I have mixed feelings about the result of yesterday’s knock-down, drag-out GOP Senate primary in Pennsylvania. Sen. Arlen Specter barely kept his career alive with 51% support, eking out a victory over Rep. Pat Toomey’s 49%.
As much as I loathe Toomey’s ultra-conservative ideology, he would have helped Dems in Pennsylvania with an upset victory. And I don’t just mean Dem Senate candidate Joe Hoeffel.
Looking at the race and its implications, I’d say there were several winners and losers.
George W. Bush, who threw his support behind Specter enthusiastically, was the only man in America happier than Specter last night. A Toomey victory would have put the president in a very tough spot.
More importantly, Rove and Mehlman put a new GOP campaign model to work in Pennsylvania — which apparently worked well enough — and will be used again in November. Had Specter lost, Bush’s chances of winning the state this year would have fallen considerably. Indeed, as National Journal’s Chuck Todd explained today, there was even “serious talk that the Bush campaign would have essentially pulled out of Pennsylvania in the presidential — maybe not with their TV ads but definitely with their presidential visits.”
Club for Growth, meanwhile, lost big. They desperately wanted Specter out and threw everything they had behind Toomey. Now the right-wing group is out $2 million and has lost credibility. Club for Growth’s raison d’etre is telling moderate Republicans that they’ll suffer unless they follow a far-right agenda. Those threats appear a lot less serious this morning.
Survey USA, which I’ve always been a little skeptical of because it uses robotic phone banks instead of people, wins bragging rights today. They called this race better than everyone — but I’m still stubbornly unconvinced about its methodology.
And, of course, there’s Hoeffel, the Dem candidate Specter will face in November. I know there’s competing schools of thought on this, but I think yesterday’s results are bad news for him.
Taking the “glass is half-full” side is Kos, who believes Hoeffel benefits from the months of pounding Specter has endured. “[Hoeffel] now gets to face a bloodied and poorer sitting senator representing a bitterly divided party,” Kos noted last night.
I don’t entirely disagree that Specter has taken a few lumps, but all things being equal, Hoeffel stood a much better chance of beating Toomey. Even as Toomey was hammering away at Specter, every poll conducted this year shows Hoeffel trailing Specter by wide margins among all voters statewide.
True, Specter had to spend generously to win yesterday, but let’s not forget that Specter is a prolific fundraiser who starts today with $2.2 million in his general election account. Hoeffel, despite help from Atrios, raised an uninspiring $500,000 in Q1 this year. Pennsylvania is a very expensive state to campaign in and Toomey lost, in part, because Specter out spent him. In fact, there were parts of the state Toomey wasn’t on the air at all. Will Hoeffel be able to keep up with Specter financially over the next six months? It’s highly unlikely.
What’s worse, the GOP primary reinforced Specter’s image as a moderate Republican representing Pennsylvania’s centrist wing. Hoeffel’s a good candidate, but where’s he going to run? He can’t label Specter as too conservative; no one would believe it. And Hoeffel can’t run to the left because there aren’t enough votes there.
There are several seats that look like great pick-up opportunities for the Dems this year — Illinois, Oklahoma, Colorado, Alaska — but in light of yesterday’s primary results, I just don’t think Pennsylvania is one of them.