Easy Explanation: A long-time senior political consultant to Specter - a consultant who was already working on the 2010 campaign and was in touch with Specter several times weekly - said that Specter changed parties "because he couldn't win a GOP primary."Thanks a lot, Hillary! The contested primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama captured the attention of Pennsylvania moderates and resulted in a significant registration shift among moderates in Republican areas to Democratic.
Labor's Mixed Reaction. On the one hand, labor folks have some time to convince Specter than an EFCA vote won't be as bad. On the other hand, they don't have their own pro-EFCA Democrat to do it with. "Card check" legislation really hasn't advanced. Specter will risk being seen as wishy-washy (even more so!) if he changes his mind after saying he wouldn't. ON THE OTHER HAND -- Specter could be the compromise-broker.
Time flies. Two weeks ago, Specter said he'd be a Republican forever.
Santorum's Turn? Here's a chance to get his name back from Dan Savage. Rick Santorum, more visible of late than usual, may decide he wants to run for Senate, sted Governor. We'll see.
Schumer's Take: The GOP is "inhospitable to moderates."
What's Easier for Obama Right Now: Nothing.
What's Easier For Obama Soon: Getting to 60 on health care this year is inevitable now. Giving labor more room to maneuver during the legislative negotiations is also more likely. Getting some judges through, although Specter will want to retain his independence.
Among the ramifications of Specter's switch, a few thoughts on the possibility of Snowe or Collins switching:
Collins's and Snowe's positions as ranking members of committees in the Senate, the fact that their terms run another 6 and 4 years respectively, and the unlikelihood of either facing a serious primary opponent, all make them less likely to make a jump absent some serious enticement from Reid that would require elbowing a couple of Democrats aside on committees.
Of the two, Collins would give up more if she switched parties. She is currently ranking member of Homeland Security, and would be forced to give up her minority staff if she left the Republican Party. She was also just reelected, so she has an incentive to see what the landscape looks like in 2012 before deciding whether to run as an R or a D in 2014.
Snowe, on the other hand, is ranking member of the Small Business committee -- a less plum position than Homeland Security but still one that gives her minority committee staff. She is also up in 2012, and will have Obama at the top of her ticket in a state where he will likely prevail regardless of the nationwide political environment. That makes her comment today criticizing the Republican conservatives all the more interesting . . .
cdm's "What does it mean" pt. 2
In the past few months, one of the more popular topics for bloggers has been to analyse what the job of RNC Chairman entails, and how Steele has performed against those duties.
Some of said the job is to be the first fundraiser. Others have said that it is to be the first campaigner.
To me, those (and other) responsibilities are important. However, I believe that the Chairman's job (for either party) is to be the the check writer. Call it the Controller in Chief. Of the things a party chairman can husband and control, it's money is the most tangible and important (I know, ideas and energy are important too, but they are the sort of thing that a Party Chair doesn't directly control - just like basketball coach can't directly control the height of his center).
What the Democrats were able to do in '06 and '08 was to be incredibly disciplined in how and where they spent money on races, and to use money to influence the selection of candidates whose philosophy in a given district would not inhibit the or counter the strong hand the Democrats had going into those races (the state of the war in '06, and the economy in '08).
If the Republicans are to not just gain seats, but to gain majorities, they need to emulate a bit of this.
One of the more interesting questions on the ramifications and the switch is "What does this mean for Steele's spending decisions?".
If the economy is still bad, and Toomey runs a good campaign, this could be a close race, and certainly close enough to warrant the spending of resources.
But what if the economy is much better, and/or Toomey just runs a poor campaign? There will still be incredible pressure by the part faithful to spend money to punish Specter. Does Steele take the money away from other races to fund a loser? Does he have the standing in the party to divert money away from this race if Toomey is down, say 6-7 points with a month to go, but hasn't made any headway into Specters lead in two months?
Republicans are going to be in tough races in MO and OH. Does Steele sit down with Toomey's team and say, you need to be within "x" points by such and such date, or we need to fund these other races?
Since I think that Specter changing sides will not affect policy that much (he will be looking to prove that he is independent - I covered this in a previous comment), this might be the most interesting ramification of the change.
Michael Steele's take via a phone interview on CNN can be found here:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/04/steele-responds-to-specters-switch.html