Might another factor in PA have been Specter's age?

You forgot NY-12 which was the one actual election held yesterday and was won fairly comfortably by a Democrat in a toss-up district. Moreover, it was won in a context where the GOP specifically and relentlessly nationalized the race, running their man against Pelosi. And once again, they got their asses handed to them.

Don't forget PA-12. That really is a swing district, and we held it by eight points.

Pretty good night.

my earlier rising friends beat me to it, but the most important race of the night wasn't a Senate race. it was the Dem's 6th consecutive win in a contested House special election. From PoliticalWire:

Mark Critz (D) defeats Tim Burns (R) in the special election to hold the seat of his former boss, the late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), for Democrats, according to CNN. This is the type of district that Republicans need to win if they have any chance to take control of the House in the general election. As First Read notes, "if the GOP couldn't win here -- the only congressional seat that John Kerry won in '04 but Obama lost in '08 -- it's not going to have an easy time netting the 40 House seats in November it needs to retake the House."

Sorry. Meant PA-12.

I like to think that Obama is a sharp thinker who learns from experience. The Sestak win is a 'Two-fer' for progressives, we swapped a sleazy phony Dem for a real one and we sent a message to the power brokers in the Democratic party that we deserve a place at the table. I get it that Obama had to make a deal with Specter and I'm encouraged that he honored that, but notice that he did the minimum that was required. Now, Rahm et. al. will not be so quick to give us the back of the hand, we turned a double digit Specter lead into a sound thumping and we'll be an important part of a Sestak win over a teabagger. The Dem powers that be will ingore us at their peril.

The New York Times appears to be reporting from a parallel universe. They are sticking to the first rule of modern journalisim, if the facts don't fit the MSM narrative, don't change the narrative, just ignore the facts.

Yesterday was a good day for the democratic wing of the democratic party. Sestak is a much stronger general election candidate than Specter. I think he has real shot at winning. Kentucky is an interesting race. The democrats significantly out polled the republicans. Rand Paul is going to be the darling of the media for a few weeks, but he is an arrogant guy and the bloom will fade. It is just possible that Kentucky might go to the Democrat. We have to wait to see how Blanch Lincoln does in June. The most important race of the night was the house race in Pennsylvania. If ever there was an interesting race that was it. The democrat kept his head down and stayed focused on local issues. The republican tried to run a national campaign and got his hat handed to him.

Jack Conway may be on a roll - First, his fine colt Stately Victor won the Bluegrass Stakes at Keeneland, now, he has won the primary. Keep winning, Jack.

But, as usual, the national "pundits" continue to buy their paint at the Boehner-McConnell Paint Store. They offer only the lowest prices on the finest of Red, White and Blue paints. Of course, they always offer specials on any tar for Democratic articles.

I think the media forgets that Obama's election as the change candidate actually started this trend that we are seeing played out here. This election cycle will be less a reaction to Obama than a continuation of the trend his election started.

Shortstop beat me to it - PA 12 was the most significant race of the night, and the Dems won it big time.

As for the others, SB had it pretty much right - good night for Dems, good night for Teabaggers bad night for GOP establishment.

BTW, when I say good night for Teabaggers, I mean that on a short-term basis... the better they do, the worse it is for mainstream GOP (what there is left of a "mainstream", anyway), so the better it is for Dems.

Obama's support of Specter was tepid at best. He gave him his word, so he sort-of-supported him. Anyone really think that Obama is crying over Specter's lose? Pleasee.

In KY the results are outstanding news. I would much rather face Paul than Grayson, and the fact that a progressive won the dem primary over a DINO indicates the progressive base is active.

The dynamics of a Conway vs. Paul favors the democrats I think, in that Paul will have to spend most of his time explaining exactly what he stands for, which I know most KY tea partiers really don't know.

At any rate, things are looking good for us here in KY. Now, the various progressive organizations. out there must put their muscle behind Conway in the general election.

And, somewhere, a smile crosses the face of Anita Hill.

You've got it right on the money, Steve.

And I love the PA-12 results.

The 'baggers are leading the GOP right off a cliff. And they're going happily.

:)

Spector lost!!! I'm just so happy!!! It's another big poke in the eye for DINO's and especially for Rahmie the DINO WHORE. That's for you Rahmie, you MF straight from the people you called 'retarded'. I'd love to see all of the DINO's get busted!!!! Maybe then we could return to being Democrats????

There is a reason libertarians generally don't do that well. When they try to explain their ideology, most people walk away shaking their heads. I have often thought Rand Paul's style of libertarianism is closer to a mental disorder than a political ideology.

So when do the rethugs change the name of their party to the Tea Bagger party.
Remember the last election when the rethugs would not let Rand Paul's father come to the rethug convention?

Yes, Mr Byers, how apt is Paul's first name of Rand.

Howard Dean made an interesting comment on the 'Tea Partiers'. He said that the Progressives have them too, just without the Nazi signs. "Wanting our country back" doesn't necessarily involve a lynching.

-Kind of like Harley riders; some are meth dealing Hell's Angels, while others are retired optometrists. . .

Hmmm...It's odd, but whenever I see anything Rand Paul, I see it with his daddy and his daddy's nut-job infantile sycophants (the "not-quite-ready-to-be-a-dittohead" horde) wrapped around it like thirty furlongs of triple-forged-steel anchor chain on the ankles of a duck in a very deep pond. Beating Rand is going to be a piece of cake---just move into a 24/7 cycle of presenting "Ron's Spawn" as a Loonie Toons character.

Marvin the Martian; Wile E. Coyote; Elmer Fudd; Yosemite Sam; ... you get the picture. The same can be done to all these pesky-pest teabagger-party types....

Here's a question for anyone from Arkansas: I like Blanche Lincoln as little as the next lefty does, and would love to see Halter take her out in the runoff. Any idea how Morrison's 12% will break?

I voted for Sestak yesterday mainly because I think he has a far better shot at defeating Toomey-- as a pro-choice lesbian progressive Toomey scares me, a lot. Specter has been in DC for decades, I think that his position as a RINO/DINO incumbent would have sank him against Toomey.

Did Ron Paul really name his son after Ayn Rand?

I thought Kentucky was interesting in that 100,000 more Democrats voted than Republicans. I thought the Dems weren't going to show up this year. That's what the conventional wisdom was, and it could be right, I guess.

Are most of them going to crossover and vote for Paul now?

To expand on what Pug said, two Democratic candidates each got more votes then Rand Paul did.

Rand Paul: 206,812
Jack Conway: 228,531
Daniel Mongiardo: 224,989

The KY Senate turnout is worth keeping an eye on.

Could it be that Democrats (in KY at least) are more energized than their Republican counterparts?

Or did Republican voters crossover? (Anyone know about KY's primary rules?)

A shame that a Progressive came so close to defeating Riner in another Kentucky race. Long term incumbent in a heavily Democratic district is a minister who takes his faith to Congress. The challenger kept saying Riner was more conservative than his district and, almost, proved that fact. Slaton would have been a plus.

what happened yesterday?

The more liberal Democrat won in PA
The more wingnut, not sure what a conservative is anymore, won the Republican race in KY
The more liberal Democrat won in KY
The more liberal Democrat in Ark forced the more conservative Democrat into a run off.
The Democrat beat the Republican in a house race in PA

So, it is hard to argue that the parties went further from the center yesterday.

Pug, I just posted, by mistake, on the thread above, a reply to you about Randal Paul's nickname of Rand.

The BS CW makes sense if you accept the "power of incumbency" as the most awesome trump card. It's an inside-the-beltway perspective to assume that having energetic and popular newcomers beat compromised incumbents (one of whom has never won an election in his current party--Specter?) will weaken the Democrats in the upcoming general election.

Meanwhile, "popular anti-incumbency" is just a way for establishment media to create an anti-Democratic narrative without appearing partisan.

The Kentucky primary is closed. Registered Democrats receive a Democratic Party ballot and registered Republicans receive a Republican ballot. So there is no crossover voting in primaries. Lots of people on the ground here in Bowling Green think Rand Paul is a shoo-in to win in November. But I've been reading his anti-tax, anti-government letters to the editor to our local daily for years. Time will tell how his anti-everything line plays with everyone besides the tea-baggers. I wouldn't vote for him for dog-catcher (but I'm a Democrat.)

So, it is hard to argue that the parties went further from the center yesterday. -neil wilson

That would rely on the assumption that Blanche Lincoln in any way represents the center. Rather, what would be far more accurate to say is:

Someone who didn't appear to be an opportunistic self concerned egomaniac won in PA.

The kind of liberal who owns race horses won in KY.

A pure conservative who expresses disdain for her party's platform didn't quite win yet in AR.

The political ruling class doesn't get to dictate what the center is, we do, and when the people overwhelming support things like a public option and other supposedly liberal positions, I think it's fairly easy to make the argument the only thing the Democratic primaries were trying to do is align their representatives with the center.

Rand Paul holds some radical right wing ideas. Please, tell me which of the Democratic candidates is as far out of the mainstream as Paul?

See, it's not hard to argue at all when you don't start from flawed assumptions.

I was raised in Kentucky and it is the land of the possible in politics.

Jack Conway has won state wide before and he has a winning horse to brag about. He could be branded a "progressive" but that may not stick. He is a law and order guy, went to school with the same teachers that taught me, and obviously bright and accomplished both personally and politically.

Rand Paul is an attractive candidate whose past opinion record may sink him with farmers and city folk. (He wants to get rid of the Dept of Agriculture and the subsidies.) He does have a significantly motivated core of voters, a famous (or infamous) father, is bright and accomplished, and is the Republican candidate. Jim Bunning won in Kentucky as a Republican even when it was well known that he was off his rocker.

It should be an interesting race.

I might add that both candidates are Duke graduates.

I have no idea what that means but they are not from Yale or Harvard.

The more Kentuckians understand what Paul is about, the less they will like him. Yes, he has taken the helm of the so called Tea Party here in KY, but the party itself is a loose gathering of hard core militant types and flat out ignorant fools. The people who are half-heatedly backing him, most likely based on some sort of novelty factor, will shudder when they begin to understand what Paul is really for.

What amazes me is that he is so popular in eastern KY, which by all accounts has the one of the highest concentrations of welfare and disability recipients in the country.

Anyway, I personally think Conway is going to win in a landslide.

A pure conservative who expresses disdain for her party's platform didn't quite win yet in AR.
Posted by: doubtful on May 19, 2010 at 10:31

Lincoln is far from the most conservative Democrat in the Senate.

It is absurd to think that she is a "pure conservative".

How does Lincoln's conservative credentials stack up with Utah's Bennett?

Lincoln is to the right of the average Democrat but you comment shows that the wingnuts can get a lot of ammo from reading liberal blogs like this one.

I see eight dismissals of Rand Paul as being out of the mainstream but no specific policies that are loopy. (Banning the Dept of Ag may be unpopular, but "loopy" may be debatable.)

What's so bad about the guy? I like Libertarian ideals, but recognize their limitations (competing private roads, tunnels, railroads, water systems, and electric lines could prove impossible to implement.) Rand Paul's victory may provide the Republicans with the idea that libertarianism is a better route to electoral success. This is quite plausible because the most repulsive aspect of the Repubs for me is their pledges to impose their religious/moral views on everyone including forcing Jesus on non-Christians.

Maybe Paul's no good, but he might accomplish some good by accident.

The only thing that would have made me happier last night would have been Halter reaching past 50% with no runoff. But, since that had never been a real possibility, I'm happy with the runoff and with how close he came to Lincoln. And I hope that the "leadership" will *now* stay out of it (better late than never).

I'm always looking for amusement, even in politics (perhaps, especially in politics), and yesterday I found it in Specter's campaign's statement that the rain in PA worked against him, cutting down on voter turnout. Really? Just what sort of voters was he counting on, if they could be turned off by rain? His own "base" of octogenarians and above? It seemed to be "sunny skies" for Sestak and *his* supporters.

I still think that the biggest loser in PA is Rendell. Specter (or even Toomey, had he won in general as was likely) would have kept the seat warm for him. But Sestak -- who has a better chance of winning over Toomey -- is gonna be much harder to dislodge, even assuming that Rendell would have the nerve to mount a primary challenge and find any support for it.

All in all, a happy day, made happier by the thrill of "how's that Obama referendy-thingy working out for ya?"

Lincoln is to the right of the average Democrat... -neil wilson

Then how is her not-quite-winning-yet evidence for an ideological shift left of center as you espoused earlier?

To call her anything other than a conservative is an attempt to continue to pull all ideology to the right.

I see eight dismissals of Rand Paul as being out of the mainstream but no specific policies that are loopy. -toowearyforoutrage

Abolish the Department of education and homeschool everyone and abolish the federal income tax (replaced with a flat sales tax). Amend the constitution to prohibit abortion. No firearm restrictions. Health care is over regulated and existing regulations should be lifted. The free market solves everything and the government should not be involved in energy policy.

He's just another rich nincompoop who thinks he pays too much in taxes, which I guess you're right, doesn't really mean he's not mainstream, but it does mean he's a greedy, dangerous, fucking moron.

I still think that the biggest loser in PA is Rendell.

And of course the idjit had to immediately go on record last night as worrying that Sestak can't win in the general. I seem to recall almost identical talk after Obama kicked the ass of Rendell's favorite Democratic presidential candidate in the 2008 primaries.