On the November ballot in Pennsylvania this November, voters will see Joe Sestak and Pat Toomey for Senate, Dan Onorato and Tom Corbett for Governor, and Scott Conklin and Jim Cawley for Lt. Governor. They will not see the names Marakay Rogers, Douglas Jamison, nor and Kat Valleley. This was the Libertarian slate until yesterday, when all three withdrew. They will also not see teabag candidate John Krupanor Green Party candidate Mel Packer, who also withdrew.
This was a few days ahead of the court hearing based on the Republican challenge to the petition signatures.
Current polling:
Don't be dismayed: both Onorato and Sestak will use the blanket-ad-rush approach and will pull through in the end. This is especially bad for Toomey, and Corbett is going to have a lot of ethics problems breaking right after Labour Day.
When you think of "Pennsylvania" and "2010 Elections" the names that likely come to mind are "Joe Sestak" and "Arlen Specter." You probably haven't given much thought to "Tom Corbett" except as he's the Republican running for Governor.
Last summer, it looked like Tom was a shoe-in: seemingly clean, investigating "Bonusgate" which related to corruption and related crimes in Harrisburg, popular state Attorney General.
That's all over. Seems Tom Corbett doesn't know what the First Amendment says, nor what a Grand Jury is for.
We alluded to the free speech thing last week, with Tom wanting subpoenas relative to two Twitter users. But it gets worse. Much worse. By way of background, Bonusgate involves elected state reps and a lot of their employees, and one of the big problems is that people who are supposed to be working for the state, are instead collecting state salaries but working on re-election campaigns. Their elected officials are guilty of the misuse of state funds. Plus, there's a ton of other corruption: it's institutional and it spans both parties.
Tom empaneled a Grand Jury to hand down indictments. And that's what Grand Juries do: determine if enough evidence exists to issue indictments and bring people to trial. Grand Juries do NOT exist to intimidate witnesses who are not targets of the investigation, nor to issue rulings, nor write reports. You've seen Ben Stone and Jack McCoy in action (even I have) and you know the deal. Maybe Tom should watch more Law & Order (Ba-bum!).
In what the American Civil Liberties Union calls an “abuse of the grand jury process by the Pennsylvania Attorney General,” Angela Stalnecker was subpoenaed on May 6 and told to keep the appearance a secret.
Stalnecker is the sister-in-law of Brett Cott, who was indicted and convicted in the Bonusgate affair.
On May 10, Stalnecker appeared before a grand jury, where she was grilled by prosecutors she said were looking to “make an example of Brett.”
“They wanted pillow talk, saying, ‘You’re his sister-in-law. You mean to say he never admitted anything?’ They asked very personal questions and it was obvious they were very angry they only got convictions on three charges,” Stalnecker said. [...]
Stalnecker accused prosecutors of “bullying me and trying to intimidate me to tell them how Brett feels. You could tell their absolute hatred for Brett. They spent an awful lot of energy and taxpayer resources trying to get information on someone that was already convicted.”
That's right: they brought her in AFTER the conviction, but before sentencing. NOT what people are called to the Grand Jury about.
In addition, Tom had the Grand Jury issue a report, which ran 34 pages, which has guidelines for the PA General Assembly to enact to "fix" the problems. Again, NOT what a Grand Jury is supposed to do. You can read the major points here. And it's not that these are bad ideas, they're not, but the idea that a candidate for Governor would use his position as Attorney General to get a Grand Jury to deliver talking points and proposals for him to run on as a candidate.
Tom Corbett overstretched his current role as AG, and hopefully voters will realize this before November, or face living in a state where the Governor doesn't understand his role, and will pervert legal processes to harass whomever he wants.
Appalled? Do two things: join the Facebook group Tom Corbett must resign, and give some time and/or money to the Dan Onorato campaign.
It appears that someone in the White House offered Joe Sestak a job last July if he agreed to not run against Arlen Specter. It's all somewhat hazy as to what the job actually was, or who specifically made the offer. What we know is that Sestak admitted something was offered, and he turned it down.
But since Sestak resoundingly won the primary, the story is back in the news.
It's not a deal killer for Sestak: if someone called and made the offer, he didn't do anything wrong besides answering the phone. Oh, and mentioning it. Not just last year, but this past Sunday on both Meet the Press and Face the Nation.
It's not good for the White House, which had this to say:
Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, appearing on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” said Sunday that “nothing inappropriate happened.”
Bob Schieffer, the host, pressed Mr. Gibbs about whether the White House had actually offered Mr. Sestak a job to clear the field for Mr. Specter.
“I’m not going to get into it,” Mr. Gibbs said, “but people who have looked into it assure me the conversations were not inappropriate in any way.”
What likely happened is that someone at the White House, if I had to guess, I'd say Rahm Emanuel, said something like "we want to show our support for Arlen Specter because he's given us the 60th vote. For the good of the party, we'd like you to stay in the House, and let Arlen run unopposed for the Senate. If you really want out of the House, we're filling a lot of jobs in the administration, and we'd be glad to short list you for something appropriate to your background and talents. Is that something you might consider?"
Clean? Not really, but not illegal. The White House did (and does) have high ranking jobs to fill, and problems filling a lot of them. In all industries, there is a dance when someone is approached about the possibility of taking a job if one were offered. It's illegal to interfere in an election, but that relates to coercion, and packing ballot boxes, not asking nicely if someone would quit a race.
It's the opposite of pay-to-play, where it's the "getter" going to the "giver" to cut a deal. It's also different in that there is no financial gain to either side: no cash in the freezer, no asking what a Senate seat is worth in dollars.
Still, the White House position that everyone should just trust it and go away is unacceptable from any administration; it is especially hypocritical coming from this one. "I'm not going to get further into what the conversations were," Mr. Gibbs said Sunday. "People that have looked into them assure me that they weren't inappropriate in any way." This response would hardly have satisfied those who were upset during the previous administration about the firing of U.S. attorneys. If there was nothing improper, why not all that sunlight Mr. Obama promised?
To me, the real question is why the White House fought so hard to keep Arlen Specter in a race that, in the end, he couldn't win against Pat Toomey. Specter's people knew last fall that he wouldn't win the primary. Still, the White House, and state and national Democrats rallied. Perhaps in the fall out from this imbroglio, we'll find some answers.
Update:
For the right-wingers out there thinking this is a huge story... consider your bubble burst.
On Tuesday, Tom Corbett won the Republican nomination for Pennsylvania governor. It was a foregone conclusion. He'll be facing Dan Onorato.
For a lot of reasons, it's going to be an interesting race, but here's one little piece of nonsense. Two people, tweet-named "casablancpa" and "bfbarbie" said not nice things about Tom on Twitter. In his current position as Attorney General, and under the flimsiest of excuses, he went to court for subpoenas to get Twitter to release the tweeps' real names.
Twitter said no and has not released the names. The ACLU got right on it.
A couple hours ago, Corbett withdrew the request for the subpoenas. The back story is that Democrat Brett Cott was sentenced to five years in jail today. Cott was one of the dozens of people charged by Corbett's office in "Bonusgate", about graft and corruption and elected officials in Harrisburg. (The state capital.) Of course, Corbett indicted the Democrats first. He claimed he wanted the names because he believed Cott to be one of the tweeps. I guess Corbett is unaware of the First Amendment.
Anyway, Tom's going to campaign, Brett's going to jail, and you should look forward to hearing all about the Orie sisters. The only people NOT indicted by Tom for graft and corruption actions. I guess when you date someone years ago.....
It was an incredible day. The rain wouldn't stop. It finally did in late afternoon, but mostly, it was periods of downpour interspersed with a lot of dank.
Under the heading of "all politics is local" I spent the day at my polling place, one of the larger polling places in Chester County. Because of the rain, everyone set up inside, and voters had to run a gauntlet of campaign and committee people. Until afternoon, there were normally more of us than the number of voters. When the polls opened at 7 a.m., there were 7 voters ready to vote. Two were "regular voters" and 5 were those of us who would be there all day.
The most interesting thing to me was the number of people who showed up and were undecided about one of more races. Normally on primary day, people are ONLY voting because they have a preference. I spoke with many people who didn't know if they'd go Specter or Sestak in the lobby, putting off going into the polls until they spoke with the various representatives. I'd never seen this in my life.
While the official numbers aren't posted yet, the preliminary count was different in many races than what the outcomes were across the board. Sestak won with a much higher percentage (about 70%) than he did statewide. Joe Hoeffel came within a hair of beating Dan Onorato in the gubernatorial race. The question I got most on that race was: "How sure are you that Onorato wins?" My answer was "100%." The next question was, and I kid you not, "Should I vote my conscience?" And I would answer in the affirmative. As for Doug Pike, he won both my district, and all of Chester County, 2:1. It's interesting when you are as connected to a precinct as I am that when I look at his totals for the precinct, I can account for most of the voters. By name. That is, although Democrats hold a registration advantage in my precinct, turnout was low, about 350 Democratic voters. I was able to say hello to about 250 of them by name. Doug's unofficial vote total was 233.
We received all sorts of information throughout the day via text and email. In one precinct, turnout was higher for the 2010 primary than for the 2009 general. I'm going to look at the numbers overall about that: if there is a similar trend, it means the progressives really came out.
Amoungst others, Jim Gerlach stopped by. I was wearing a white sweater covered with stickers and buttons. The look he gave me could have leveled a small city. My next door neighbor, who is a consultant to the Gerlach campaign, introduced me and said he'd be trying to convert me by November. Jim asked if that might work, and I said it hadn't the last four cycles, but my neighbor WAS relentless in his attempts.
I have one last comment on the Pike-Trivedi race. I always tell you that politics isn't personal, and when one makes it that way, there is an inherent loss of objectivity. Doug won Chester 2:1, Manan took Montco 53%-47%, and ran up huge numbers in Berks County (70%). Lehigh was a non-issue because there are only a couple hundred voters there. I never looked at the race objectively, I was engaged here in Chester County. When I looked at the Sestak-Specter race, I always said that Joe would win: even though I canvassed, phone banked and signed for Sestak, it was never personal. He was, to my mind, the better candidate, with a far higher potential for success against Toomey, not to mention what a primary win would do for progressives nationally. With Doug, it was personal: I took him canvassing, spent time with him and the staff, and could never see the race from the outside. So I apologize for my lack of objectivity in that race: but it was impossible for me to separate the race from the objectivity I try to hold my race frames to. As I've said, I'll certainly support Manan in the general: it is incredibly heartwarming (albeit bittesweet) that he ran a true grassroots campaign: no money, little staff, fewer endorsements, no TV, but a lot of national support from MoveOn and Orange-to-Blue. I had friends who tireless canvassed for him in Montco, and I know that their efforts made a huge difference in that county. (Hi Dan!)
Pennsylvania Democratic Senate Primary (Polls closed at 8pm Eastern)
Candidate
Percent of Vote
Joe Sestak
54
Arlen Specter
46
Percent of vote in: 93%
PA-12 Special Election (Polls closed at 8pm Eastern)
Candidate
Percent of Vote
Mark Critz (D)
52
Tim Burns (R)
45
Percent of vote in: 95%
Arkansas Democratic Senate Primary (Polls closed at 8:30pm Eastern) - 50% needed to avoid runoff
Candidate
Percent of Vote
Blanche Lincoln
43
Bill Halter
43
D.C. Morrison
14
Percent of vote in: 59%
Kentucky Democratic Senate Primary (Polls closed at 6/7pm Eastern)
Candidate
Percent of Vote
Jack Conway
44.1
Dan Mongiardo
43.0
Percent of vote in: 99.5
Updates:
11:13: AP calls AR-SEN a runoff 10:35: Lincoln at 44.6. Runoff is June 8. 10:29: How considerate of AR to hold their counting until PA and KY were done. Lincoln with 47.8% with 20% in. 10:27: Burns concedes, Critz wins special in PA-12. 10:17: Conway wins. Sestak wins. 9:59: Sestak up 53-47, 27,000 vote lead, 52% in, Philly mostly reported. Hard for Specter to come back at this point. 9:58: Conway running up the middle, desperately trying to run out the clock. Lead is 5700 votes. 9:56: Conway lead down to 6700 votes, 96% in. 9;49: Sestak up 52-48 with 45% in. Critz up big in PA-12 with 20% in. In PA-6, Trivedi up on Pike 63-37 with 10% in. (Sorry Jess) 9:47: Conway up 8600 votes, trying to run out the clock. 9:42: Sestak takes the lead 52-48. Conway up 9500 votes, 93% in 9:37: Conway holding on to 9K vote lead, 92% in. 9:30: 30% in, Specter up by 2500 votes. 90% in, Conway up by 9000 votes. 9:15: 15% in. Sestak starting to close Specter early lead. Conway up 45-42, 12K votes, 86% in. Critz up early in PA-12. 9:08: Conway lead just shrunk to 13K votes, up 45-42, 83% in. Specter up 54-46, 12% in.| 9:00: Conway lead under 20K votes now, 46-41, 78% in. 8:55: Early results from Philly have Specter up big. 75% in in KY, Conway up 47-41, leading by 22K votes. Nothing from AR yet. One precinct in so far in PA-12. 8:44: 63% in. Conway up 47-41, leading by 22K votes. Specter up in very early results.8:37: 63% in. Conway still up 48-40, still leading by 23K votes. A trickle of PA results has started. 8:26: 58% in. Conway up 48-40, still leading by 23K votes. Just noise in PA so far. AR polls close in 4 minutes. 8:21: 52% in. Conway up 48-40, leading by 23K votes. Nothing from PA yet. 8:15: 48% in. Conway up 49-39, leading by 23K votes. Nothing from PA yet. 8:03: 41% in. Conway up 49-39, 21K votes. 7:55: 37% in. Conway up 50-38, 26K votes. Polls close in PA in 5 minutes, 7:48: It's a Randslide. AP calls KY-Sen(R) for Rand Paul. 7:47: 32% in. Conway up 49-39, 15K votes. Paul up 59-36. 7:40: 28% in. Conway up 49-38, 16K votes. Paul up 59-36. 7:34: 23% in. Conway up 51-37. Not as close as expected?. Paul up 58-38. This one should be called as soon as enough votes are in, 7:18: 13% in. Now we're getting somewhere. Conway up 47-40, Paul up 51-34. 7:10. 7% in, Mongiardo up 46-42 7:00: 5% in, Conway up 45-43. Paul up 54-40. 6:20: First KY numbers starting to come in, but many polls don't close until 7. Also, no exit polls anywhere tonight. 5:30PM: Turnout throughout PA, especially in Philly, is rather low, and the rain is not helping. Low turnout is expected to help Sestak. (DocJess has also confirmed from her polling place). The one exception is PA-12, where turnout is reasonable.
Having made every GOTV phone call and door knock that I possibly could, I'm off to put up the final signs and then start working the polls. In checking my email, I saw the following from Jonathan Saidel, running for Lt. Governor in Pennsylvania (He'll win. Easily.)
The thought is a good one. If you're in a primary state, VOTE.
If you live somewhere else, please make a few GOTV calls today.
The following facts may astound you; however, they are true.
1645 Oliver Cromwell gained control of England by one vote.
1649 Charles I of England was executed by one vote.
1776 America's language is English rather than German by one vote.
1839 Marcus Merton was elected Governor of Massachusetts by one vote.
1845 Texas joined the Union by one vote.
1868 President Andrew Johnson was saved from impeachment by one vote.
1875 France changed from a Monarchy to a Republic by one vote.
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes was elected President of U.S. by one vote.
1923 Adolph Hitler gained leadership of the Nazi Party by one vote.
1941 Selective Service was saved 12 weeks before Pearl Harbor by one vote.
1960 John F. Kennedy won the Presidency by less than one vote per precinct.
2001 Fast Track - jobs out of the USA passed by one vote.
Jonathan Saidel wants to remind you that every single vote cast in the primary really does count! So, be sure to get out to your polling place and bring a friend too!
A few final thoughts on tomorrow's contests before I disappear completely into GOTV. And yes, I'll be at the polls all day long, and at a watch party once the polls close. (Matt will be live-blogging all the results. A public personal thanks, Matt, for enabling me to be at the party...and appreciated by many, since I'm bringing the cake.)
First, in case you missed the update that Matt posted yesterday, Specter is touting that he voted against the assault weapons ban, while Sestak is for it. It's so targeted that the ad will run in Pittsburgh, but not in Philadelphia, where it would hurt him.
Next, Channel 8 in Lancaster pulled apart the he said/he said ad on "My switch in parties will allow me to get re-elected." They find that there was more, but not only did it not change the meaning, but Arlen repeated the identical claim in other venues. Related quote from Meet the Press:
"It became apparent to me that my chances to be elected on the Republican ticket were bleak."
Karma, Arlen, Karma.
The Thursday before the 2008 election, I was at the Obama phone bank I was running, and the campaign guy asked me to come outside. He told me to sit down, and not to scream when he said what he had to say. He put his hands on my shoulders, looked in my eyes, and said "We've got it." It took a moment for it to sink in, and I asked whether he was sure, or if he was just saying it to keep me pumped. He said he was sure. There's something nice about surety in an election: you still do the work, because you never, EVER, take anything for granted, but it helps for those 20 minutes a night you get to sleep.
I don't have that sense of certainty for tomorrow's primaries. I have a gut feel on how things will turn out, but without surety, I'm not saying, because it would be gut and not fact. Let's just say I'm cautiously optimistic about some of the races.
I believe that if Sestak and Conway win, and Halter AT LEAST forces Blanche into a run-off, the whole tone and caliber of the 2010 races in November change. Chris Bowers gets a lot of it right in this piece, wherein he says:
The reason progressives need to keep engaging in progressive primary challenges against Democrats-pretty much wherever and whenever they are available--is to provide a counterweight to the massive amount of incentives elected Democrats have to engage in conservative and / or pro-corporate behavior.
(Make sure you read the "I am now a Conservative Democrat part.)
If the progressive wing candidates win tomorrow, and continue to do so throughout the rest of the primary season, it sends a huge message to the party itself: that we will not stand down for lackluster sell-outs; that we will come out for those candidates who espouse the platform, the ethos, and the goals of the real Democratic Party; and that we will never lie down for Wall Street, the insurance industry and others who would co-opt our elected officials.
As I've said before, progressive primary wins would go a long way to re-energizing the activists in the party. And high turnout tomorrow will help with GOTV in November, provided the progressives win.
I take my leave of you now until Wednesday morning. I'll be tweeting if I can (my polling place has sketchy wifi, and Tweetdeck won't work without it) - I'm turning out 176 firm votes, plus 10 absentee "balloters", and have about 40 people left for tonight. My drivers are set, and the overnight should be fun (and I WILL be tweeting that). Good luck to those of you in Kentucky and Arkansas, and of course here in Pennsylvania.
And please, even if you live somewhere without a primary: call the people you know in primary states, or do an hour of long distance phone banking.
Update from Matt: Latest Quinnipiac poll: Sestak 42, Specter 41.
Overall, it should be an exciting night for many races across the country.
OREGON
Under the radar, the Oregon primary has been progressing. As you doubtlessly recall, Oregon is an all-mail-in primary. It appears that Ron Wyden will win it. I haven't seen any recent polls for the general, but a few months ago Rasmussen showed Wyden only pulling 49% against Jim Huffman, the supposed Republican winner at that time. Wyden's camp undertook their own poll which showed Wyden winning against whichever Republican won the primary.
KENTUCKY
This could be a squeaker as the two leaders for each party's primary are polling rather closely. On the Republican side, it's Rand Paul (Ron's son) with 45%, and Trey Greyson with 35%. It should be Greyson's to lose in this heavily red state as he's the party pick fave, but Paul could well win it.
On the side of truth and light, it's very tight, with Daniel Mongiardo at 39%, and Jack Conway at 36%. Likewise their favourables/unfavourables are very close. Full results of the most recent poll, with general match-ups here.
ARKANSAS
Despite the DCW poll which shows Halter's probability of winning at 59%, the polling is not as sure:
Blanche has received a bunch o' bucks in the past couple weeks from various industries. Specifically, farming and health care, which have a vested interest in making sure that their tool stays in place. It might help, it might not. The thing I keep thinking about is that while only 53% of Blanche's money has come from individuals, 92% of Bill Halter's money has. If you want to make a last minute donation to Bill, you can do so here. And remember, this race can certainly go to a run-off, which would be held on 8 June.
PENNSYLVANIA
I don't what to add, we run info on this Senate race every day. Go Joe! There will also be a special election for Jack Murtha's seat. The 12th is interesting: it was the only in the country that went for John Kerry in 2004, and then flipped to the dark side in 2008. But, we have a registration edge of 60,000 voters, and it's likely that turnout will be high given the other state races. Go Mark Critz!
Update (from Matt): Specter is touting his vote against, and Sestak's vote for, the assault weapons ban. In a Democratic primary.
Over the life of the tracking poll, Specter's favorables were basically unchanged, from 58-31 to 59-30, with that 59% being a high-water mark for Specter. Looking just at this number, Sestak's ads have not had much effect on Specter's favorability. On the other hand, Sestak has gone from 49-12 to 51-18, with that 18% being Sestak's highest unfavorability. In fact, over the last 5 days, Sestak's unfavorability numbers have doubled: 9-11-13-15-18. Those numbers are hard to believe given the polling has been essentially stable over the same period. But there they are. We'll finally know what's really going on when the votes are tallied less than 72 hours from now.
In the Governor's race, Onorato maintained his 39-15 lead over Williams.
Specter is up 44-43. And you just can't predict what a tracking poll will do. We got an email a few days ago after the 5/10 result saying Sestak would be up by 10 by 5/12. Instead it was tied. Chris at OpenLeft expected a nice bum for Sestak based on the removal of the Monday sample which gave Specter a 4 point bump. But that 4 point bump could have just as easily been due to the removal of a pro-Sestak sample 4 days before that.
By the way, the last tracking poll release will be on Sunday. Why they're stopping two days before the election, when so many pollsters don't release results Monday or Tuesday mornings before an election I'll never know.
As Matt mentioned in last night's tracking poll post, DKos/Reasearch 2000's poll came out today, with Joe Sestak ahead of Arlen by 2 points. Of note in their release, Sestak is much better positioned to beat Pat Toomey in the fall than Arlen would be.
But that's not all. Arlen is running ads touting the support of President Obama. You'd think that maybe Obama would make the quick trip up here....but no.
[W]hile the White House has backed Mr. Specter in the primary, making good on a pledge made when he switched parties just over a year ago, Mr. Obama seems unlikely to make a campaign visit for Mr. Specter before the primary, Democrats said. They said the White House is not eager to be embarrassed by having the president make a last-minute visit on behalf of a candidate who goes on to lose, as happened in the Massachusetts Senate and New Jersey governor’s races.
Do you think this is hurting Arlen? OK, it's old, but it does show that Arlen is happy to be the deciding vote....and Spawn of Satan is planning on running for President in 2012.
Specter is now up 45-43. You could say that Specter's ads are breaking through. You could say, it's just statistical noise since Sestak's 5 point lead 4 days ago. Or you could say the whole track is statistical noise. Which it could be. There is a MoE of +/- 5% on this poll, which is higher than most polls. If Sestak's true number were 43.5%, all his numbers are within 3.5% of that, so all movement could be noise. Similarly for Specter, if his true number were 45.5%, his numbers are all also within 3.5%, quite within the margin of error.
A few final thoughts on tomorrow's contests before I disappear completely into GOTV. And yes, I'll be at the polls all day long, and at a watch party once the polls close. (Matt will be live-blogging all the results. A public personal thanks, Matt, for enabling me to be at the party...and appreciated by many, since I'm bringing the cake.) 
