Should Obama's grassroots group be working for Arlen Specter over more progressive Sestak?

[yurbud]

Even ABC got it right in their first paragraph:

Organizing for America, the former grass-roots campaign arm for President Obama’s 2008 campaign, is trying to rally supporters to phone bank and get out the vote in Pennsylvania for Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Penn., the former Republican locked in a tight primary race with a far more progressive Democrat, Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Penn.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/president-obamas-campaign-arm-tries-to-get-grassroots-democrats-to-defeat-fellow-progressive.html">full text

This reminds me a bit of the DC establishment backing corporate troll Joe Lieberman over the insurgent progessive Ned Lamont.

I guess if Specter loses the primary, they will back him in the general election too.


Since this is Obama's group, I suppose the only influence we have over it is to NOT give them money.

In the big picture, we need to figure out a way to squeeze the balls of the DCCC, DSCC, and the DNC so they don't give money to the more corporate compliant candidate in every race, or as when Rahm was in charge of the DCCC, go out of their way to RECRUIT corporate compliant candidates.

We need more choices in elections than corporate and corporater.

And I'm sick of candidates selling themselves by saying, ''I might be screwing you, but the GOP will do it without lube."

But back to the immediate question, should Obama be backing Specter over Sestak?

[customerserviceguy]

1. Will Specter be able to run as an independent?

And if so, is there any way in hell that President Obama or his organizations would officially back him should he decide to run that way?

[DrToast]

9. No

You can't do declare independent after you lose a primary in PA.

[O is 44]

2. For all those upset about a sitting President

supporting the incumbent I ask this...how many calls have you made on Sestak's behalf this weekend? Turn your anger into action it can and will make a difference.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. Making phone calls all weekend. Took Friday off to make calls. Driving from Maryland to

Philly--over two hours--to GOTV on Tuesday. I took off from work to do my good need and help a neighbor out. ;)

[guruoo]

3. ROTFLMAO!

'A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning.<1> The term is also sometimes used inaccurately to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants,<2> and is illegal in New Hampshire.<3>'

...
'Political consultant Lee Atwater was also well known for using push-polling among his aggressive campaign tactics. In 2008, Jewish voters in Florida and Pittsburgh were targeted by a push poll attempting to disparage Barack Obama by linking him with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The Jewish Council for Education & Research, an organization that has endorsed Obama, denounced the push-poll as misinformation and lies.<5><6>'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll


**I'm not quite yet up to speed on this race, so for now all I can say is, IMHO, If Sestak has a better then 50-50 chance of beating Specter, then the Dem establishment should be putting their support behind him.

[pinto]

4. I support Democrats, especially PA Democrats, supporting the candidate they feel will represent

their interests effectively, then coalescing around the eventual candidate in the general election.

Sestak seems to be gaining ground in the polling, fwiw. (I'm not a big fan of polls, but they get a lot of press.) I, for one, would vote for Sestak. My choice, were I a PA resident.

To your question - I think it's fairly routine for the party to support an incumbent for all the obvious electoral reasons. Name recognition, previous statewide victories, existing organizational structures, etc. etc.

To your other points - there is a choice in the primary. It's Sestak v Specter in the Dem primary. You have a vote, you have a voice, you have a local/statewide organization involved in the primary.

(asides) If Specter loses the primary are there any indications that he'd run as an (I)? Does PA have cross over voting?

[yurbud]

5. I don't know if he would, my point was that DC pols seem to back whoever is more corporate compliant

period.

[yurbud]

6. you miss the point when you say it is routine. They are putting a thumb on the scale

and making it tougher for the challenger to overcome the incumbents advantage, and it seems to happen most with corporate incumbents and progressive challengers, especially when the DLC has anything to say about it.

Democratic voters would prefer to vote for actual Democrats, and on major issues, polls have shown that independents would too, even on supposedly radical ideas like the public option for health care reform, that ''centrists'' killed.

[pinto]

11. I don't think so, it is routine. "Thumb on the scale". You mean financing, no?

That's a problem. And a solution. Always two sides of the same coin, no pun intended.

House races can get turned on a shoestring sometimes. Senate races, not so much.

If - "Democratic voters would prefer to vote for actual Democrats, and on major issues, polls have shown that independents would too, even on supposedly radical ideas like the public option for health care reform, that ''centrists'' killed." - holds true in your state, then that's the message to get out to voters.

I'd drop the slam "actual Democrats" and "centrists", strategically, but otherwise think it's a good selling point.

:kick:

[yurbud]

27. I use centrists only because that's what they call themselves. What labels would be better?

[AlinPA]

21. PA has a "sore loser law", so Specter can't run as an Independent in November. nt

[freddie mertz]

7. Obviously not.

OFA is a disgrace and folks who care about democracy should demand a refund.

[DrToast]

8. Yes, he should be backing Specter

Good luck passing health care reform without Specter's vote.

[guruoo]

10. Good point.

[TheKentuckian]

12. Yeah, but its the grassroots fault for participating

Where was the unleashing of the grassroots for drug re-importation, the public option, breaking up the big banks, and on and on?

A thanks but no thanks is in order along with we'll be here when you're ready to work for real solutions to crushing problems and when you want to support candidates that are serious about doing the people's business, instead of calling for the calvary for lame ass political moves and to advance a conservative agenda, not a Reich reactionary or radical regressive agenda but nonetheless a conservative one.

Bob Dole and Poppy weren't in my zone in their time and I haven't warmed to their politics and agenda over the years. Take away the stimulus and we're very close on policy and the stimulus wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the severity of the economic situation. Give Poppy or Dole a similar crisis and they'd probably do a similar stimulus that would be structured in a similar fashion.

Just because the cons went super batshit doesn't mean batshit is now conservative and that an Anthony Kennedy (arch conservative) is a moderate.

Of course grassroots means a mass of individuals so they can work for whatever and whoever they care to but that doesn't mean it's not stupid, suckerish, and even maybe counter-productive to their goals.

[VMI Dem]

13. Yes. Ideologically, Specter is closer to Obama than Sestak.

[Schema Thing]

14. if he told Specter he would campaign and use OFA, then yes, he should

..do what he said he'd do.



Doesn't mean Sestak isn't welcome to ask me for my help too.

[hollowdweller]

15. When Obama refers to "Washington" in a negative way.

And then supports candidates that are part of the establishment, even when they have voted against his supposed principles I think it undermines his message of change and shows he is more interested in preserving the status quo with a few changes around the edges rather than being a real reformer.

Some states are more conservative than others and in my opinion a conservative democrat that will even vote with us once on some issue is better than a republican you can count on for a reliable NO but I don't think the president has any business supporting the Washington Establishment candidates.

We really DO need a viable third party in this country.

[jillan]

16. I don't understand why everyone has their panties in a wad over this. Think about why Obama and

Biden are doing this for Specter.

They talked him into becoming a Democrat and secured his vote to pass healthcare - without Specter's vote - there would have been NO HCR, or Stimulus. Obama's major accomplishments would be a big fat ZERO.

Specter helped them, now they are helping Specter.

And - I imagine that Obama and Biden could care less which one wins, as long as that seat is retained by a Democrat.

[TheKentuckian]

17. He became a Democrat ONLY and I mean ONLY because

he couldn't beat Toomey. He wasn't talked into anything but because they wanted that vote the deal was sweetened (stimulus had already passed with two other puke votes to water it down).

[high density]

18. The party supports incumbents

OFA is the party, which Obama controls. It will support the incumbent. Should it always do that? Probably not, but what test do you then use to determine which incumbents are supported and which are left to flap in the wind?

[Jennicut]

19. Obama has supported Bennett, Lincoln, Specter, etc. because they are the incumbent Senators.

I see nothing wrong with that. All Presidents have backed certain candidates in primaries but Obama seems only to be backing whomever the incumbent is. I fail to see the problem with it. Don't vote for Specter then. I respect Obama and approve of him as President but his endorsement would not make me vote for Specter. I would vote for who I wanted in PA. I would vote for Sestak.

In 2006, Obama and many Dems backed Lieberman. I didn't care. I voted for Lamont. Lamont lost not because anyone endorsed or backed Loserman but because Dems in CT still had loyal feelings to old Joe due to things like his fighting for subs in Groton. It was more complex then people ever wanted to look into.

[IndianaGreen]

25. All of those are conservadems

They are the same scum that vote in favour of the corporations over the needs of the voters that elected them.

[AlinPA]

20. If Specter wins the primary, it would seem strange voting for him after over 25 years

of voting against him. So I'd be voting against Toomey, not "for" Specter. Joe Sestak gets my vote tomorrow so that I won't have that feeling in November.

[pundaint]

22. I must completely disagree, I see no testicular evidence on the part of the DNC.

The rest was just fine.

[JI7]

23. nobody is stopping you from supporting Sestak

but it seems like you care more about going after Obama than actually helping Sestak win.

Lieberman lost the primary to Lamont.

[IndianaGreen]

24. This merely shows the American people how corrupt Washington really is

Having the Beltway politicos throw their weight around in order to subvert a primary and get one of their boys the win, validates the perception that Washington is corrupt and out of touch.

[Jennicut]

28. Yes, it has only been going on since the 1930's that Presidents

have interfered in primaries (or simply backed the incumbents in the race). In fact, FDR interfered many times. Why anyone is in shock over that just makes me laugh. I bet other Presidents before him were involved in primaries as well.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Who says Sestak is more progressive?

These people are pretty much all opportunists first and foremost and frankly I don't see a bit of difference. I support Sestak, though, because I think he's more electable at this point.