Pennsylvania Senate race predictably tightens

New polling from PPP and Morning Call put Joe Sestak ahead of Pat Toomey in the Pennslyvania Senate race, but within the margin of error, while Rasmussen still shows Toomey with a comfortable lead.

See the Real Clear Politics chart on the right.  Click the image itself for a larger view.

This is shaping up to be a classic example of the third of five rules of thumb posted here last week.  Pat Toomey has had a solid lead, ranging from 5 to 10 points depending on the polling organization.  That lead has been thinning in the recent polling data, as late-breakers and leaners start to reduce the number of undecided voters responding to pollsters questions.

However, history shows a fairly consistent trend—polls tend to tighten up between Columbus Day and Election Day, but as the last late-breakers make up their minds, they tend to break for the leader.  Since the seat is currently being held by a Democrat, and since the Democrat running for the open seat has so far failed to garner a 50% level of support, some of the other rules of thumb may come into play as well.  Specifically:

• An incumbent with less than 50% among surveys of likely voters tends to be unseated. While Sestak isn’t the incumbent, he is a sitting member of Congress and the seat is currently being held by his party.  It’s as close to incumbency as you’ll see in an open-seat race.
• Late-breaking, undecided voters tend to break for challengers in tight races.
• Late-breaking, undecided voters tend to break for the leader in tight races also.

What’s going to make this race interesting to watch is the fact that Sestak has something of a reputation as a comeback kid.  The Morning Call story detailing the latest poll with Sestak pulling ahead has this:

---

It wouldn't be the first time Sestak surged with the finish line in sight. In two previous elections, when political pundits had counted him out, Sestak came from behind with just weeks to go and emerged victorious.

In May, the same tracking poll was the first to show Sestak catching and eventually surpassing U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary. A tracking poll shows who's ahead and by how much each day until the election.

Many experts credited the Delaware County congressman's victory over Specter to an electorate unhappy with the 30-year incumbent senator, not because they were overly impressed with the younger, upstart Navy admiral.

---

So, could the Pennsylvania Senate race be one that breaks the historical mold and truly produces a comeback finish?  After all, didn’t Sestak do just that in the primary against Arlen Specter, the bona fide incumbent?  Perhaps, but the primary race showed some of the characteristics you’d expect:  A troubled incumbent failing to draw 50% of support, late-breakers going for the challenger and in at least some polling, late-breakers going for the leader as well.

Some new polling results are likely to hit the streets next week.  We’ll see how this shapes up and compare the results on November 3 (or later, depending on how tight the race ends up being).

UPDATE: Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight is unconvinced that a bona fide swing is occurring.

Enough on Sestak and Romanoff, already

I'm probably not going to hear a lot of agreement from my conservative friends on this, but I really think it's time for Darrell Issa and other Congressional Republicans to call in the dogs over the allegations of a White House quid pro quo offer to one Pennsylvania Democrat and one Colorado Democrat.

In case you've been mesmerized by the BP spillcam livefeed for the last few weeks, here's a short recap of the stories:  Democrat Representative Joe Sestak says that last year, he was offered a job in the administration if he would stay out of the Pennsylvania Democrat Primary against Democrat-turned-Republican-turned Democrat Arlen Specter. He says he declined the offer. Sestak went on to defeat Specter, and after the news media finally started suggesting something might be wrong with all this, the White House floated the story that Rahm Emanuel cajoled Bill Clinton to discuss certain "advisory board" or "council volunteer" type slots with Sestak.  Since, they say, none of the positions were paying, nothing of value was offered so there's no quid pro quo there.

Later, it was also revealed that a second Democrat primary opponent of an Obama ally in the Senate  received similar overtures.  Andrew Romanoff is running against Colorado's Michael Bennett, a fairly reliable supporter of the Obama White House.
 
Naturally, neither the White House nor any of the major players here are going to tell the whole story.  For example, Mr. Sestak was technically ineligible for any administration job, paid or voluntary, as long as he served in Congress.  And, why call in the only other big kahuna in the Democrat party to offer such a small position to such a small player?  Clinton goes to North Korea to free prisoners and Haiti to raise relief money.  He's not the kind of hardware you'd go to when you're working a dirty little backroom deal.

Yes, these deals stink to the high heavens.  Yes, they are the complete antithesis of what you'd expect from what was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history.  Yes, it's another example of nasty, backroom politics that has alienated millions of Americans and given rise to a party base that hasn't been this motivated to go to the polls since... 1998.

Please recall that from January 1993 through the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress, Republicans in both chambers howled about alleged dirty dealings of the Clinton White House.  In 1995, some of the first actions taken by the new Republican majorities were to launch all manner of Congressional investigations.  Subpoenas flew like confetti. Hearing after hearing after hearing was conducted.  Special Counsels were appointed, who dug into all manner of charges and allegations of wrongdoing. Three years later, after having failed to muster the political capital to oust a sitting, politically damaged but still publicly popular President, the GOP finally had their smoking gun  soiled blue dress. Ignoring election year polls showing that the Democrat base was as motivated as ever and that ordinary Americans had no taste for an ugly impeachment, Republicans in the House passed Article of Impeachment, marched right off the cliff, and very nearly lost both houses of Congress back to the Democrats.

Should the GOP take one or both houses of Congress in the upcoming 2010 election, the events of the 1990's should present valuable lessons to the party brain trust.  First, as sleazy as the other guys seem to be, the public views endless investigations, hearings and salacious allegations as partisan politics gone wrong.  This is not "doing the people's work," which is to restore fiscal responsibility, protect our borders, develop an economically sound energy policy, prosecute a pro-American foreign policy and get government off of Main Street's back.  Secondly, as sleazy as the other guys seem to be, there won't be a smoking gun.  There will be no transcript of a conversation.  No tapes.  No notes.  No memos.  No...  evidence of a crime.  The players aren't telling the whole story, but they've created what amounts to reasonable doubt.

Spending months on end holding hearings and conducting investigations will have very little political payout.  The best Republicans can hope to do--even with a majority in one or both houses--is draw a little political blood.  You're gonna spend my time and money on that?  Really?  Did you learn nothing from the 1990's?

Call in the dogs, already.  This hunt is over.

Extra Point: Conservatives have to choose their battles carefully.  Despite this being a center-right country, we will never have the mainstream media on our side and we have completely lost pop culture.  Nevertheless, the Chris Christie and Scott Brown elections show that Republicans win on issues that appeal to the center-right, not stuff that drives the centrists right into the arms of the sleazy other guys.

Gimme some feedback in the comments.