He’s Our Specter Now.

“Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.” In today’s big news, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announces he’s becoming a Democrat. [Statement.] (Note the construction there. The voters switch over, and suddenly Specter reevaluates his political philosophy. A true statesman.)

Well, welcome to the new Big Tent, Senator. On one hand, this is clearly a PR coup for we Democrats. The country didn’t really need another reminder that the Grand Old Party has degenerated badly in recent years, but this can’t help but make the point crystal-clear once again. When even a guy like Specter wants nothing to do with you, that’s saying something. Here’s hoping Sens. Snowe and Collins of Maine follow his lead soon.

That being said, I wouldn’t really call Specter a great pick-up for us. Sure, I’m glad that he’ll feel the need to bend to the left politically rather than to the right from now on (where he was basically dead in the water — hence today’s decision.) But as far as politicans go, “Spineless Specter” has been more craven than most over the past few years. He folded badly on the illegal NSA wiretaps and was all too happy to push gaybaiting legislation through the Judiciary committee when it suited his GOP masters.

Plus, consider the timing here. Unlike Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who forced a Senate reorganization in 2001 (and subsequently paid a price for it once the GOP reassumed control in 2003), Specter’s switch doesn’t really change the balance of power all that much. Sure, he’s the 60th vote for cloture…if he does in fact vote with the Dems. But a Liebermanesque “independence” is probably more likely from him. And did we really need another Joe Lieberman? Surely the Keystone State could’ve provided us with a sounder Democrat to get behind in 2010.

Over in the NY Review of Books, Specter has recently suggested that he wants to help roll back the expansion of executive power, which he deems increasingly out-of-control since 9/11. Again, bully for him, I’m all for it. But he did a less than stellar job on this front during the warrantless wiretaps and censure resolution episodes, so it’s hard to take him seriously as an exemplar of civil liberties at this late date.

So now Specter’s playing for the home team, as it were. Well, ok, I much prefer D’s to R’s. But if the party label is going to mean anything, Sen. Specter really needs to start living up to it.

Into the Memory Hole. | For the Record.

“‘She’s no longer campaigning for president,’ said Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee. ‘She’s focused on her work in the Senate, campaigning for Senator Obama and other Democrats.’” With the Dems back on the same team, the Clinton campaign scrubs its website of anti-Obama material from the primary era. As such, this seems as good a time as any to definitively put to rest these Penn-inspired primary fictions as well:

“Sen. Obama won’t be able to compete in crucial swing states.“: He’s currently up in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, as well as Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa, and Virginia…and does Montana count?

“Sen. Obama can’t even win the big Dem states“: The most recent polls have Obama up 28 in California and up 20 in New York.

“Sen. Obama has a ‘Latino problem’“: Obama currently beats McCain by 30 among Hispanics, 59%-29%. (This is already better than Kerry in 2004.)

So R.I.P., goofy primary reasoning. You won’t be missed.

The Early Trifecta. | Here comes the Flood?

Keeping in mind that polls five months out from Election Day are basically meaningless, some good news on the swing-state front: Sen. Obama currently leads in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. (What, you mean Mark Penn’s swing-state argument was bogus? Who knew?)

This would seem to hinder McCain’s likely strategy of using Florida as a safe electoral base from which to make incursions into possible Obama territory in Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and elsewhere — Now, the mythical maverick will have to play serious defense in the Sunshine State. (Again, June polls say next-to-nothing about the state of play in November, but I’m glad we’re 4-10 points up rather than 10-15 down. Plus, these numbers are in keeping with my general feeling — knock on wood — that Election Day will be a trouncing.)

Update: More fuel for the fire. A new Newsweek poll has Obama up fifteen on McCain, 51%-36%. “The latest numbers on voter dissatisfaction suggest that Obama may enjoy more than one bounce. The new poll finds that only 14 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the direction of the country…Obama is [also] running much stronger at this point in the race than his two most recent Democratic predecessors, Sen. John Kerry and Vice President Al Gore…In a July 2004 NEWSWEEK Poll, Kerry led Bush by only 6 points (51 percent to 45 percent). In June 2000, Gore was in a dead heat with Bush (45 percent to 45 percent)“

Update 2: It’s not an outlier. LA Times/Bloomberg also has Obama up 15 (48%-33%) in a four-way race with Nader and Barr. Against McCain only, our man’s up 12.

The Tuesday Night Recap.

Well, I’m sure you watched it too. But, anyway, to recap: In tonight’s big contest, the two race horses started out neck-and-neck, and it looked in the early going that an upset might be in order. But, slowly but surely, the plodding, methodical contender pulled away for a small but convincing victory, and that’s all she wrote. I’m referring, of course, to Game 2 of the Suns-Spurs series. Why, was there something else going on?

(By the way, in case you didn’t know, I’m not sure of the Obama analogue yet, but the San Antonio Spurs are definitely the Clintons of the NBA. Tim Duncan’s the Bill of the bunch, the natural talent (with past championships to his name) who whines and works the refs constantly. Bruce Bowen is Hillary, a less-talented workhorse whom people in the media describe with euphemisms like “tenacious”, when he’s clearly and obviously just a dirty player. And, like the rest of the Clinton campaign, Parker and Ginobli are basically slashers…but let’s not belabor it too much.)

At any rate, so, yes, in a huge shocker Senator Clinton won Pennsylvania by ten this evening, 55%-45%. [Update: Since it seems to have confused some Clinton-leaning folk on other blogs, I meant “huge shocker” ironically. See below.] We’ll know the delegate spread tomorrow, but, however it turns out and like Ohio six weeks ago, tonight is just another case of Clinton winning the battle and losing the war: There’s no way at all she gets enough delegates to become viable again. Simply put, Sen. Obama’s previously insurmountable delegate lead is now, to coin a phrase, even insurmountabler. Do I need to link the same post again?

Nevertheless, if you’re looking for someone to blame for Obama’s loss tonight, look no further than Philadelphia. The City of Brotherly Love broke from the rest of the state and went 2-1 for Obama. And, as every sports fan knows, Philly always loses despite themselves. You can’t fight the curse.

In any case, I’d been girding myself for a 15-point margin for Sen. Clinton of late, so, in the grand scheme of things, 55-45 was fine with me (particularly given that the contest seems to have cost Clinton what was left of her bankroll.) So, now, on to Indiana and North Carolina in two weeks, where hopefully this primary — finally — comes to an end. Eat, drink, and be merry, Clinton folk, for tomorrow, your candidacy of choice dies.

Update: They’re still tallying the delegates, but it’s looking like Clinton will remain behind by around 150 pledged delegates overall. In the meantime, Al Giordano crunches the exit poll numbers: “Senator Clinton lost ground in every one of those key foundations of her former base vote…Whether or not the commercial media spins it that way – in her campaign’s lexicon – ‘doesn’t matter.’ And ye shall know the dumbest and slowest – and intentionally dishonest – political reporters, pundits, bloggers (and former presidential candidates and spouses) by those that argue otherwise.“

Update 2: It ain’t over yet. This (pre-PA) Youtube suggests a potential path to victory for Clinton. (Here’s a hint: The Hartford Convention.)

At long last, Pennsylvania.

‘Twas in another lifetime, one of toil and blood, when blackness was a virtue and the road was full of mud.” Well, actually, it was only six weeks ago, just after Mississippi. (It only seems like a lifetime.) Still, I posted then, following Al Giordano at Rural Votes, to beware Pennsylvania tunnel vision, as it’s a state tailor-made for Clinton’s demographic strengths. Six long, miserable weeks later, after Jeremiah Wright and The Speech and Tuzla snipers and the Bitter pill, we’ve finally made it to PA Day, and what I wrote then still holds true. Given the polls and the probable Limbaugh shenanigans in Pennsyltucky, Clinton will almost assuredly win the Keystone State by double digits tonight, and yet still won’t amass enough delegates to make a bit of difference in the final decision. And, because the media still won’t call the race (and, indeed, resent even the slightest implication that they’re lazy and f**king pathetic at their line of work), we will grimly slog on to May 6th, watching enviously as McCain and the GOP dance their happy jig of Dem self-immolation. (Don’t get me wrong: I still think Obama will trounce McCain thoroughly in November. But it’s going to be much harder than it ever needed to be.)

Was that magical night in Iowa really less than four months ago? It seems since then that we Obama-leaning political junkies are being punished by the Clinton campaign for the sin of putting too much faith in the process, and have been consigned to a neverending Purgatory of endless lowballs and trifling media idiocies. In a different world, I might have been flabbergasted by Clinton shoehorning Pearl Harbor and Bin Laden into a political ad against a fellow Democrat. But, at this late date, did anyone really expect anything less? Give it a few more weeks and the Clinton campaign will likely be regaling us with D.W. Griffith and guys in blackface. And it will still be over. Update: By way of Dangerous Meta, Sen. Clinton also attempted to recertify her cajones this morning by threatening to “obliterate” Iran. Dubya much, Senator?

At any rate, if you are of the Pennsylvanian persuasion, please consider voting for Barack Obama today. Let’s get focused on our real opponent, already.

A Bitter Pill, or a Tempest in a Teapot?

Hey all. As promised, I’ve been working on other things over the past few days, and thus haven’t really been following the election news as closely as in recent months. I’d heard that Sen. Obama had basically restated the thesis of What’s the Matter with Kansas? at a fundraiser in San Francisco, and thought that, lordy, it was a slow news week. So, imagine my surprise when I settled in for the Sunday shows to discover that I was supposed to be outraged — outraged, I tell you! — at the import and tenor of Sen. Obama’s remarks. Across the board, the Washington punditariat had ratcheted up the pique to 11, lambasting Obama for being elitist and out-of-touch because he argued a case for the appeal of cultural conservatism in economic bad times that’s been made all over the place, not the least by the Clintons themselves. (By the way, this televised uprising of the pundit proletariat included several people I dealt with personally during my previous sojourn in DC and, well…let’s just say I wasn’t buying their newly-discovered blue-collar bona fides. Not. One. Bit. (and I’m not talking about Carville & Matalin, although they were in the mix on Sunday too.))

Enter Sen. Clinton, shameless as ever. Apparently seeing “Bitter-gate” as her last, best hope for the nomination, she’s plumbed new depths of self-parody this week, not only calling Obama an elitist but trying to recast herself as some kind of working-class hero. (I guess she assumed we’d all just forget that she made $109 million over the past seven years, has been running around with a Secret Service detail for nearly two decades, and has had people otherwise waiting on her since 1978. Springsteen, she’s not.) Nope, now she’s banging back boilermakers, attacking Obama like he’s the Second Coming of John Kerry (to the point of getting booed for it) and conjuring up this ridiculous ad of small-town folk aghast by Obama’s words.

Well, I guess I’m an out-of-touch elitist too, because, frankly, I’m just not seeing it. Not only does this entire brouhaha seems like a completely media-manufactured (and Clinton-prolonged) event to me, but I’d be highly surprised if the vast majority of people Obama was referring to take any offense whatsoever. In fact, if anything, I’d bet the people who are supposed to feel so put upon here may well end up feeling more condescended to by Clinton and the mass media for trying to tell them they should be ticked off. Just a hunch…I could be very wrong. With fifteen years and counting in BosWash, it’s been awhile since I’ve had my finger on the pulse of the Heartland. Still, I’m willing to bet that the white working-class Americans who are theoretically insulted by Obama’s words are smarter, and made of sterner stuff, than Clinton et al would give them credit for. And this too shall pass.

Update: Speaking of Springsteen, the Boss endorses Obama, in part due to Bitter-gate. “At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man’s life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.“

It’s a league game, Smokey.

“I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don’t resolve it, we’ll resolve it at the convention — that’s what credentials committees are for.” As the press fully and finally catches up with the fact that it’s over — it only took a month, but, hey, math is hard! — Sen. Clinton digs in for the long haul (and liberally plays the gender card anew), announcing she’s staying in until a convention floor fight in August…which, by the way, she’ll assuredly lose.

Their hand thus forced, more supers emerge for Sen. Obama, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and, sometime soon, seven House members from North Carolina. And, with the Gallup tracking poll disparity as big as it’s ever been (thanks in part to Snipergate, one presumes), I’m guessing Sen. Clinton’s fundraising also might be taking a hit. As such, I’m still of the opinion that this will all end May 6 or soon thereafter. Or, at least, that’s my hope. This is not ‘Nam, Sen. Clinton, this is politics. There are rules.

By the way, if anyone is under the impression that I’m so in the bag for Sen. Obama that no discouraging word about him shall ever be posted here at GitM, I’ll say this: This man should never bowl in public ever again. 37? That’s really sad. (And how did Bob Casey become a Senator from Pennsylvania bowling only a 71? I’m no Walter Sobchak, but I can’t remember bowling under an 80 since the age of ten.) Please, Senator, at least until the election, stick with making baskets.

Update: The Obama campaign pushes back on the WSJ’s NC supers story. So apparently the joint endorsement of those seven Reps is not as imminent as reported.

Casey at the Bat.

Sen. Obama picks up a Pennsylania superdelegate in Senator Bob Casey, who had previously pledged to stay neutral. “Obama strategists hope that Casey can help their candidate make inroads with the white working-class men who are often referred to as “Casey Democrats.” This group identifies with the brand of politics Casey and his late father, a former governor, practiced — liberal on economic issues but supportive of gun rights and opposed to abortion.“

Beware Pennsylvania Tunnel Vision.

“Simply put: If Obama (and supporters) set expectations for a knockout punch in Pennsylvania, they will be giving oxygen to a gasping Clinton machine on its last breaths. But if they keep Pennsylvania in perspective (no single state has determined the nomination, although New Hampshire, Nevada, and Ohio were all frantically seen and spun as such in their moments), they’ll emerge from the coming Pennsylvania Clinton victory – a kind of Last Hurrah for the politics of the last century – to cross into the 21st century beginning in early May.” I added this link to the post below, but in case you missed it: Al Giordano crunches the numbers and argues that focusing on the Keystone State is not the way to go.

Along related lines, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe downplayed the importance of PA today: “Pennsylvania is only one of 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who are nominee will be.” (And before anyone argues that this broader focus means Obama can’t win Pennsylvania in the general, take a look at the polling there. As in many other states, Obama does significantly better against McCain in Pennsylvania than does Clinton.)

It don’t mean a thing, if you ain’t got those swings.

As posted here awhile ago, national polls have consistently shown Sen. Barack Obama performing better against John McCain than Sen. Hillary Clinton. Well, the polling firm Rasmussen has taken the question a step further, and begun asking swing states what they think of the three remaining candidates. Check these out.

Colorado: Obama beats McCain by 7 (46%-39%), McCain beats Clinton by 14 (49%-35%).

Minnesota: Obama beats McCain by 15 (53%-38%), McCain beats Clinton by 5 (47%-42%).

New Hampshire: Obama beats McCain by 13 (49%-36%), McCain beats Clinton by 2 (43%-41%).

Nevada: Obama beats McCain by 12 (50%-38%), McCain beats Clinton by 9 (49%-40%).

Oregon: Obama beats McCain by 9 (49%-40%), McCain beats Clinton by 3 (45%-42%).

Pennsylvania: Obama beats McCain by 10 (49%-39%), McCain beats Clinton by 2 (44%-42%).

The only swing state studied thus far that can give the Clinton campaign any comfort is Missouri, which shows a statistical tie: McCain beats Clinton by 1 (43%-42%), McCain beats Obama by 2 (42%-40%).

On the issue of electability, the choice seems clear. Update: SurveyUSA has more, and they follow the same pattern.

Iowa: Obama beats McCain by 10 (51%-41%), McCain beats Clinton by 11 (52%-41%).

Virginia: Obama beats McCain by 6 (51%-45%), McCain beats Clinton by 3 (48%-45%).

Wisconsin: Obama beats McCain by 10 (52%-42%), McCain beats Clinton by 7 (49%-42%).