We lose nothing by gaining Specter

[Clintonista2]

I don't see why people are actually complaining about Specter. It's not like we're losing anything by him joining. Even if he votes exactly as he's always voted (which is doubtful), it still demoralizes the other side. It also means that in 2010 they'll be spending way more money in Penn than they normally do, which for the cash strapped GOP will not be pleasant.

[LakeSamish706]

1. I agree with you, no matter how you slice it, it is a win for our side. n/t

[closeupready]

2. Yep.

n/t

[DrToast]

3. They're going to write off PA now...

They have no shot.

[BeyondGeography]

5. And we can spend money elsewhere

[MadBadger]

4. We dont lose anyting in 2009

But not replacing him in 2010 is what is pissing me off

[blueclown]

6. Of course we lose something.

We get another Ben Nelson in a state where we could get an Alyson Schwartz.

I hope he is primaried.

[Beetwasher]

9. Not Necessarily True, If We Primary Specter, We Face A Three Way Race

Because Specter will almost surely run indy at that point. In that case, we could very well see Toomey picking up that seat.

Specter better serves us as a Dem and open to OUR influence and leverage as a member of our party.

This is a guaranteed Dem seat w/ Specter as the Dem. W/ Specter as an Indy, it's not guaranteed.

[blueclown]

10. Wrong.

Pennsylvania has a sore loser law. If Specter loses in the Democratic Primary, he cannot run as an independent.

[Beetwasher]

14. Really?

I didn't know that. Interesting.

It doesn't matter anyway actually, Obama Is VERY Popular, It Is In Specter's BEST INTEREST As A Dem To SUPPORT Obama. Every one needs to remember that. Obama's popularity plays a role in how Specter will behave in the Senate. He risks a lot by going against Obama's POPULAR agenda and mandate and EVEN MORESO now that he's a Dem.

[Cha]

15. Part of the deal was for Specter not to

have a primary opponent..at least that's what I read.

[blueclown]

20. I havenot heard anything official about that.

[SpartanDem]

7. This is definitely a win

[SpartanDem]

8. nt

[HopeOverFear]

11. We could lose Franken

Coleman's got more incentive to keep fighting now.

[Clintonista2]

13. Coleman would have kept fighting regardless

[HopeOverFear]

17. We can speculate, but we don't know for sure

who knows, he might have been starting to cave into the pressure to concede. There's no chance of that now. Not unless a judge with some common sense somewhere along the line cuts his ass off and tells him to stop.

[vaberella]

16. I couldn't agree more. I'm a bit concerned about that and...

I have some issues with what I've heard on the people who are part of the USSC...and that kills me. Because we could lose Franken here..and for no reason since we did WIN!!

[K Gardner]

12. Best post headline of the hour. You're exactly right. There is NO downside to this.

[RoadRage]

18. I know most here won't agree..

but having a few moderate Dem's actually helps our party in the long run. Look what happend to the Republicans when they ran to the far right.. they went from total control to NO control in 8 years.

If we do the same thing on the left... we can expect the same results.

I know many on DU don't live in the middle (frankly, I really don't either on all issues).. but most of this COUNTRY does. If we have the Blue Dogs keeping us grounded on some issues.. we actually might be better for it in the long run.

I know it doesn't seem like that to many of you here - but to those off of DU who don't eat, sleep & breath politics - guys like him are who are most liked & respected.

And I know.. I live in Nebraska.. the Ben Nelson's of the world are admired in some parts of the country.

[Arkansas Granny]

25. I think you are right on the money about the positive side of having a few

moderate Dems. I don't have any data at hand, but I have seen many polls that indicate that the majority of the population in in the middle. I realize that I'm less progressive than many, if not most, on this board and I appreciate the balance that some of the more moderate legislators give our party. I've always felt that Specter was more in tune with Dems on a number of subjects (choice being one of them) and I've wondered what kept him in the Repub party.

[NYC_SKP]

19. But it's more fun to panic, and drama is just comes more naturally to some of us.

:rofl:

[tomp]

21. what do we gain?

besides the obvious confirmation that R=D, which is a good thing.

[krawhitham]

22. Since we will treat him as a 29 year Dem

what committee Chairman seats do we lose to him?

[cwcwmack]

23. means we'll see a new pub candidate in '10...

Swann again? Santorum?

[salguine]

24. What no one seems to be taking into account is that in order for the Democrats

to have this "filibuster-proof majority" they say it will give them, they're taking it for granted that Specter will automatically vote with the Democrats in any given situation. You know the old joke about what happens when you assume. Specter has a history of not toeing the party line...why should it be any different in this case? I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, but you can't just assume this stuff.

[Lorien]

26. Some people just have to complain no matter what happens

I'm totally baffled by some of the reactions around here. I don't see the downside of having him switch. A gain for us is still a gain. Hell, some Dems have been as conservative as he has for years, yet you don't hear DUers roaring for them to leave the party!