A question, vis-a-vis the Specter loss.

[MadHound]

I've seen multiple posts claiming that the Sestak win, the Specter loss is somehow a win for Obama, despite the fact that the man Obama had supported early and often actually lost.

My question is would you also be claiming it as victory for Obama if Specter had won? Be honest with yourself. Yup, you know darn well you would be claiming it as an Obama victory.

Which leaves this point, you simply can't have it both ways.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

1. specter got half hearted support from the establishment

[MadHound]

2. True that, but that's not the point,

Since Obama did support Specter in some way, shape or form, a Specter victory would have been seen as an Obama victory by the very same people who are now claiming that a Specter loss was an Obama victory.

[Drunken Irishman]

3. It would have been a temporary victory for Obama...

However, your question is faulty because it suggests Pres. Obama really wanted Specter to win. If he did, he would've gone to Pennsylvania and gone balls out in campaigning for the guy. He didn't.

Obama got Specter to switch parties at a very important moment. That switch not only helped set the perception that the Republicans were pinching out the moderate wing, it helped establish another Democratic vote. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know a lick of anything and should probably just keep quiet on the matter.

With that said, and this is the point you're forgetting, Sestak is a better DEMOCRAT than Specter. I'm sure even Pres. Obama knew this. So, unless you subscribe to nonsensical logic, you'd guess he probably, ultimately, wanted Sestak to win when it became clear the race was not going to be a runaway win for Specter.

Now granted, Obama probably thought Specter would walk to victory in the primary, beat Toomey in the general and sustain the seat. But he couldn't turn around, just days after getting Specter to switch, and tell him he wasn't going to back him after, most likely, he had promised the WH's backing if he were to switch.

What happened was that because of Pres. Obama and VP Biden getting Specter to switch, the Republicans lost a seat and the Democrats gained one for not just a month or two - but nearly two years. That is very important and can't be downplayed.

Now ultimately, the perfect scenario for Obama worked out. Not only did he get Specter to vote with him on nearly every important issue, he got rid of a potential threat down the line. There was no evidence to suggest that Specter wouldn't ditch the Democratic Party in 2011 after winning in November. Or maybe he stays with the Democrats, but decides to vote more with the Republicans than he did in 2009 and 2010. In that regard, Obama would've lost.

So to sum it up:

Obama got Specter, an important moderate Republican, to switch. That provided the Democrats another vote in the Senate and as we've seen, they nearly needed every vote in the healthcare debate. The fact Specter as a D instead of an R could have been the difference between healthcare passing or failing makes this a win regardless for Obama (and let's not fool ourselves, had Specter never ditched the GOP, he would've ran to the far-right to beat Toomey in the primary).

Specter, who has shown to be a fickle supporter of both parties and is most certainly less reliable than Sestak, loses in the primary. Thus giving the Democrats a legitimate Democrat in the general and a chance to bring to the Senate a Democrat who, on most issues, will probably align more with the party than maybe Specter ever would have.

How is that not a win-win? Because the candidate Obama tepidly backed lost?

Please.

[MadHound]

4. Answer honest, answer true,

Would you have touted a Specter win as an Obama win?

[Drunken Irishman]

5. I just told you!

Did you not read anything I said? It would've been a temporary win for Obama. It could ultimately have turned out to be a loss, however, if in November he lost or turned around and left the Democratic Party in 2011. Maybe he would've stayed with the Democrats, yet voted more with Republicans.

Sestak doesn't have any of that baggage. It's likely he'll win in November. It's likely he won't ever leave the Democratic Party. Most importantly, it's likely he'll vote with the Democrats on nearly every key issue.

Now logic isn't hard here, MadHound.

The opposite of a win is a loss. If you're considering Obama didn't win here, you're suggesting he lost. Well what did he lose? He certainly didn't lose a reliable Democratic vote in the senate.

So yeah, I believe had Specter won, it would've been a short term win for Obama. But it's also a win that holds far more doubt than Sestak winning because Specter has a history of being anything but a reliable Democrat.

In my mind, that's a win. That's the honest answer.

[DesertFlower]

6. i think it's a victory for the people

of pennsylvania.

[metapunditedgy]

7. Perhaps it was a win-win situation for Obama?

Sometimes that happens in politics, you know.

[old mark]

8. The administration reportedly offerred Sestak a job in DC if he dropped out.

They guaranteed Specter support and the backing of the Party and the PA Democratic party (via Ed Rendell, PA governor). He had everything he wanted till the last weeks.

Sestak ran his own campaign, on a budget of $4 million. He ran ONE statewide ad campaign beginning in the last month, all he could afford. It worked very well.
Specter ASKED OBAMA to come to PA last week, but was turned down because the race got too close to call.

People just got tired of being told who they had to vote for, even by Obama and his "liberals".

Please see my post on the NYT article (in GD) on Sestak - on how the White House now likes him...after he won.

mark

[FrenchieCat]

9. If you left politics out of what you wrote,

it would make sense.

The fact of not counting the 2 years worth of crucial "D" Specter votes,
who still, at this time, will be in the Senate until January,
makes your analysis less than useful.

Yes, Sestak technically ran against Washington, no doubt....
and the WH probably didn't think he would win initially.....
but if the question is did Obama gain or lose from the entire situation?
the answer is yes, Obama won/won, period....regardless of how it might look on its face,
sans political analysis.