Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sestak sweeps, Critz wins, but what do we really know?

PITTSBURGH – Joe Sestak won the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania by putting together Barack Obama’s 2008 primary vote with Hillary Clinton’s. Incumbent Arlen Specter was confined to his base in Philadelphia, and Philly couldn’t give him nearly the margin he needed.

To get a sense of Sestak’s sweep, consider that he carried all but three of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. He carried Obama strongholds – he got 63 percent in Lancaster County, for example – but also swept through smaller counties in the central and western parts of the state that had supported Clinton. Sestak put together a kind of left-right coalition.

Philadelphia was the one part of Obama’s old coalition that the president’s endorsement (along with that of Gov. Ed Rendell and Mayor Michael Nutter) helped deliver for Specter. The Republican-turned-Democrat won 64 percent of the vote in Philly, but Sestak was winning 57 percent of the vote in the rest of the state – and that number might rise when all the votes are counted.

This suggests that something quite interesting happened here today: Sestak was clearly the candidate of middle class and upper middle class liberals, and he ran a campaign that sought to convey the activist feel of Obama’s ’08 race. But as Sestak suggested in his victory speech tonight, he also profited from being the anti-establishment candidate, and this helped him in a long list of rural and small town counties that are anything but liberal.

Who knows if he can repeat this in November – especially since many of the smaller counties Sestak carried will no doubt vote Republican this fall. But the surge toward Sestak after he ran his ad questioning Specter’s motives in switching to the Democratic Party was quite comprehensive. And the breadth of his victory suggests he could be the sort of coalition-builder a politician needs to be to carry this complicated state.

There’s much more to say, but for now, it’s worth noting that the overall message tonight cannot be summarized as neatly as Washington kept trying to before the polls were closed. True, it was not a great night for incumbents. In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln was forced into a runoff by Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.

But that is hardly a clear sign of what will happen between Republicans and Democrats in November. After all, the Democrats handily won the one partisan race on the ballot today, with Mark Critz defeating Republican Tim Burns for the western Pennsylvania seat left vacant by the death of John Murtha.

In Kentucky, Rand Paul’s sweeping victory is a rebuke for whom exactly? Well, mostly for the Republican establishment, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Tea Party has some strength, but so far, its power has been seen mostly in Republican primaries. Does it really have reach outside the G.O.P.?

There is no obvious sign in any of tonight’s elections that Republican turnout was higher in relative terms than Democratic turnout – though Paul’s vote was fairly impressive. That may mean absolutely nothing this fall, but what we didn’t see is a huge Republican surge that the “enthusiasm gap” registered in many of the polls might have suggested.

By E.J. Dionne  | May 18, 2010; 11:54 PM ET
Categories:  Dionne  | Tags:  E.J. Dionne  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Richard Blumenthal stanches the bleeding
Next: The Democratic purge and the Obama conundrum

Comments

The incumbent push back was part of the loss, but what put Sestak over the top was two other things. The attack on an admiral with 31 years of service backfired and the nay vote for Kagan getting a SCOTUS nomination played into a GOPer in Dem. clothing. I don't agree with conservative districts going to Toomey, PA 12 went Dem. even after McCain won the district. Toomey will be considered as an incumbent vs Sestak.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 19, 2010 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Just to make a small point here, Arlen is 80 years old. No matter how many people love him, fact is, he is too old, regardless of his party affiliation to win And, he didn't;.

Posted by: cms1 | May 19, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

I think Sestak, after he bacame known in the state, appealed to people more and more with his combination of tough average guy with a big heart.
many democrats are also tired of the corporate democrats that took control, the DLC types, in the 90s and want very much for the party to go back to it's FDR roots.
We want a progressive party that stands and fights for us. And stands up and fights the treatchery of the right. Instead of cowing, they need to stand up for what's right.
Instead of cozying up to business they need to get tought with it.
We want real democrats and ones that will not expect Obama to do all the fighting on his own, especially when it's impossible for him to against the house and senate. We need good guys to take the fight to the rightwing in those chambers and help the president.

Posted by: vwcat | May 19, 2010 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Quote "After all, the Democrats handily won the one partisan race on the ballot today, with Mark Critz defeating Republican Tim Burns for the western Pennsylvania seat left vacant by the death of John Murtha."
Here's the most important race of the night, not a primary a real race for a House seat; Big win for America and the Democratic Party!
The GOPers and teabaggers went all out to win this seat, pouring millions into one small district to show the media that the tide is against Democrats. Now they go home with their tails tucked between their legs like whipped dogs. So much for taking back the House. Bring it on!!!!

Posted by: cartercamp | May 19, 2010 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Arlen Specter has a long record of cynical moves designed to appease whatever portion of the electorate he deemed necessary to win a particular election. Switching back to the Democratic Party merely reminded Democrats of that record. Any credible Democrat would have had a good chance of defeating Specter in a primary race.

Posted by: hlabadie | May 19, 2010 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Inadequate analysis by Dionne, a seemingly perennial apologist for most Obama administration policies. Actually Obama's base was in Philadelphia, as usual for Democrats in Pennsylvania.

Sestak won for three reasons: he was an effective campaigner, a majority of Democrats did not trust the highly opportunistic Specter and many of them did not like being dictated to by party leaders, including Obama.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | May 19, 2010 2:48 AM | Report abuse

What we really know is that the Democrats are going to lose a seat on the senate, partly because Obama first talked Sestak into running, then threw his support to Specter and offered Sestak a bribe to quit, which Sestak refused, and then Obama ran away from the mess he had created.

Posted by: suegbic1 | May 19, 2010 3:34 AM | Report abuse

As someone who is actually FROM Pennsylvania, Sestak won because he is a real Democrat. End of story. Good night. Thanks for coming.

Posted by: fishman2 | May 19, 2010 3:44 AM | Report abuse

Specter took a courageous stand against the EFCA by supporting the secret ballot and preventing the worst corrupt behavior of unions bosses and union members from becoming the status quo in the workplace. We are a far better nation for his support that broke the back of the radical EFCA movement. I will always respect him for that.

Posted by: hz9604 | May 19, 2010 6:37 AM | Report abuse

Obama's campaigning record as President remains intact: 0 for 4.

Deeds
Coakley
Spector
City of Chicago (Olympic bid)

Posted by: ahashburn | May 19, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

One problem for Sestak will be his campaign ad in which he enumerated his liberal voting records versus that of Specter's.

Specter lost because he switched parties, not because of his voting record. Nobody outside of Philadelphia trusts him anymore.

One should also remember Sestak is an incumbent Washington office holder seeking higher office. He currently feeds at the public trough collecting military retirement and a congressional salary.

Posted by: michaelp2 | May 19, 2010 6:41 AM | Report abuse

Poor E.J. Since Scott Brown's victory in E.J.'s home state he is resigned to writing whimpering rationalizations as to why any and every election is a plus for the Liberal elites. Yet another lame attempt E.J.

Posted by: hz9604 | May 19, 2010 6:46 AM | Report abuse

E.J. I did talk to a man in his 70s with a picture of himself with Casey hanging on his office wall just hours before the election. He was undecided.

He said that he did did not know about Specter. I said, did you not know Specter stood up to Bush43 on numerous issues which were all about Democracy, separate of powers and abuse of powers ? I think Obama must have gotten a head's up on Bush43 signing statements from Specter & Leahy. Apparently, he did not know that. I saw the advertisements by Sestak inferring Bush43 & Specter were buddy-buddy. But apparently this pillar of the rural Democratic Community was uninformed according to the almighty me.

Oh well, I think hacks are overpaid.

Posted by: truthhurts | May 19, 2010 7:12 AM | Report abuse

Wow. PA goes from a do anything to survive politician to a man with a well deserved reputation in the Navy as being one of the most abusive officers ever to serve. He proved just how far you can get if you are willing to terrorise your staff. Good luck with him.

Posted by: Barnacle-Bill | May 19, 2010 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Another idot article from the idiot in chief at the WaPo. Sestak didn't beat Spector. Spector and Obama beat Spector.

Posted by: jdonner2 | May 19, 2010 7:30 AM | Report abuse

The President of the United States is not a positive factor in Congressional elections for Democrats.

Posted by: bobbo2 | May 19, 2010 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Sestak will have to face his Navy record sometime. Unfortunately, this is a victory for Toomey and the Republicans. I don't blame people for not liking Specter, but Sestak is a mean little man. Toomey will clean his clock.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | May 19, 2010 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Sestak won primarily because Arlen Specter is 80 years old with a recent history of serious illness. That's why I and many of my friends did not vote for him. Sestak's attack ads were a turnoff, but he was the only other choice.

Posted by: ccs53 | May 19, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

I recall 2 elections the past year that attracted national attention and money: n New York and in Pennsylvania. The Republicans went all out to defeat the Democrats, and lost.

I am not a political analyst, but it seems to me that the vocal crowd has so far only succeeded in defeating Republicans in Republican primaries.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | May 19, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

I am suprised specter did as well as he did. Not a single Democrat i talked to anted him. He is an 80 year old reagan republicon and he was running against a young energetic excellent Democrat. In a Democratic primary there really was no contest.

Posted by: John1263 | May 19, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Anyone notice that in the KY Democratic primary BOTH Jack Conway and Daniel Mongiardo outpolled Rand Paul? And that almost 200,000 more Democrats got out and voted in their primary than Republicans? Anyone? Anyone?

Posted by: DontWannaMyPostID | May 19, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Goodbye Specter.

Dirtbag.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Good riddance to Arlen Specter, apologist for Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin, and all the other "greats" the far right has to offer.

Posted by: Justafan | May 19, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Hello, summer, good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?

http://www.needaseller.com

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini)$16

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) $35

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

http://www.needaseller.com

FREE sHIPPING
........♫
....♫
..♪
........♬

...♪......♪

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Posted by: wwterueytiruertuwety | May 19, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Again, Dionne completely misses the point.

Specter lost because he is the following: a very old man whose mental facilities are questionable, a republican for more than 40+ years, and he was running in a democratic primary.

To say that his loss is a confirmation of Obama's agenda is laughable. The real news here is 46% of the people voted for Specter i.e. they didn't jump on the Obama far-left bandwagon.

It will be ugly this fall.

Posted by: asdf9876 | May 19, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Sestak showed how to beat any Republican or former Republican: tie him to George W. Bush.

The media and the Republicans may have forgotten about Bush and may pretend his eight years of disastrous rule never happened, but America remembers and voters do not want to go back!

Posted by: ottoparts | May 19, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

I think the biggest beneficiaries (including Critz) are the Democratic Congress people up for re-election. Sestak's victory ensures that the Democratic base will turn out for him in November-and while voting for him will probably cast a vote for the Democratic Congress person.

Posted by: rds7481 | May 19, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

This is the most nuanced analysis yet of what happened yesterday. While the other pundits are chewing their predigested cuds, Dionne actually untangles all the different strands running through today's political climate and lays them all out neatly.

The electorate is profoundly restless, the GOP purge is well underway, and in order to capitalize on this the Dems must do their utmost to get out the '08 voters again in the Fall.

Posted by: laboo | May 19, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

I think the pennsylvania rubes might be concerned to find out that Sestak is militantly anti-gun rights.

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | May 19, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

I think that Sestak's victory is a vote for Obama.. Progressives want someone who will work with the President to get his agenda through Congress.. If you remember Specter in the early days said that by changing to a Democrat it did not mean that he would vote with the President..the people hear him loud and clear and maybe they just wanted a true democrat in office and not one who is just playing one and who is willing to betray his own convictions in order to win...

Posted by: sabrina2 | May 19, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

How many times do Dems tied to Obamarahma have to blow it and lose before EJ will admit there is a problem being associated with Obamarahma? EJ can try and spin this repudiation of Obamarahma as a positive by trying to pretend that enthusiasm for more progressive Dems is enthusiasm for corporate Dems - but that sort of denial will only lead to further defeats. It could be the real lesson is only Dems who disassociate from the Obamarahma corporate, big business, business-as-usual status quo have a chance.

Posted by: ophelia3 | May 19, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Spector stated out as a Deem. 30 some years ago and survived quite well, even after the Warren Commission on JFK.
In addition, Pelosi and Obama are fine. They are doing their jobs, unlike Reid and McConnell.
Along with your lack of historical facts, you may be out the door yourself with Mc Cain...it could happen?

And don't condemn the Conn. Att. Gen. Blumental from a republican-pro wrestler attack, like the Literally spiting, smug, ( Bi-polar? up one day spitting calm,the next? De-cafe?) Chris M. on MSNBC.

The Conn. paper reporter was on with Judy Woodruff last night on the (SANE) PBS Newhour and said "after 2 decades of coverage-he never heard him deliberalty mislead his service record and has been a great friend to the military veterans going to ALL the funerals, helping famlies and the vets back him.That's why he's been an extremely popular & very well like ATT. General."

GEES, you talking heads are starved like mad dogs. The NEWS service is next, after the electoral gets done fixing congress.

Posted by: crrobin | May 19, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

But remember everyone, don't read too much into this.

Posted by: Bailers | May 19, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse


Dionne is wrong about the Phila vote going to Specter because that was an Obama stronghold. Thereby giving the impression that Obama was responsible for Specter carrying Phila this time.

The truth is that Phila has a good Democrat political machine for getting out the votes thru the use of Democratic Wards. So it was Rendell and Nutter who pushed the Wards for getting out the votes for Specter in Phila, not Obama. Democrat voters in Phila usually vote for the Party backed candidate.

As far as Critz, he ran as a pro-gun, pro-life, anti-Obamacare Blue Dog Democrat.

As far as I can ascertain, Republicans nor the Tea Party movement concentrated their efforts on Murtha's seat.

However, I am sure that may not be the case in November, and it would be best to take a wait and see attitude until then.

Posted by: janet8 | May 19, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Bottom line is the smart money is on the right side of the table come Autumn - odds are lookin' good for PA to turn red. The anti-Obama sentiment (anti Big Government, Anti Big Debt, Anti Big Mandates, Anti Big Unemployment) sentiments runs deep through the country. HOPE and CHANGE to the current regime in central power are a few months away. VOTE, VOTE, VOTE and we can pull our great nation out of the gutter and get back on the right track!

Posted by: patsyd | May 19, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

So glad that Sestak won. Time and again, whenever Bush proposed some outrageous bill or nominee, Spector would always talk a good moderate game, but in the end, he'd bow to Bush.

He is in no measure a Democrat. And at 80, it was simply time for him to retire. No offense to seniors, but there are too many very old white guys in the Senate who hang on until they can no longer function.

I wish Spector the best. Hopefully, it will be Sestak's victory in November.

Posted by: kim4 | May 19, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

People like, Senator Specter, who betray old friends, are usually distrusted by the new allies they help.
His being kicked out by his new party should not have been a surprise.
Even Dems have principles.
There is no place for the Specters of the world.

Posted by: jfv123 | May 19, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I have seniority.Time and time again Specter said those words. I have seniority. When Specter switched parties. It wasn't because of the tactics the Republicans wanted to use on the stimulus. It wasn't because of the core principles of President Obama. If Specter thought for a second the endorsement of President Obama wasn't going to save him this time, he would have switch again to independent. Specter loved the power, that's all. Core principles to him is seniority. Who can President Obama blame this time. Sestak was expected to sacrifice his career for Obama and Specter and didn't. The people were expected to vote for Specter because they and President Obama were one. President Obama not only endorsed Specter but said I love Arlen Specter. Which Democrat has President Obama said that to. The voters were expected to walk in lock step after President Obama gave them health care. They were supposed to show how much they appreciated him and his visions for this country. The voters were expected to vote which ever President Obama told them to. President Obama took away the free will of the Democrats when they voted for health care. He misjudged his voters. They still have their free will to vote which ever they want.

Posted by: houstonian | May 19, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

michaelp2 wrote:
Sestak ... currently feeds at the public trough collecting military retirement and a congressional salary.
====================================

Since when is receiving a military pension as compensation for years of honorable service "feeding at the trough?"

Posted by: 1EgoNemo | May 19, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"Since when is receiving a military pension as compensation for years of honorable service "feeding at the trough?""

We all know Republicans/teabaggers hate veterans and attack their honor and their service, if the veteran is a Democrat.

Posted by: ottoparts | May 19, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I think VWCat hits the nails on the heads in the comment above. The progressive ideas on which Pres. Obama campaigned in 2008 are not ideas which a President can single-handedly put in place. Both legislative houses in Congress and the public at large must continue their pursuit of these goals. It is premature, at the least, for the assumption that we have forgotten 1980-2008. Pres. Clinton's years were marked by a trending toward a middle-ground in which Republicans didn't really want to play.

Not much good came to the average American from trickle-down economics and conservative social agendas. While fear-mongering from the right continues, the truth is that most Americans want a freer society, less looking into our personal lives, more limitation on what business interests can compel the individual to undertake. But we haven't had that as a clear discussion, mostly because meaningful talk gets drowned out by scare tactics. But perhaps we should keep this as the November surprise!

Posted by: Jazzman7 | May 19, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Arelen is an old, respectable and ardent supporter of the Jewsish state under any and all circumstances. The people of Pa. have been hard hit with an economic turmoil that befell on their state: homelessness, joblessness and inflation-ridden misery of their lives. They vote for those who care for them and not for outsiders.

Posted by: chawsheen | May 19, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

The vote was more anti-Specter than pro-Sestak. Toomey's polls have been leading both Democrats through the primary campaign, and I think Joe will have a tough fight in November.

Posted by: web129 | May 19, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

ahashburn wrote:

"Obama's campaigning record as President remains intact: 0 for 4.

Deeds
Coakley
Spector
City of Chicago (Olympic bid)"

Of course his campaigning record FOR President also remains intact: 1 for 1. And, that's pretty good news for America, I say. (You'll note that I haven't reminded that twit ahashburn of the 1 for 1 for health care reform, the 1 for 1 for rescuing the economy, the 1 for 1 for getting a nuclear reduction deal done with Russia, the 1 for 1 for getting US car manufacturing back on its feet or the 1 for 1 in restoring the world's faith in America. Decent record, ahashburn. How's tea-partying going these days? Say hi to Sarah Palin for me.

Posted by: chert | May 19, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Specter doesn't deserve this treatment. He doesn't deserve to be called an opportunist by a forgetful public who seem to have lost all memory of the Republican Party's betrayal of Specter, which forced him to switch parties in the first place. The man is a rare political independent - but, since disagreeing with any tenets of the party base doesn't sit well with Republicans, they put up their own candidate to take his seat from him.

Now the Democrats have elected a liberal Democrat rather than Specter for the seat. Apparently bipartisanship is equally abhorrent to each side. My guess is that Sestak won't be able to carry enough conservative areas of the state to win, and the Republicans will get what they wanted in the first place. It's seems underhanded, but then again, PA Democrats had the opportunity to stop it.

Posted by: joshlct | May 19, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

suegbic1 - Politics isn't pretty. So?

How does all of this equate to a lost seat?

Even before the primary Sestak was ahead of the likely republican by about 4 points.

I would think all of this inside politics stuff would weigh in Sestak's favor.

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 19, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

The anti-Obama sentiment (anti Big Government, Anti Big Debt, Anti Big Mandates, Anti Big Unemployment) sentiments runs deep through the country.

Posted by: patsyd

======================================

yep

that's why your teabagger terrorist candidate lost to a Democrat in PA 12

cuz the teabagger terrorist revolution is sweeping America

a SOLID 46% of Pensylvania voters decided to back the teabagger terrorist candidate

54% of the people choose AGAINST the teabagger terrorist candidate, and the teabagger terrorists still don't realize that the teabagger terrorist candidate lost

but there is a revolution coming

40% of America is going to cast their votes for the hate mongering teabagger terrorist candidates

and the Democrats will sweep the republootard party into the waste bin of history

by December, the teabagger terrorists should realize that they ain't the all-powerful political force that they deluded themselves into believing they were

and Barack Obama will have solid Democratic Majorities leading up to the LANDSLIDE reelection victory in 2012

hey, teabagger terrorists, thanks for everything you have done for the Democratic Party. We couldn't have done it without you

Posted by: nada85484 | May 19, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

ahashburn - YOU are 0 - 4:

Obama only campaigned actively for Coakley - and he did not do that a whole lot until she was already behind in the polls.

However, her loss is more a factor of her being the worst Dem to run for any office since KKT blew the MD governor’s race against the over-rated Bob Ehrlich.

It is hard to blame Obama for her being lame. She started the campaign with an unbeatable lead and campaigned very little, never visited the western (and more conservative) part of the state and relied too much on TV.

Deeds, stupidly, ran AWAY from Obama, spurned his help and watched the record number of minority voters Obama drew stay at home. Obama only came in at the end when Deeds realized being a dufus was not going to get him elected.

Spector can not be called Obama's candidate by any means. But he is a sitting Senator running as a Democrat and, potentially, could be a bridge to the few moderate republicans left in DC - what is Obama supposed to do? Unless the challenger is ahead by 30 points or more in the polls or is a family member, the President has to favor the incumbent of his party.

Obama recruited Sestak when Spector was with the GOP. Spector changing sides changed everything. Seniority in DC is clout. The Chair makes everything happen - or not happen. Sestak, should he win, will not chair anything.

If you were President you'd back Sestak over Spector? Get real!!!!

PS - how many trips did Obama make to PA on Arlen's behalf? One?

Chicago lost the Olympic bid because the Olympic Committee from Chicago was over confident and arrogant. They were so sure they had it won with Obama they acted like they had it won.

The way to be awarded the Olympics is to bribe the IOC and to treat them as if they are the most important people on earth.

They loved Obama but they hated the Chicago team.

Obama's error was being over confident about Coakley and in not staying neutral in PA. The Obama team should have seen Coakley was in trouble sooner, gotten her help (including a cattle prod to get her off her a$$) and has POTUS up there more often.

Staying neutral in PA would have been hard. Spector holds grudges and would remember had he won. But it would have been better than backing a DINO.

Still, your analysis is incorrect.

And, by the way, how did Mitch McConnell do? He was far more active pushing his guy and he got thumped.

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 19, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

michaelp2 - "Specter lost because he switched parties, not because of his voting record. Nobody outside of Philadelphia trusts him anymore."

I think you are wrong.

I know Democrats across PA who would have voted for a fur cap if the choice were the hat and Spector in large part because of Anita Hill and his voting record not only during the Bush years but during his pre-switch Obama era votes.

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 19, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

E.J. Dionne should know two things: First (as the Washington Times put it), "The Pennsylvania district favors Democrat registrations 2 to 1 and has a strong labor organization on the ground. However, Mr. Critz ran on a pro-life, pro-gun agenda and claimed to have opposed the Democrats' health care bill. In other words, he ran away from the party he helped write legislation for on Capitol Hill." Second, the Tea Party did seem to have a significant impact on the Senate election in Massachusetts--hardly a "Republican" event in a "Republican" state!

Posted by: DennisHinde | May 19, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I think Sestak will beat Toomey getting support from conservatives respecting his 31 years of service vs Toomey's nil. Sestak a relative newcomer does not carry the Washington baggage of Toomey. While Paul destroyed Grayson, he got less votes than either Dem in the primary. That won't hold true in Nov. but Paul could lose with a mistake like attacking the record of a 31 year serving admiral. Had Burns with his GOP money been able to defeat Critz, the Dems would be far more worried about Nov. Funny thing the GOP blocking immigration reform will get the hispanic/black vote out for November.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 19, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company