Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
BREAKING: ARLEN SPECTER SWITCHING PARTIES.
The Washington Post confirms:
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, according to sources informed on the decision.
Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)
Specter as a Democrat would also fundamentally alter the 2010 calculus in Pennsylvania as he was expected to face a difficult primary challenge next year from former Rep. Pat Toomey. The only announced Democrat in the race is former National Constitution Center head Joe Torsella although several other candidates are looking at the race.
The number 60 doesn't assure 60 votes on any particular priority, but it's a tremendous psychological advantage. It means that there are 60 votes with a baseline incentive to see a successful Democratic Party rather than an unsuccessful Democratic Party. There are 60 senators, in other words, who are free from the incentive structure of the minority. That doesn't guarantee legislative success, of course. The last time the majority party controlled both the executive branch and 60 seats in the Senate was 1975 to 1979, which is to say, under Carter, and that didn't work so well. But the Dixiecrats are gone, the committee chairmen are less powerful, and the relationship between the executive and the Congress is substantially less adversarial. This has the potential to really reshape the playing field.
One more thought: Like with Southern Democrats switching to become conservative Republicans, Northern Republicans often prove to be fairly liberal Democrats. Jim Jeffords is a good example of this. So once Specter actually comes on-board, he may be a much more reliable vote than someone like, say, Ben Nelson. And as a new Democrat in a blue state, Specter will be very safer if the Democratic base appreciates him than if they mistrust him.
Update: Specter's statement is here. Key quote:
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.
Baseless speculation: Did Specter's decision to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act force his switch? He was sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. Pat Toomey was going to primary him on the right. In past years, that was fine, as he had tacit support from elements of the left, namely the unions. But since betraying them on EFCA, the unions were promising to make Specter their main target. So if he stayed in the Republican Party he would lose the base at the exact moment that Republicans had lost their capacity to talk to independents and that the most powerful of lefty interest groups was gearing up for a massive campaign against him. He was a many with no home. By joining the Democratic Party, he could effectively neuter the unions while gaining the whole of Pennsylvania's Democratic Party machine. But he only really needed to do that because of EFCA.
COMMENTS (25)
THIS IS GREAT NEWS!! FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!!!
Posted by: trig palin | April 28, 2009 12:21 PM
The Washington Post confirms
Heh. You don't work for them yet...
Posted by: Anonymous | April 28, 2009 12:22 PM
So what I want to know is even if he is against EFCA, if he would be for letting it get to what they used to call "up or down vote"?
Posted by: flounder | April 28, 2009 12:32 PM
Someone still better unseat his ass in the Democratic primary. I don't trust any magic coalition that includes him, Lieberman, or for that matter Bayh or Nelson.
Posted by: norbizness | April 28, 2009 12:34 PM
I wonder if this will finally prompt Leiberman to switch over to full darkside-mode. Lots of money to be made as the swing vote...
Posted by: Devo | April 28, 2009 12:42 PM
Well, why doesn't he just support EFCA now, get some of that delicious union money? And surely he'll support Obama's nominees now? I don't understand why he would keep tacking right after switching parties anyway. I guess he's going to annihilate Toomey no matter what happens, though.
Posted by: tomemos | April 28, 2009 12:44 PM
My hopeful side says Specter will now push for a compromise EFCA, maybye w/o the whole card-check thing but with mandatory abritration, which labor would be happy with at this point.
My cynical side says Specter now has the full force of the national and Penn. Democratic party on his side and he can say "screw you" to the unions, "who else you gonna support."
Posted by: am | April 28, 2009 12:51 PM
Seriously, tomemos, I was trying to figure this out too. There's no real political cost to him on voting for EFCA now.
Posted by: Sanjiv Sarwate | April 28, 2009 12:52 PM
For gawd's sake somebody get a mic on Michael Steele right now!
Posted by: Hairy Reed | April 28, 2009 12:54 PM
McCain's next.
Posted by: Viceroy Matt | April 28, 2009 12:54 PM
I understand him not changing his vote on EFCA now, but would a change later be all that shocking? Because, after all, (a) it's clear he's willing to do what it takes to save his seat, and (b) can you really survive as a anti-union Dem in PA?
As for EFCA forcing his hand, I (baselessly) think it's more likely that increased D registration in PA + his stimulus vote + Toomey starting a real campaign made it clear that he was a dead man walking, and in recent weeks it became clear to him that nobody was going to buy his sudden transformation into a conservative R.
Posted by: fortyseven | April 28, 2009 12:55 PM
Well, why doesn't he just support EFCA now, get some of that delicious union money?
Once some cosmetic changes are made to give him cover, I bet he'll swing back.
Posted by: eRobin | April 28, 2009 12:55 PM
as norbizness has implied, i think the outcome of this change is that ben nelson will become a bigger asshole.
Posted by: howard | April 28, 2009 1:12 PM
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.
I love this bit. At face value it's all true, but he doesn't mention that a lot of those Republicans might have been dittoheads who switched at Limbaugh's request in order to vote for Clinton in the Democratic primary. The same faction that drove him out of the Republican Party for being insufficiently crazy. So, just in case there was still any doubt that he was being driven out of the party by nutcases... no.
Posted by: Cyrus | April 28, 2009 1:34 PM
Two unrelated observations:
1. At least technically, this move will push the ideological center of both the Democratic and Republican Senate delegations to the right, even though the same people will be involved. Now Senate Dems will have a new voice coming mostly from their right, while the GOPers are losing a voice that came primarily from their left.
2. This virtually guarantees that Norm Coleman will be forced by the national party to drag out his appeal process for as long as possible, up to and including a trip to the US Supreme Court.
Posted by: Midwest Product | April 28, 2009 1:35 PM
Ezra,
Real baseless expectations is what this does to Snowe and Collins. Have they lost political cover?
Posted by: Anonymous At Work | April 28, 2009 1:52 PM
I agree with midwest product that one of the bigger implications is that the MN senate race may not be decided for a long time...
practically, it doesn't really change too much in the current senate, as i doubt he'll move that far to the left. i'd rather the R's have fewer and fewer moderate voices, though, so that they can appear as far to the right as they really are...
Posted by: TS | April 28, 2009 1:53 PM
The Democrats sold labor out on EFCA, even anti-war hero (ohh he's a vet!) Jim Webb sold out. The Democrats' rich donors don't care about unions, they care about "war", the environment etc. Specter can go along with that, especially as he's sees the Republicans getting nuttier and nuttier.
Very courageous of him to wait and see that after 100 days, yes the verdict is in and Obama is kicking ass and is not "too inexperienced". Very brave to switch to the winning team.
Posted by: Pedro | April 28, 2009 2:17 PM
Where does Lieberman stand on EFCA?
Posted by: Pedro | April 28, 2009 2:22 PM
The longer term view is very interesting, and harkens to an earlier era. All through the FDR era, racial-equality deniers were a major influence on the Dem. majority - and happy to be part of an overwhelming majority that they could dominate on their key issue. Post WWII, the Dixiecrat meme became even more obvious, just as the Dem. party was becoming even more liberal. When the Dixies became Repubs, that influence left the Dem. party and built the Nixonian Repub majority.
This time, the Dems are once again the big majority party, but the 'moderate' (Blue Dogs, in the House) Dems like Ben Nelson, Lieberman, Specter, Bayh and Salazar are a new rightward push on the Dems, but without the racist tinge of the Dixiecrats. The tinge this time is taxes, corporatism, and social programs. But there is little prospect of these Dem. moderates becoming part of a new Repub. majority, and increased willingness (especially among the young/netroots) to offer primary opposition to the Dem. moderates.
Progressives would do well to primary one of these moderates and take them out - as a message to the others that on key programs they must align with the majority to achieve change.
So, maybe, maybe not, we'll have some more party realignment, and (hopeless wish) even changes in the Senate rules of procedure to remake the Senate into a more majoritarian body.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | April 28, 2009 2:29 PM
Pedro: Lieberman supports EFCA.
For Specter, i dont think he thumbs his nose at labor. I think he will support EFCA once there is either an uptick in the economy or superficial changes to the legistlation.
He has generally endorsed the idea of labor law reform and labor his pretty powerful in PA. It would be pretty stupid to alienate the state's base during a primary.
Posted by: jeff | April 28, 2009 2:42 PM
Real baseless expectations is what this does to Snowe and Collins.
Nothing. They're going nowhere. If anything, their scarcity value is increased. They'll both die Republican -- Snowe is married to the state's last GOP governor.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | April 28, 2009 2:45 PM
Uh, Democrats didn't control the executive branch in 1975 and 1976.
Posted by: Vidor | April 28, 2009 3:50 PM
Hrm... what will this mean for the Senate Judiciary Committee, though? I recall hearing that Specter was the token Republican offering input on matters... should the "token Republican" move continue, wouldn't that automatically mean that Specter is going to be replaced in such discussions by a more conservative voice?
Posted by: 32_Footsteps | April 28, 2009 5:03 PM
1. Midwest Product's two points are astute.
2. I think this: It means that there are 60 votes with a baseline incentive to see a successful Democratic Party rather than an unsuccessful Democratic Party. is definitely yet to be established.
Posted by: Mike | April 29, 2009 4:04 AM