(cross-posted from Daily Kos) I'm generally cautious by nature. I've often gone with the "most electable" and "more moderate" Dem candidate in primaries because I don't want to risk losing a key district or statewide office. But I'm planning to vote for Joe Hoeffel for governor in the primary. I expect to support the Democratic nominee even if it's not Hoeffel, but Joe Hoeffel is my first choice. My reasons go beyond him being the only Democrat running who supports full marriage equality. I think Hoeffel has the best position on several major issues and is showing more leadership on those issues.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos) It's become clear that one of Sen. Specter's main arguments against his primary challenger, Congressman Joe Sestak, will be "Sestak missed a bunch of votes in the House." His campaign has even put up a "No Show Joe" website, and Specter recently "compared Rep. Joe Sestak’s missed votes in Congress to going AWOL while serving in the Navy." (Seriously, he said that.)

As reported at SpecterWatch today, Joe Torsella's campaign site is live and Congressman Sestak has updated his campaign site to reflect Senate interest.

The Sestak site's front page now says, among other things:

So while Arlen’s decision may be good for himself, politically, to avoid running against someone he could not beat, his decision begs what he is running for, and whether he is the best candidate to shape the future of Pennsylvania.
After 31 years of serving in our country’s military, and leading our brave men and women in harm’s way, one of my core tenets is that you run for something you believe in, and do not avoid that which may be difficult.

(cross-posted from Daily Kos)

Thanks to all those who have encouraged this effort -- including Dan and others from YPP. ("Now that Sen. Arlen Specter's switching to be a Democrat, let's keep the pressure on him so he votes like a PENNSYLVANIA Democrat and not a 'conservadem' (conservative Democrat) from Nebraska or the South.")

Realizing that plenty of people aren't on Facebook and don't necessarily want to be either, I've created a blog: Specter Watch. (The related Facebook group is here.)

I want to be clear: This is not ANTI-Specter as such.

That's why I chose "Watch" for the name. What he does and doesn't do bears watching.

For example: Specter's First Big Vote Since Switch: No on Obama Budget

(cross-posted from Daily Kos)

Joining this group does not make you anti-Specter or pro-Specter. Just means you think we need to keep an eye on him and keep pressure on him on the Employee Free Choice Act, on health care reform, you name it.

I can't claim this idea. But as a Pennsylvanian, I'd like to help spread it. Sen. Specter is still against the Employee Free Choice Act. Let's keep the pressure on him so he votes like a PENNSYLVANIA Democrat and not a "conservadem" (to use Rachel Maddow's term) from Nebraska or the South.

According to the Atlantic:

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

(ADDED NOTE: Philadelphia -- population more than 1.4 million -- has less of a voice in the U.S. Senate than the entire state of Wyoming, population 522,000. Fair? No. Democratic with a little "d"? No.)

OK, so we just had the electoral college vote Monday, and some may be saying, "Hey, what about that National Popular Vote idea?" The Progressive States Network, which I respect, is even going for the argument that the electoral college killed the auto bailout because Republicans thought Michigan's electoral votes are out of reach for them. I disagree.

Maybe it's time to give I.R.V. a try, at least in Philly municipal-level elections, to show the state why the idea has merit?

As Hendrink Hertzberg writes:

... the Presidential candidate of America’s Green Party in 2000, Ralph Nader, got about 2.7 per cent.

For the past seven years, Americans (and the world) have been suffering from the head-pounding hangover of that 2.7 per cent: President George W. Bush. Even though a clear majority of us — 51 per cent — wanted a left-of-center government, we got, with the help of a little nudge from the Supreme Court, a very, very right-of-center one.

In Australia, the consequence was precisely the opposite.

and

OK, so the Philly mayor's race has gotten kind of dull. There's still a LOT at stake in the Nov. 6 election, to add to mansei's recent post. Here's the scariest example, and it's recent:

Pennsylvanians who will soon put two new justices on the state's highest court can choose between candidates including a follower of conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia or an admirer of former liberal justice William J. Brennan Jr.

An interesting conversation in light of the fact that the winner of Philly's mayoral election took only a plurality. Promoted by MDC.

The talk of strategic voting got me thinking. The current mayoral election in Philly is a good example of a situation where Instant Runoff Voting would make it more likely that the eventual winner would enjoy true majority support.

For example, someone may think Rep. Dwight Evans is the best person of the five for the job, but may also be nervous about recent polls and prefer to do "strategic voting" instead. As many of you know, under I.R.V., an Evans supporter could designate him as their first-round choice, and if he didn't finish first or second, the person's second choice would get the second-round vote. Etc.

I am not an expert, but I wonder if the legislature could permit I.R.V. for Philly only, or if the city council or charter could simply authorize it.

This is a report from TPM Muckraker.com on a national study -- the timing on this coming out is handy for Sen. Fumo:

A study of reported federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows that the Bush administration’s Justice Department pursues Democrats far more than Republicans. 79 percent of elected officials and candidates who’ve faced a federal investigation (a total of 379) between 2001 and 2006 were Democrats, the study found – only 18 percent were Republicans. ...

"The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000," according to the study's authors.

State Rep. Mike McGeehan is being non-partisan in his release (see below), but I'm guessing his action was prompted at least partly by the abusive Republican robo-calls in the Jim Gerlach vs. Lois Murphy race (see Jill Porter's Nov. 1 column for details).

McGeehan bill would play ‘terminator’ to ‘robo-calls’
News conference Tuesday in Harrisburg

HARRISBURG, Nov. 17 – At 10 a.m. Tuesday, Nov. 21 in the Media Center at the state Capitol in Harrisburg, state Rep. Mike McGeehan, D-Phila., will announce the introduction of legislation that would add automated political messages to the types of calls banned by the state’s Telemarketer Restriction Act, commonly known as the “Do Not Call” Act.

If you or a friend got mail from the "Progressive Policy Council" recently that attacks Bob Casey, you won't be
surprised to know that right-wingers are behind it. TalkingPointsMemo.com's Muckraker investigative unit has uncovered the truth.

Would you believe that a group called the Progressive Policy Council is represented by a man who was the Deputy General Counsel to Bush-Cheney '04? What are the odds?

You can read much more here.

If you want to see why Bob Casey is the clear choice for progressives in this Senate race, check out the issues chart at

Courtesy of the Pittsburgh City Paper's Chris Potter:

After months of political ads and campaigning, it's easy to forget why anyone goes to the polls at all. So as a public service to voters who want to put aside the partisanship and bickering of Washington, City Paper offers this partial list of highlights from Sen. Rick Santorum's career.

To see LibertyPA's 1-page chart that includes reasons to vote FOR Bob Casey as well as reasons to vote against Santorum, visit www.capitalstonewall.org. But the list below is also good. :-) Great for forwarding.

I have a hard time picking the best, or should that be worst, from the Top 20 reasons - this one is as good, er, bad, as any:

I help out with the PA House Democratic Campaign Committee in Harrisburg, and I am thrilled to see people showing interest in defeating Republican incumbents in Philly and the suburbs. I've posted contact info below to help you connect up with Democratic candidates for the state House. The Philly region is the best example of what a recent post by DanielUA correctly said about poll numbers: Pennsylvania Wants Democrats in the State House

Majority is within reach
We are only eight seats away from taking the majority back. And with the stomping that Rendell and Casey are going to deliver to Swann and Santorum at the top of the ticket in Southeast PA, that is definitely doable.

Congress in the balance
Taking back the state House now would put us in solid position to hold onto it and avoid another Republican gerrymander of PA's congressional seats after the 2010 census.

In response to Hannah Miller's post of Aug. 10 ("Bob Casey is a friggin' feminist"), I wanted to give everyone a look at this excellent chart from Liberty PA that compares Casey and Santorum on key issues.

A sample:

Casey SUPPORTS emergency contraception
Santorum BELIEVES states should have the right to ban birth control

Casey SUPPORTS greater access to family planning
Santorum voted AGAINST $100 million to reduce teen pregnancy

You get the idea. Casey's not perfect, but he's a major, major improvement over Santorum, he gets us one seat closer to a Democratic U.S. Senate -- and he can win.