that's generally the time that you want to embrace the more moderate elements of the party. See how the Democrats ran a number of relatively conservative pro-gun candidates for congress in 2006 and 2008. The middle is where elections are won, particularly in Pennsylvania.

It might be tempting to push for the more conservative candidate, but the result might very well be just giving the Democratic opponent an advantage in the general election.

I'd like to see a little more balance in government, so the prospect of Democrats widening their majority doesn't really appeal to me. I know I probably come off as a Liberal Democrat to a lot of people here since I tend to argue a different point of view, but I really have no desire to see one party in complete control. We desperately need a more competitive Republican party.

If moderates win elections how the hell did McCain not win? Right now we have a former Senator who was more liberal than Ted I-kill-drunk-girls-by-drowning Kennedy.

I think what Republicans need to do is embrace social libertarians (actually getting back to conservative ideals of limited government with limited authority), fiscal conservatives, and a more restrained foreign policy (again more of a limited government with limited authority model) in order to win elections.

[ChamberedRound]

While I share the sentiment of most here, this is exactly why polls SUCK:

The Republican sample was 211 registered Republicans, with a margin of error of 6.7 percentage points.

I mean, come on. How can anyone, or any group, make a reasonable prediction of how Specter would fare in a statewide Republican primary based on 211 people? And these pollsters like Quinnipiac, Gallup, etc. complain about web-polls not being scientific?

I like what I'm hearing form the article, but that doesn't mean we should blindly believe it. IMHO, this poll is far away from being able to claim that Specter is in trouble.

[adymond]

While I share the sentiment of most here, this is exactly why polls SUCK:



I mean, come on. How can anyone, or any group, make a reasonable prediction of how Specter would fare in a statewide Republican primary based on 211 people? And these pollsters like Quinnipiac, Gallup, etc. complain about web-polls not being scientific?

I like what I'm hearing form the article, but that doesn't mean we should blindly believe it. IMHO, this poll is far away from being able to claim that Specter is in trouble.

Poll results are a product that is sold to a consumer. In an effort to continue selling those results they can twist the questions to produce answers that will stir public interest and cause a debate that will necesitate further polling.

[jmanzini]

While I share the sentiment of most here, this is exactly why polls SUCK:



I mean, come on. How can anyone, or any group, make a reasonable prediction of how Specter would fare in a statewide Republican primary based on 211 people? And these pollsters like Quinnipiac, Gallup, etc. complain about web-polls not being scientific?

I like what I'm hearing form the article, but that doesn't mean we should blindly believe it. IMHO, this poll is far away from being able to claim that Specter is in trouble.

I agree. Plus, when people see numbers showing their candidate either ahead or behind they assume the election is a slam dunk and they don't vote.