Poll: Even Republicans Want Specter To Back EFCA
Buried in this week’s Quinnipiac Poll of Pennsylvania is a stunning number that really leaves you wondering why Arlen Specter is holding out against the Employee Free Choice Act.
The poll finds that twice as many Pennsylvania Republicans want him to support the measure than want him to oppose it. Twenty six percent of Republicans say his opposition makes them less likely to back him; only 13% say it makes them more likely.
Overall, the numbers are roughly the same. Twenty three percent of Pennsylvania voters overall say his opposition makes them less likely to back him; 14% say it makes them more likely.
Labor officials think these numbers are partly explained by the sizable number of GOP union members in the state. Either way, by opposing EFCA, Specter maintains some kind of appearance of independence. If he were to support it, he’d get labor’s full backing, would probably avoid a Dem primary, and if anything would gain with voters, if this poll is to be believed.
Which may help explain why, according to Sam Stein, Specter met privately with labor officials today. Maybe all the noise labor is making about supporting a Dem primary challenger to Specter is having an impact on his position.
Separately, don’t miss TPM’s interview with potential challenger Joe Sestak, in which he really amps up the rhetoric against Specter.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Specter is nothing if he’s not smart about self-preservation. He knows how to read poll numbers, clearly. When his flip was first announced last week, I asked what the Democrats were going to get out of this. I think it’s becoming clear that they were getting someone who would figure out how to stay in the Senate. Specter’s path to a D-election looks pretty clear: EFCA (likely w/watered-down card check) and cloture (at minimum) on energy and nominees. He’s irrelevant on health care.
that’s what makes his current position so inexplicable. maybe it’s all about maximizing whatever he gets for his ultimate EFCA flip.
Once again, let me try and argue a longer term perspective on Specter’s shift. I don’t mean to minimize the dilemma that exists re labor (my dad was a labor organizer and I’m deeply sympathetic) but it is a long while before the next electoral cycle and, given the appropriate spin, Specter could become a unicorn in 12 weeks and the present schmozzle will be in the long-dead and forgotten past. Surely the differences between public statements now and backroom dealings are comparable to the two parts of an iceberg – the visible part and the not.
Specter leaving the Republican party is a high-profile defection. As with Jeffords, (moreso here, I think) it has significant symbolic value – significantly negative for Republicans and significantly positive for Obama (of the open arms, reasonableness, glowing children, and post-partisanhood). Imagine, for example, if McCain were to now take Limbaugh’s urging and also switch parties. He won’t, I’m certain, but imagine the optics of it if he did.
Another example…we knew a couple of years ago as the Dem nomination process got going that with a woman and an African-American vying we liberals weren’t going to escape that battle – signifying two huge cultural shifts – unscathed. But that was short-term, wasn’t it? Likewise now, as the political horizon re-jiggers itself, interests and goals will bump up against each other causing temporary heat and consternation.
As I said, it isn’t as if labor and other issues upcoming aren’t important to us, rather I’m just suggesting that a longer view is important too. For example, Boehlert (media matters) has a column up now on the financial crisis facing Clear Channel and that might have consequences far more lasting than Specter’s vote on a particular bill.
Please continue.
I wouldn’t put much stock in these numbers. I’d be willing to bet that a lot of Republicans in PA haven’t even heard of EFCA and don’t know what opposing it implies.
All they heard was “Does Specter’s [position on some topic] make you more or less likely to vote for him?” They answered “Less likely” because they’re pissed at him for defecting.
Two words: Campaign contributions. Two more: Big money.
It’s the money that drives the politics. And the money ain’t on the side of labor.