Toomey-Sestak: Made for Hollywood
If the Pat Toomey-Joe Sestak Pennsylvania Senate race was a movie, it would
be a cinch for an Academy Award nomination. It¹s an electoral show that has
everything: two controversial, compelling opponents; crucial national
significance; real and acute issues; unique ideological visions; and more
plot twists than an Alfred Hitchcock film.
The race landed squarely in the national spotlight during Sestak¹s
successful challenge to five-term incumbent Arlen Specter. It¹s staying
there for two key reasons: It¹s one of the pivotal matchups that could
determine whether Republicans recapture the Senate, and the outcome will be
unequivocally interpreted as a referendum on the policies of the Obama
administration.
The script for both campaigns could have been written in Hollywood. In the
opening scene, conservative Pat Toomey, the GOP¹s ideological warrior,
finally finds a way to beat Arlen Specter for the Republican Senate
nomination. Reprising Gary Cooper in High Noon, Toomey effectively told
Specter to get out of town on the next train. Specter obliged, boarding what
he expected to be the Democratic Express to a new nomination and sixth term
in the Senate.
The plot twists, however, when enters a little-known, two-term congressman
named Joe Sestak, better known for his maverick instincts than
electioneering skills. Warned by friends and foes alike that he ³couldn¹t
beat Arlen,² Sestak not only beat Specter, he beat him convincingly. He did
so marching to his own drummer and despite opposition from virtually every
important figure in the Democratic Party.
And thus, Pennsylvania, arguably still among the most moderate-centrist of
the large states, becomes host to an ideological shoot-out between one of
the most conservative candidates nominated for a Pennsylvania Senate seat in
modern times and one of the most liberal candidates nominated for the Senate
in modern times.
This campaign will feature no namby-pamby, ³I voted for it before I voted
against it² insipidness so often heard in congressional campaigns. Both
candidates apparently like each other, but they disagree on virtually
everything else: health care, energy, the stimulus package, the auto
bailout, social security reform, abortion, etc. Usually general election
candidates tack to the middle, wooing the so-called ³median voter,² but
there is no middle here.
Who¹s ahead? Currently the RealClearPolitics index of public polls reports
Toomey ahead slightly (about 2 points). Toomey is benefiting from the
electorate¹s present preference for Republicans as well as its ongoing
hostility to Obama and his agenda. Toomey leads a united Republican party
into the fall campaign, and he is helped by a more energized Republican base
in the state.
Toomey¹s early advantages noted, most national handicappers still rate the
election a tossup. In mid-June, this race is yet to be run.
Sestak enters the battle with fewer advantages than Toomey but perhaps more
opportunities. He has largely taken the incumbency issue off the table by
defeating Specter. Moreover, despite his support for the Obama agenda, there
is no love lost between the White House and Sestak. In addition, Sestak
hails from the voter-rich Philadelphia suburbs, lately friendly to
Democrats. Finally, he is a dogged and driven campaigner. Nobody having
watched him demolish a five-term incumbent in the primary will write off Joe
Sestak.
More problematic for Sestak, however, is his lone wolf, take-no-prisoners
campaign style. His highly published, ongoing tiff with the White House over
a job offer during the primary made him few friends in high party circles.
More recently, his relationships with the state party remain strained.
Reports that he has meddled in the selection of a new state party chairman
have only exacerbated matters. Worse perhaps, no serious effort has been
made to heal the breach from a bitter primary.
Ultimately, what will decide it? Both candidates confront serious
challenges. Toomey is a bona fide ideologue pitching an electorate rarely
receptive to ideological pitches. Sestak, on the other hand, must swim
upstream against a powerful GOP tide. The conventional wisdom has no entry
for this one. The contest pits a Republican once thought too conservative to
win his party¹s nomination against a Democrat once believed too liberal to
win his party¹s nomination. Both candidates can¹t lose, yet many wonder how
either can win.
The last time Pennsylvanians had a choice between such stark opposites
occurred in 1994, when conservative Republican Rick Santorum defeated
liberal Democrat Harris Wofford. The parallels between then and now are
striking. Santorum, like Toomey today, was thought to be too polarizing to
be elected. But Wofford, like Sestak today, was seeking election against a
backdrop of voter unrest with his party. In the end, Wofford could not
overcome the voters¹ anger at Washington. Santorum won the election, rapidly
rising to national leadership within the GOP.
Will this same script play out in 2010? It could. If anything voters seem
even angrier this year than in 1994. Still, Sestak is not carrying the
incumbent baggage Wofford did in 1994 and Toomey has yet to prove he can
appeal to a statewide electorate. The election seems Toomey¹s to lose. But
few are willing to bet this early.
Like a good Hollywood movie, the race will probably surprise us to the end,
and like a good old-fashioned Pennsylvania election, it¹s apt to be a nail
biter, undecided until the final days.
——————
Politically Uncorrected is published twice monthly, and previous columns
can be viewed at http://politics.fandm.edu. The opinions expressed in this
article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of any institution or organization with which they are affiliated.
This article may be used in whole or part only with appropriate attribution.
Copyright © 2010 Terry Madonna and Michael Young.
