The last polls we reported showed him behind Blanche, but my guess is that those numbers will rapidly invert. There is one more recent poll that I could find, but it's from Mason-Dixon, and they show Blanche at 52%, and therefore I doubt they're trending anywhere near reality. Even Rasmussen has Blanche losing to all the Republican field, with her favourablesat 21%.
Bill Halter will infuse the race with decency, a legitimate choice, great positions, and a record of which he should be very proud.
Some days, "health care" is a moment: a speech, a vote, a heartbreaking story. Today, it is a series of anecdotes which, taken together, still lead to "crapshoot".
First, we have Nancy Pelosi on the Sunday shows saying that she'll have the votes in the House to pass health care. But, voting for the bill might cost several reps their seats. If, in fact, there were a bill, which there isn't. She seems confident that while there are major differences between the House and Senate, a compromise will be able to be reached. One that will seemingly need to pass the Senate via reconciliation.
Then, Barack Obama had a physical yesterday. He's in good health. Still having a bit of trouble with tobacco, but they told him to stay on the gum. A physical. Something so easy for those of us with health insurance, and such a pipe dream for those of us who don't. To the best of my knowledge (although I'm certainly willing to be wrong) there is no law that mandates a president must have a physical. IMAGINE the leadership had President Obama said that he would forgo any and all physicals for himself and his family until all families could have preventative care via a true health reform bill. Imagine the power of that. The commitment. The honour. Leading by example.
Meanwhile, we have the White House, via Nancy DeParle, saying the Obama administration wants a straight up or down vote. And indicating they'll help push it through that way.
Remember, this is the Senate that has 290 House bills already waiting for a vote. The one led by Harry Reid who split the jobs bill, pulled out the unemployment extension, passed the corporate part, and then allowed Jim Bunning to hold everyone hostage Friday night so that today 1.2 million Americans lose that part of the safety net. THAT Senate.
We all understand the need for health reform to pass, in some form, for political reasons. Believe it or not, even the Republicans want some form of health reform to pass. No, I'm not misspeaking: the difference is that most (NOT ALL) Democrats want some form of reform to pass which actually makes the situation better for actual Americans. The Republicans want something to pass which makes things worse.
In all of this, the thing I find most interesting is the idea that Pelosi believes that she can whip her members to get something passed that will cost them their livelihood. I wonder if she would be willing to give up her seat to pass health care. If she wouldn't, she'll never be able to convince someone else to. It is once again a matter of leadership. One of the things that could have been done a while back would have been for those Reps and Senators who believe in reform to opt out of government coverage (remember, they all have health care paid for by OUR tax dollars) until every American has the options they do. Again, incredibly powerful. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one person who has done that, but I just can't remember his name. If memory serves, he's a doctor from Wisconsin serving in the House.
You can imagine what my life has been if I missed commenting on the health care summit. ("Highlights" after the jump.) And yes, I have a comment or two. What an incredible waste of time. It's like putting 50 vegans in the same room with 50 beef ranchers and seeing if they can come to an agreement on what they should all eat for dinner that night. On the up side, 52 million watched per Nielson, and the White House claims that another 3.9 watched their direct feed. Both numbers are likely low: for example, DCW ran the White House feed and we likely counted as "one" even though a few hundred individuals watched on our link. Not to mention the groups who watched a single TV in a bar or office. I am pleased that so many people had interest, and furious that people seem to think bipartisanship trumps action. 18% of liberals think Obama is doing too much to compromise with Republicans, but overall 44% think he is doing too little. Then again, 58% of the polled respondents think the Republicans are doing too little to compromise. I am stunned that that number is so very low.
While there is more than enough blame to go around on health care, I think the lion's share of the blame needs to rest with the Senate. I am ashamed of so many in my party for their refusal to sign the Public Option letter: only 24 Senators have signed. On an individual basis, let's start with Robert Byrd. He who never committed to a Public Option last year. He wrote a "Dear Colleague" letter last week indicating his opposition to changing the Senate's filibuster rules in any meaningful way. Only 20 Senators favour a 51-vote Senate or are leaning that way. The Democrats in the Senate need to use the majority we have left: there isn't going to be a deal with the evil empire. And they're not just sitting on health care: the Senate is sitting on 290 other House bills. Yup really: 290. You can read the list here. While a lot of them are minor, and don't affect many people, the stall on unemployment will hit millions very hard this coming week.
For that particular disaster, we have Jim Bunning (IIE-KY) who put a hold on the bill, and then said "tough s**t" when asked to remove it. Honest, "tough s**t": even Politico reported it. It doesn't phase me in the least that a lackluster moron like Jim-Bob would do this. What astounds me is that every Democrat in every race didn't release a statement to the press, and send an email to all constituents saying that the Republicans are allowing one of their own to try to see children starve in the streets in March of 2010 in America. An over-the-top reaction? Perhaps: but the IIE uses those sorts of imagery all the time - refer to "killing grandma" and "death panels". Difference is, this time it could be true.
Another thing I can't get my head around is why this group of IIE senators voted FOR the jobs bill after having voted to not let it come to the floor. I can't even pretend to see any clarity in that.
So that's what I've got for now. If you read after the jump, you'll see why I'm much more likely to be posting this coming week.
Yesterday, Harry Reid's scaled down jobs bill moved forward. No help from Ben Nelson (DINO - NE), who voted against the move. In addition, Senator Lautenberg is undergoing chemo and could not attend the vote. However, Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich and Kit Bond voted with the Democrats. The final vote was 62 - 30 to block a filibuster.
The bill itself has the jobs part of the original bill, minus the K Street and uber-rich giveaways. A summary:
Along with a Social Security tax break to encourage businesses to hire workers, the $15-billion package would replenish the depleted Highway Trust Fund, which uses gasoline taxes to repair interstate roads; expand the Build America Bonds program, which helps state and local governments fund infrastructure projects; and allow small businesses to write off large equipment purchases immediately rather than depreciating them over several years.
Of note:
The measure includes a provision co-written by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) that would exempt employers who hire new workers from paying the 6.2% Social Security payroll tax for the rest of the year. But Hatch voted against cutting off debate anyway.
The up or down vote on the bill could come as early as Wednesday. Full text (with handwritten notes from Harry Reid) here.
So what does this mean that Scott Brown, teabagger darling (I told you they might have misjudged him) and four other moderate Republicans voted against the filibuster? Is this a slap back at a completely "Party of No" leadership? The Brown vote is most interesting. Not just because he's new, but because he was made out to belong to the slice of Republicanism against government spending. And out of the gate, he's looking to spend government funds. I guess we'll see whether this was strictly a process vote, and the five vote against the actual bill, or whether they actually will put their constituencies above their party's rhetoric.
There has been discussion of whether or not the Senate can/will pass a Public Option via reconciliation, independent of the proposed Obama plan. I pulled the chart from last summer, and Matt kindly appended the columns to include the new count, and any support announced on voting for/against the President's plan.
The Public Option came up because Michael Bennet sent a letter to Harry Reid urging consideration of it. You can read the letter here. The MSM has reported that there are 20 Senate signatories, but as of 22 February, I can only account for 19. I am hoping this number rises in the next days and weeks. As new data come in, I'll append the chart.
Since there is no evidence that anyone saying "no" the first time has changed his/her mind, I carried over the no votes. In addition, I left Senator Kennedy in the mix as true reform was his wish at his death. I added Scott Brown at the bottom. It won't affect the total tally.
As I'm sure you will, please leave updates in the comments. If you live in a state with a Senator who was pro-public option last summer, but hasn't signed on to Bennet's letter, why don't you give them a call? I am surprised as some of the names I don't see on the list.
I am NOT surprised to NOT see my own Senator Casey's name on the list. My conversation with his office staffer was that while Casey supports the Public Option, he is "weighing his options" to see if he supports doing ANY health care reform via reconciliation. As I mentioned to the staffer (and for some reason, she didn't ask my name, go figure) Casey won against Rick "Spawn of Satan" Santorum in a year when anyone could have won against Rick. Bob won't have that luxury next time.
Yesterday, the Chesco Dems held their nominating convention. Any local Democrat can attend, but only committeepeople, zone, regional and county elected officials can vote. 55% is required to win. The specific numbers differ by position. For example, everyone can vote for the senatorial and gubernatorial endorsements, but only those in CD6 can vote for that race, same with CD7 part of which is also part of Chesco. It was interesting, to say the least.
First off, no gubernatorial nor senatorial candidate received enough votes for an endorsement. For Governor, the votes were:
Onorato - 103
Hoeffel - 95
Wagner - 52
Williams - 1
Remember, the State Committee also failed to endorse due to a lack of majority.
The vote was 126 Sestak - 119 Specter on the Senate side. Interesting, to say the least, given that Specter won the State Committee endorsement, and the Chesco voters went 8 - 3 for Specter. While the votes are sealed, Andy Dinneman is a big Specter backer. Andy is a second term State Senator, holding a seat that was never Democratic before he captured it in a special election due to the death of his predecessor. And we'll get back to him.
The CD-7 vote was straightforward: 39 for Brian Lentz, with two votes for Gail Conner and one for Teresa Touey.
In the 6th District, Manan Trivedi carried 99 votes to Doug Pike's 40 and Brian Gordon's one. 77 were required. All of the people I spoke with voted for Trivedi for some version of "his personal story" "his background" "his ability to present a clear difference to Gerlach" and "his position on health care." It was a blow-out, especially since the Pike campaign was convinced it had 56 solid votes going in, which did not materialize.
As an aside, because of Andy Dinneman, some of the town committees held meetings where Manan spoke, and Doug and Brian were not allowed to speak, even though they, in some cases, showed up. This should not detract from Manan, the man and the candidate, just a little nod to local politics and peccadillos on the part of Andy.
The question becomes whether or not a man like Manan can win against Jim Gerlach. I contended previously that he could not based on organization and money. Predominantly money. But if each of the 99 people who voted for him, and their spouses and a few friends each, give the $2400 that they can for the primary, he could erase the financial deficit in a week.
Further, many people are excited about Manan Trivedi. He is pure Single Payer, he is completely opposed to any build-up in Afghanistan. What won the election for Obama in Pennsylvania was that he overcame the mistakes of the primary, and utilized excited volunteers. In 2008, that was a winning formula. In 2010 it's questionable, but in my eyes, this endorsement means a lot. Or rather, it will mean a lot if the committeepeople actually work for him: the phones, the canvasses, the lit drops, the voter drives, and the rest of GOTV. This is something that, organizationally, they never did before in history. But 2010 is an odd year.
It brings up the question of whether a true progressive can win in a mixed purple district like the PA 6th. I like Manan. I like Doug. There is no question that either would be a much better Congressman than Jim Gerlach. By the way, Steve Welch pulled out yesterday, meaning that Gerlach will not need to spend any money on the primary as the rest of his competitors present little challenge. He'll be primed and ready on 21 May for whichever Democrat challenges him.
The people who came out in Chesco yesterday were primarily progressives. all are activists. That they overrode the state endorsement of Arlen Specter, and rated Joe Hoeffel so highly is telling of that. The question is whether or not that can translate to the voters: the workers for whom 2008 was their first campaign and didn't even vote last year. The people who are so fed-up that they have changed their registration from Democrat to either "Independent" or "unaligned". Can force of personality and a compelling story win? It's possible we'll see....a week ago, I would have said that Pike had this primary sewn up, now I'm thinking it's 50/50.
One other thing to consider in the calculus is that a couple weeks ago, the 6th was the most likely district to be lost to redistricting. With the death of John Murtha, his district is in play for being redistricted out of existence. A consideration, too.
Why did Evan Bayh decide to announce that he was leaving the Senate YESTERDAY? As Hotline on Call explains, it has to do with the fact that:
Candidates running for statewide office in IN have to collect 500 signatures from each of the state's 9 districts. Those signatures are due by [today].
Once signatures are in, candidates have until Friday to officially file for office.
Bayh could still file to run, then drop out. But if he does not file his signatures [today], no other Dem is expected to collect the required 500 signatures by then, meaning Dems will get the chance to pick their own nominee. Some DC Dems say the process is the best-case scenario short of having Bayh on the ballot for a 3rd term; allowing the party to pick a nominee will avoid a primary.
But it isn't that simple...
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) is the early name Dem strategists are throwing around. He easily beat ex-Rep. John Hostettler (R) in '06 to capture a centrist district, and he has cut a moderate swath in his 2 terms in the House.
Still, if Ellsworth runs, that opens up a vulnerable House seat GOPers would make a top target. Bayh's decision could ultimately topple 2 Dem-held seats, making his retirement one of the biggest blows Dems have suffered this year.
So it's a quandary: did Bayh set his timing to help the Democrats, or to cause problems? I'm not talking about the actual decision to not seek re-election, but the timing.
Still, there is something that bothers me, in general, about Bayh's decision. He's young for a Senator. He was polling 20 points ahead. He doesn't seem to have made a decision about where he'll go next, and the Senate rules preclude an immediate segue to K Street. His only electoral problem relates to his wife's employment, and his health care reform position.
I understand about Chris Dodd stepping aside to keep a Connecticut seat Democratic, after a life of public service. Both he and Byron Dorgan are old enough to settle back and enjoy family time, down time, and maybe teaching. (Think about learning poli sci from one of them!) But Bayh is only 54, which is so young to retire from the Senate. Or anywhere.
Has the political climate really become so toxic? Has the idea (and ideal) of "public service" gone away? It's just a little unsettling.
Southeastern Pennsylvania was hit hard by a major snowstorm yesterday. It was the second highest snowfall total in history, at an official 28.5 inches. 10 hours before the snow ended, Olivia was outside considering her options, as you can see in the photo.
Meanwhile, some 50 miles west of Philadelphia, the State Democratic Committee met in Lancaster to make its endorsements. On the good news side, there was unanimous agreement on one issue. All 301 attending State Committee members voted to endorse a resolution calling for passage of single payer healthcare, Senate Bill 400 and House Bill 1660, also known as the "Family and Business Healthcare Security Act." If you haven't read the bill yet, a synopsis is here, including a link to the full legislation. Note that the legislation is only 27 pages: it doesn't take a lot of words to put forth a great idea.
And then, the votes went downhill. On the issue of governor, there was no endorsement.
Four people competed for the endorsement: state Auditor General Jack Wagner of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato, former U.S. Rep. Joe Hoeffel and state Sen. Anthony Williams of Philadelphia, who said Friday he has filed papers that allow him to raise money for a prospective campaign. Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty has declared his candidacy, but did not compete for the endorsement Saturday.
Hoeffel was eliminated on the first ballot as the low vote-getter. On the second and final ballot, Wagner received the most votes — more than half of those cast, but far short of a two-thirds majority.
It's interesting that Wagner received the most votes as Onorato has the institutional support of the party, and Ed Rendell, behind him. If the party cannot pull together behind a candidate, it bodes poorly for November, which was all uphill in any event. Will Hoeffel's progressive support evaporate after he loses the primary? Voting for Onorato or Wagner is an incredibly tough thing for a progressive: there is very little daylight between their positions and those of Republican Tom Corbett. Plus, Corbett has more name recognition, is currently prosecuting corrupt state officials from both parties, and is squeaky clean.
On the Senate side, Arlen Specter won the endorsement of more than the required two-thirds, with 229 votes to Joe Sestak's 72. Sestak had this to say:
It showed "I was a little too independent" for the committee members, who hail from all corners of the state, the second-term congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs said as he vowed to stay in the race. "This is going to be a great fight."
The endorsement of Specter is a little surprising given that many of those who voted for the endorsement are the same people who worked very hard against him in all the previous elections. If Specter wins the primary, it's almost certain that Pat Toomey will win the seat. Specter hasn't had a polling lead since October. In the most recent poll, of likely voters, Toomey holds a 14% lead, plus an enthusiasm gap lead when the party registrations are considered.
The final results are in for the Illinois Senate race: as expected it will be Alex Giannoulias vs Mark Kirk. The gubernatorial race is not yet clear. On the Democratic side, both Pat Quinn and Dan Hynes have 50% of the vote, with Quinn up by about 7,200 votes with 99% of the precincts counted. There is also no clear winner on the GOP side.
In Florida, in the race to takeover the seat vacated by Box Wexler, on the Democratic side, Ted Deutch won with over 77% of the vote. He'll go up against Ed Lynch, who won with 42% on the Republican side.
Back with more in a little bit -- there's some snow to clear....
Consider the tally of the votes on Bernanke's confirmation.
Here's the summary:
47 Democrats who agreed with the President's nomination (voted in favor of cloture, and in favor of confirmation).
1 Independent who agreed with the President's nomination (voted in favor of cloture, and in favor of confirmation): Lieberman.
22 Republicans who agreed with the President's nomination (voted in favor of cloture, and in favor of confirmation).
17 obstructionist Republicans (opposed to cloture, opposed to confirmation).
6 Democrats who disagree with the President's nomination, but refused to gum up the process (voted for cloture, but against confirmation): Boxer, Dorgan, Franken, Harkin, Kaufman, Whitehouse.
1 obstructionist independent (opposed to cloture, opposed to confirmation): Sanders.
5 obstructionist Democrats (opposed to cloture, opposed to confirmation): Begich, Cantwell, Feingold, Merkley, Specter.
1 Republican who disagrees with the President's nomination, but refused to gum up the process (voted for cloture, but against confirmation): LeMieux.
Message to the obstructionist Democrats: What the hell are you doing??? Isn't it clear that voting against cloture on this nomination reinforces the idea that 60 votes is needed to pass anything in the Senate? By doing this, aren't you telling Nelson, Lieberman, and the rest that when they threatened to vote against cloture on health care they were being procedurally reasonable? It's not like you didn't have colleagues who opposed the reappointment of Bernanke but didn't feel they had to filibuster the President's nominee! Heck, even one of the Republicans who was opposed to Bernanke didn't decide to try to block the vote!
And a message to the Senate leadership: Democrats should not be able to filibuster the President's proposals, and especially his nominees, without ramifications. I find it hard to believe that most of those 5 (and thrown in Sanders since he caucuses with the Democrats) would have voted against cloture if you'd put some pressure on them to let the vote go forward. Allow such a break with party discipline here, and it will come back to bite you later.
"We're not on health care now. We've talked a lot about it in the past," Reid told reporters following the weekly Senate Democratic caucus lunch. "There are a number of options being discussed. Anything that we talk about, we have to look at the procedural aspects of that. And I've had a number of meetings with the Speaker, spoken to the White House on several occasions. I'm meeting with the Speaker later tonight in a bicameral meeting -- we'll talk about that. My leadership will go to that with me, we're going to find out how to proceed. But there is no rush. This is a Congress. What we have done lasts for two years. We've just finished our first year."
Stick a fork in him, turn him over, he's done. (Apologies to whales and Lou Reed.)
He just told the people of Nevada that not only has he wasted the last year on health care, but "we just finished our first year." Forgetting the overall tenure of Senators, Harry's been there since January of 1987, and he's the Majority Leader (the 21st Majority Leader if you keep track of those things - note: a pretty exclusive group) and "we just finished our first year"?????
I know that's what I want, she said with dripping sarcasm, someone who spends 20 plus years at a job and still thinks he's new.
When I was a young girl, I read a book called The Secret Garden. In it, a little girl took a nap in India, and when she woke up, most everyone she loved had died of cholera, and she was sent to England. To her, an alien land. There was a lot more to that book, but the part that stays with me is her sense of waking up and everything being different.
I'm thinking I shouldn't have taken a nap this afternoon.
Last night I heard that Obama would be acting like a Republican (namely Herbert Hoover) tomorrow night in recommending that non-defense spending be held to 2010 levels for the last three years of his term. Stuff like that no longer makes me appalled, I have come to expect it. The president's abdication of the base is complete. It's a TERRIBLE idea, a stupid idea, and while I'm not angry, I am nauseated that Obama would play to the neo-con right this way.
Today, though, I read about his college plan, and I'm confused. REALLY confused. What I've read is that student loan payments would be capped at 10% of income for new grads, above a threshold for basic living expenses, and then after 20 years, the remainder of the debt would be forgiven. Can someone PLEASE explain that to me?
Here's what I'm looking at: borrow $50,000 for college, make payments of $100/month to start, eventually $200/month, and then after 20 years, the remaining $20,000 is forgiven. Does that make sense? Would YOU L-E-N-D someone money knowing it wasn't coming back? A grant, I would understand, but a loan that doesn't have to be repaid? And you, the lender, knows that upfront? Is it just me? Somehow we can't make the banks lend money to small businesses because the government "shouldn't" be involved in that, but we can let them make loans and then cap the repayment?
As if the President wasn't doing enough, you have the Senate, which is pushing anti-Bernanke forces to vote yes on cloture, and then they'll only need 50 to pass his re-confirmation. Like they couldn't have done that with a Public Option? It's Wall Street over Main Street AGAIN?
I'm going back to nap-time. Maybe when I wake up the past 24 hours will have been a bad dream.
The post below shows Ed Rendell being a Democrat. An actual Democrat with an actual belief system. As an aside, he also has his facts correct.
Here we have TLB Lieberman not being a Democrat. Listen carefully and you'll hear him confuse a Woody Allen line with a Mel Brooks line. He also re-writes history wherein he thinks about becoming an "independent" the year before he was trounced by Ned Lamont and actual Democrats and then becoming something not a Democrat. Listen to TLB explain that he could be a Democrat, an Independent or a Republican.
I know that a lot of you will look at this and think: big deal, he's been a Republican for years. I see it differently. I think that Lieberman, or Specter or a number of other elected officials actually COULD be a member of either party - because the minority wing of the Republican Party and the majority wing of the Democratic Party have no differences left. This is more an indictment of the parties than about TLB. Just because I can -- here's a poll asking which party TLB would do best in during the Connecticut Senate race in 2012.
By the way - for a good write up on the state of the Democratic Party in its current muddled state, click here. I don't really get the soccer joke, but you probably will, and the rest of the article is spot on.
UPDATE MONDAY -- we had it right the first time, Beau Biden is not running for the Senate seat.
Just great news to end a great week:
VP Biden: "If you run into Beau, talk him into running; he respects you."
Me: "I don't think he wants to run, though."
Biden: "I don't think he does either. I know he doesn't want to. ... I'm so proud of the job he's done [as attorney general]." -Wilmington News-Journal
You see that sharp drop in the Senate forecast in the left sidebar? It would drop another notch if Beau Biden decides not to run.
There's also an updated House Forecast chart in the left sidebar. We'll have a complete House Forecast posted in the next day or two.
Update: Never mind. The VP's office and audio tape confirms the following correct transcript:
VP to Harry Themal: Always a pleasure of seeing you buddy. Talk Ted into running, if Beau doesn’t. Talk him into running – he respects you. I wish I had the power of appointing Senators. I’d appoint him from Maryland if he wouldn’t do Delaware.
Harry Themal: "I don't think he wants to run, though."
VP: No I don’t think he does either. I know he doesn’t. I’m so proud of the job he’s done.
Mid-Monday update: Neither is current Senator Ted Kaufman:
"Serving the people of Delaware in the U.S. Senate is as fulfilling, challenging, and humbling as I imagined when I was appointed," Kaufman, who holds the seat formerly held by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said in a statement Monday. "But as I said at the time, I will not seek election for the balance of the term." -CQ Politics
There are two pieces out of Pennsylvania this morning.
First, the lawsuit Golden English v. Chester County was filed in Federal Court. This is a racial discrimination suit related to problems with African-American voting in the 2008 general election. You can read the suit here. In summary:
A federal lawsuit was filed today on behalf of African-American residents and Lincoln University students in Chester County, asserting that the County Board of Elections and Department of Voter Services have deprived African-Americans in Lower Oxford East Township of their right to vote by assigning them to inconvenient and inadequate polling facilities. Prior to the November 2008 election, community members had warned county officials that the existing polling place could not handle the anticipated turnout, but county officials refused to move the polling place. As a result, on Election Day 2008, hundreds of Lower Oxford East voters - most of them African-American - waited up to seven hours in the pouring rain to cast their votes. Those who were unable to wait left without voting.
The suit asks the court to order Chester County to return the Lower Oxford East polling place to the Lincoln University campus, authorize federal elections monitors, and award damages to residents who faced extreme difficulties or were prevented from voting in the 2008 general election.
While you won't find it surprising, the County Commission had then two Republican commissioners and one Democrat. The vote was 2 - 1.
The other news relates to the Senate race. A new heavily slanted and biased Rasmussen poll shows Joe Sestak up on point from their last poll, to a spread of eight, and Specter falling further behind Toomey. Specifically:
Toomey leads Specter by 49%-40%, and he leads Sestak by 43%-35%. A month ago Toomey led Specter by 46%-42%, and led Sestak by 44%-38%.
You can see the historical graphs here. The difference between being 8 points behind vs 9 points is not statistically significant, but when you look at the trends, Sestak was last ahead of Toomey in October, and his rate of separation is slowing, along with double digit uncommitted voters. Meanwhile, Specter peaked in August, undecideds are down to 8%, and it looks to be in free fall.
In addition, Sestak has publicly asked Specter to debate early and often one-on-one. For those of us who saw them live, together on the stage at Netroots Nation last summer, that will only increase Sestaks's popularity. It is therefore likely that Specter will hold the number of debates to a minimum. Years ago, even 5 years ago, you'd see Arlen Specter in person and be impressed. You might not have agreed with him, but he knew his facts, spoke with conviction, and truly was an interesting listen. Last summer he was unsure, halting, and "old-old". I cannot remember if he was undergoing chemo at the time. If he was, that certainly would have contributed, so we'll see if the debates come off.
Wealthy businessman Steve Welch (R) said today he won't drop out of the race against Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA), forcing the incumbent into a potentially costly, and damaging, primary.
GOPers were excited when Gerlach dropped his longshot GOV bid earlier this month to run for re-election to his swing suburban Philly CD. But they certainly didn't bargain on Welch -- and his $650K war chest -- staying in the contest.
In fact, most of the other serious contenders have dropped out of the race; some, begrudgingly so. Most expected Welch to drop his bid, but he has decided to stay in. "If you were us, why would you stop?" Welch told PoliticsPA today. "We're clearly gaining support."
Update from DocJess: Tom Knox has officially dropped out of the gubernatorial race, and endorsed Dan Onorato.
Southeastern Pennsylvania was hit hard by a major snowstorm yesterday. It was the second highest snowfall total in history, at an official 28.5 inches. 10 hours before the snow ended, Olivia was outside considering her options, as you can see in the photo. 
