Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: retrospooty

A week? Its been going at least 3 years... have you SEEN the alst 2 elections? Its still going strong with Obama's approval ratings through the roof and even the direction of the country polls going way up.

LOL

Meanwhile, back in Reality...

His 100 day approval rating is 63% That's 1% higher than Bush 2001, even with Carter, lower than Reagan, and Higher than Bush 1 and Clinton. So all in all, about average in historical context. He does have the second highest disapproval rating, right under Clinton, for what it's worth.

Shh...facts and reality do not apply here!

Bash Bush or get out!

Also worth noting is that the divide between people who approve of Obama and the people who disapprove is the largest gap in history for a president. Bi-partisan indeed!

:laugh:

Was the electorate more or less partisan 25 years ago? As in all things, context is relevant.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: retrospooty

A week? Its been going at least 3 years... have you SEEN the alst 2 elections? Its still going strong with Obama's approval ratings through the roof and even the direction of the country polls going way up.

LOL

Meanwhile, back in Reality...

His 100 day approval rating is 63% That's 1% higher than Bush 2001, even with Carter, lower than Reagan, and Higher than Bush 1 and Clinton. So all in all, about average in historical context. He does have the second highest disapproval rating, right under Clinton, for what it's worth.

Shh...facts and reality do not apply here!

Bash Bush or get out!

Also worth noting is that the divide between people who approve of Obama and the people who disapprove is the largest gap in history for a president. Bi-partisan indeed!

:laugh:

Thats because the far right really can't stand having a bla-, ahem, one of them in the Whitehouse. When the people who disapprove of the president simply because he exists, there is no reason at all to care what they think.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: jonks

As to this "fact", I'm assuming it's based on Pew Research's finding that 88% of democrats approve of Obama's job performance while only 27% of Republicans approve. That might look divisive at first glance, until you recognize that only 21% of the country self-identifies as Republican. So for past presidents, when the Rep party actually had some moderates, the overall Rep approval numbers were higher. So any poll today that takes a look at Dems vs Reps, the Reps in question are the most hardline rightwingers in the country. Any self respecting republican has fled the party to become Independent, or worse, democrat! I know, facts are pesky little critters.

Yeah, facts do get in the way. Why don't you throw us some facts to back up your numbers there?

As a heads up, I already know how wrong your numbers are, so I can't wait to see what facts you will create to justify them.

And while you are at it, why don't you post the facts that show how intellectually dishonest your argument would be if those numbers *were* correct.

Ok.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2...ting-reaches-new-high/

That poll showed that Obama had the most polarized poll results of any president in forty years with 88 percent of Democrats viewing his performance favorable and just 27 percent of Republicans agreeing.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...-polls/21-percent.html

The new Washington Post/ABC news poll has all sorts of intriguing numbers in it but when you are looking for clues as to where the two parties stand politically there is only one number to remember: 21.

That's the percent of people in the Post/ABC survey who identified themselves as Republicans, down from 25 percent in a late March poll and at the lowest ebb in this poll since the fall of 1983(!).

In that same poll, 35 percent self-identified as Democrats and 38 percent called them Independents.

giyf

(so how wrong are my numbers?)

You are using the ancillary results of one poll to make a point about a completely different poll, from a different organization. You talk about Pew research statistics, why don't you use their own numbers?

Or why not voter registration? Or how about a poll specifically about what party people are?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

April 20-21, 27% considered themselves Republicans, and 36% Democrat. Want to play more games? A week and a half before that, 24% were Republican, and 35% Democrat. Looks like the Republicans are gaining support at an alarming rate!

See how dishonest that is? That's the same game that you are playing, and the same game that every other reporter is playing. If you are going to use statistics like this to prove a point, you can't pick and choose bits and pieces from here or there to use with others... one poll, one result, one specific point.

 

[FuzzyBee]

What's amazing is the number of people here that are cheering or booing just because of the capitalized letter after the person's name. Sad state that we're in these days whe party affiliation is all you can count on from a candidate.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: loki8481
anyone remember in 2001 when Specter tried to pass a rule forbidding senators from changing parties mid-session?

Remember when Specter vowed not to change parties because he believed in a two party system that separated power... just six weeks ago?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
What's amazing is the number of people here that are cheering or booing just because of the capitalized letter after the person's name. Sad state that we're in these days whe party affiliation is all you can count on from a candidate.

They are probably doing that because it means a lot more for policy implementation than changing Arlen Specter's letterhead.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: jonks
Ok.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2...ting-reaches-new-high/

That poll showed that Obama had the most polarized poll results of any president in forty years with 88 percent of Democrats viewing his performance favorable and just 27 percent of Republicans agreeing.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...-polls/21-percent.html

You are using the ancillary results of one poll to make a point about a completely different poll, from a different organization. You talk about Pew research statistics, why don't you use their own numbers?

Or why not voter registration? Or how about a poll specifically about what party people are?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

April 20-21, 27% considered themselves Republicans, and 36% Democrat. Want to play more games? A week and a half before that, 24% were Republican, and 35% Democrat. Looks like the Republicans are gaining support at an alarming rate!

See how dishonest that is? That's the same game that you are playing, and the same game that every other reporter is playing. If you are going to use statistics like this to prove a point, you can't pick and choose bits and pieces from here or there to use with others... one poll, one result, one specific point.

There's nothing ancillary about the numbers, those are the numbers resulting from a question in a poll asking "what party are you?" How are answers to the question "do you approve/disapprove of Obama" more trustworthy than "do you consider yourself a rep/dem/ind"? An answer is an answer. Why does it matter what the focus of the poll is? It's a simple question.

The numbers I cited are entirely accurate, you simply disagree with the weight accorded a particular polling result at a particular time and prefer only looking at polling trends, which is fair, but that 21 number just hit is identified as the lowest polling point in 25 years, which I judge significant, exact numbers aside.

Nate is more articulate than me on this point:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...trongly-differ-on.html

Obama and Bush had roughly the same level of support among members of their own party (88 percent for Obama, 87 percent for Bush) and roughly the same level of support among unaffiliated voters (57 percent for Obama, 56 for Bush). Bush, however, had more support from the opposition party (36 percent of Democrats versus 27 percent of Republicans). And yet Obama, not Bush, had the higher overall approval rating, because Democrats are a significantly larger constituency than Republicans.
A more telling measure might be to see a breakdown in support by voters who identify themselves as conservative, moderate or liberal. These categories are somewhat fluid too -- but less so than partisan ID.

Bolded is my main point. If Reps are at a self-identifying low, pared down to their base, then citing to their malcontent with the opposing party leader as evidence the president is the "most divisever evar!" is disingenuous when their percentage of the electorate is in a trough.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
What's amazing is the number of people here that are cheering or booing just because of the capitalized letter after the person's name. Sad state that we're in these days whe party affiliation is all you can count on from a candidate.

They are probably doing that because it means a lot more for policy implementation than changing Arlen Specter's letterhead.

If that's the case - if Specter is going to vote differently because of the letter after his name - he really needs to show some backbone and call for a special election. After all, if he votes in a certain capacity for a long period of time and he receives votes based on that record, and is then re-elected based on that history, his electorate aren't getting what they voted for.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
What's amazing is the number of people here that are cheering or booing just because of the capitalized letter after the person's name. Sad state that we're in these days whe party affiliation is all you can count on from a candidate.

They are probably doing that because it means a lot more for policy implementation than changing Arlen Specter's letterhead.

If that's the case - if Specter is going to vote differently because of the letter after his name - he really needs to show some backbone and call for a special election. After all, if he votes in a certain capacity for a long period of time and he receives votes based on that record, and is then re-elected based on that history, his electorate aren't getting what they voted for.

You think that being the member of a caucus doesn't influence how those members vote? The entire incentive structure is changed for a member of the majority vs. the minority, along with the ability to get far more of his priorities put into bills. If our representatives weren't bargaining with all the power at their disposal to get their priorities passed, THEN we should have a special election. Now that Specter has different things at his disposal, you can expect policy he influences to be formulated differently.

 

[trooper11]

wow alot of crap going on in this thread. Everything from democrats elated at the 'death' of the republican party to Craig234 basically saying Democrats do no wrong and his assumption that republicans dont know their own ideals. Its obvious that very few people here believe in bipartisanship becuase they feel thier party is the answer. Oh they will spin it with words like thats becuase their party is correct or the otehr party is incorrect, blah blah blah. I think the point is that bipartisanship doesnt work on major issues becuase the two parties will always have some striking difference in opinion (and thats as it should be). To some bipartisanship is just another word for agreeing with the other side, which is equally meaningless.



As far as Spector himself, Im indifferent on the move. I cant say I was a big fan, but after hearing his reasons for leaving, I cant help but feel he is being very disingenuous. Leaving just to win an election seems low to me, no matter what party your coming from. Im sure those who voted him into office didnt vote him in just so he could change parties when the polls didnt turn in his favor.


As far as how this affects the republican party, I really dont see how things were going to get better with Spector around. We need to revitalize our party at the top. that means alot of these old stand bys really need to step aside as the new generation pushes the message we use to have voiced in the government. Things will get worse before they get better and this probably isnt the last republican leader to either lose re-election, or switch parties. What the hope is here is that what comes out of the this is a leaner party with a more focused agenda that better relates to the majority of people in this country.


The last election should be an important lesson for GOP leaders. McCain tried his best to run a moderate campaign and yet Obama easily swept him on such matters. The answer isnt to emulate your opponent, its to differentiate yourself by offering up sensible plans to deal with what concerns a majority of americans. Sure there will be issues where you may agree with your opponent, but I dont agree that we should blindly follow polls to dictate what values a candidate should push. We do have a sensible message, it just hasnt been told in the right way for a long time. Just look at the blatant insults from some of those on this very board. those that like to label all republicans as racists, bigots, homophobes, etc, when that couldnt be further from the truth (sterotyping another group of people makes you no better then those you accuse). We need a leader that can articulate points like that and come up with the smart policies that make this country work and prosper.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: trooper11

The last election should be an important lesson for GOP leaders. McCain tried his best to run a moderate campaign and yet Obama easily swept him on such matters. The answer isnt to emulate your opponent, its to differentiate yourself by offering up sensible plans to deal with what concerns a majority of americans. Sure there will be issues where you may agree with your opponent, but I dont agree that we should blindly follow polls to dictate what values a candidate should push. We do have a sensible message, it just hasnt been told in the right way for a long time. Just look at the blatant insults from some of those on this very board. those that like to label all republicans as racists, bigots, homophobes, etc, when that couldnt be further from the truth (sterotyping another group of people makes you no better then those you accuse). We need a leader that can articulate points like that and come up with the smart policies that make this country work and prosper.

I think you are taking precisely the wrong lesson from the last election. Republicans nominated McCain because he was the only one who even had a chance at beating Obama or Hillary. Had they nominated someone even more conservative it would have been even more of a slaughter.

The GOP has an economic message that can and will resonate with enough voters that they can stop losing all these elections in a few years when people are ready to believe them again. A lot of their social positions are dead end losers though. I guess we'll see how that fight within the party goes.

 

[miketheidiot]

anyone else think there might be more following in his footsteps?

 

[theeedude]

There is no reason for a special election. He's entitled to change his opinion on how he votes and which party he belongs to. In US we vote for a man, not a party.
Also, it is PA Republicans who decided they did not want him as a Republican Senator. He obliged. I guess they haven't heard that beggars can't be choosers.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: trooper11

The last election should be an important lesson for GOP leaders. McCain tried his best to run a moderate campaign and yet Obama easily swept him on such matters. The answer isnt to emulate your opponent, its to differentiate yourself by offering up sensible plans to deal with what concerns a majority of americans. Sure there will be issues where you may agree with your opponent, but I dont agree that we should blindly follow polls to dictate what values a candidate should push. We do have a sensible message, it just hasnt been told in the right way for a long time. Just look at the blatant insults from some of those on this very board. those that like to label all republicans as racists, bigots, homophobes, etc, when that couldnt be further from the truth (sterotyping another group of people makes you no better then those you accuse). We need a leader that can articulate points like that and come up with the smart policies that make this country work and prosper.

I think you are taking precisely the wrong lesson from the last election. Republicans nominated McCain because he was the only one who even had a chance at beating Obama or Hillary. Had they nominated someone even more conservative it would have been even more of a slaughter.

The GOP has an economic message that can and will resonate with enough voters that they can stop losing all these elections in a few years when people are ready to believe them again. A lot of their social positions are dead end losers though. I guess we'll see how that fight within the party goes.

Which is what kills them with the younger demographics ....

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp
In US we vote for a man, not a party.

Ideally, yes. Realistically, no.

Party affiliation should be removed from ballots.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyone else think there might be more following in his footsteps?

Unlikely. Specter's position was pretty unique due to PA's election laws. I'm not up on Maine's electoral system but unless Snowe or Collins is faced with a no win situation like he was, I doubt they are going anywhere.

 

[Lemon law]

Trooper11 made some sense until he said, " We need a leader that can articulate points like that and come up with the smart policies that make this country work and prosper."

Which is exactly why the GOP lost big in the election of 2006 and 2008, they lock step stuck with a GWB who did everything but make this country work and prosper.

And that is the GOP dilemma in a nutshell, they got exactly what they had been bellying aching for for the past 50 years with GWB, the GOP tried the experiment in the real world, and discovered that what the GOP wanted and advocated, and having the country work and prosper are two mutually exclusive things.

When that is the result, you can have either GOP rule but not prosperity, or democratic rule and prosperity, it does present a problem for the GOP.

 

[theeedude]

If you monitor free republic, they seem to be happy and want Snowe to go next
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2240115/posts
This would be mildly interesting if it was just a fringe element, but this is the base.
Republicans are in a downward spiral. They have used wedge issues and other red meat to radicalize their base, which then put pressure on moderates. The more moderates they lose, the more rightwing the remainder of the party is, which results in losing even more moderates.
Their prospects are pretty grim going forward unless someone hijacks the party from the base and takes it to the center where elections are won.

 

[imported_Lothar]

So besides Snowe and Collins, who are the other moderate republicans left?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Lothar
So besides Snowe and Collins, who are the other moderate republicans left?

well Larry Craig left in january...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If you monitor free republic, they seem to be happy and want Snowe to go next
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2240115/posts
This would be mildly interesting if it was just a fringe element, but this is the base.
Republicans are in a downward spiral. They have used wedge issues and other red meat to radicalize their base, which then put pressure on moderates. The more moderates they lose, the more rightwing the remainder of the party is, which results in losing even more moderates.
Their prospects are pretty grim going forward unless someone hijacks the party from the base and takes it to the center where elections are won.

Freepers are very very much the lunatic fringe. That's why I love going to that site so much every time a court strikes down a gay marriage ban, or kicks creationism out of the schools, whatever. The comments in there are pricelessly insane.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If you monitor free republic, they seem to be happy and want Snowe to go next
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2240115/posts
This would be mildly interesting if it was just a fringe element, but this is the base.
Republicans are in a downward spiral. They have used wedge issues and other red meat to radicalize their base, which then put pressure on moderates. The more moderates they lose, the more rightwing the remainder of the party is, which results in losing even more moderates.
Their prospects are pretty grim going forward unless someone hijacks the party from the base and takes it to the center where elections are won.

:roll: Because 1994 was "won" from "the center"...

You leftists are hilarious - when W was in office, history started with him, now it seem that history starts from 2006 with you morons.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp
If you monitor free republic, they seem to be happy and want Snowe to go next
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2240115/posts
This would be mildly interesting if it was just a fringe element, but this is the base.
Republicans are in a downward spiral. They have used wedge issues and other red meat to radicalize their base, which then put pressure on moderates. The more moderates they lose, the more rightwing the remainder of the party is, which results in losing even more moderates.
Their prospects are pretty grim going forward unless someone hijacks the party from the base and takes it to the center where elections are won.

:roll: Because 1994 was "won" from "the center"...

You leftists are hilarious - when W was in office, history started with him, now it seem that history starts from 2006 with you morons.

1994 also wasn't won from the lunatic fringe, and moderate Republicans like Arlen Specter played a big part in it.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: senseamp
In US we vote for a man, not a party.

Why, then, is party affiliation listed?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp
If you monitor free republic, they seem to be happy and want Snowe to go next
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2240115/posts
This would be mildly interesting if it was just a fringe element, but this is the base.
Republicans are in a downward spiral. They have used wedge issues and other red meat to radicalize their base, which then put pressure on moderates. The more moderates they lose, the more rightwing the remainder of the party is, which results in losing even more moderates.
Their prospects are pretty grim going forward unless someone hijacks the party from the base and takes it to the center where elections are won.

:roll: Because 1994 was "won" from "the center"...

You leftists are hilarious - when W was in office, history started with him, now it seem that history starts from 2006 with you morons.

1994 also wasn't won from the lunatic fringe, and moderate Republicans like Arlen Specter played a big part in it.

Oh really? Wasn't that RINO from the old school - meaning elected back in the early 80s?

The 1994 sweep by the Rs was not a "moderate" or "centrist" move, it was a solid R election. A few "moderates"(grahmnesty being one) and a few a good bit right of average for the R party at the time but overall it was a solid R sweep that included Governorships, state elections, and even mayoral wins.

So again, you libs are out of touch if you really think that the R party can only win if it moves leftward. There is no reason to move further left, it's been a losing proposition since the '94 sweep. Time to regain a solid backbone like '94 not become slimey "middle" "moderates".