Muhlenberg has Spector and Sestak tied, with 12% undecided. Quinnipiac has Sestak leading 42-41, with 17% undecided.

Blondie predicts Spector is going to win. She thinks primary elections are decided by voters that actually turn out, and that means older voters, who have been calling Spector a Democrat running on the Republican ticket for decades - which isn't a bad position to be in, come November.

I'm not sure. Shouldn't the polls already by capturing that? They're polling people who voted Democratic in the 2006 primaries, which would be the same people that are likely to turn out this time.

In The Last Week

In the last week or so, Spector has been regaining ground lost to Sestak when he started running the "so I can be re-elected" ad. I think that ad had a lot of initial impact - but that people are starting to say, "Well, he changed parties, but he's still Arlen."

Arlen has been talking about standing up to the Tea Party crowd, and that is both reminding voters that it's going to be tough to win in November, and that he's got a better chance to win then, and making them think, gee, Arlen didn't leave the GOP, the GOP has left him.

Polling Errors

One thing the polls aren't capturing is the large number of people who used to vote in the GOP primary, and switched parties in 2008 to vote for Obama in the primary. They aren't going to be critical of Arlen for switching parties, since they've done the same thing. And since they are people who, they've shown by their actions, take primary elections seriously, and turn out when there's an important race at stake, are likely to vote tomorrow as well.

Specter has a history, the pundits say, of winning squeakers. I don't know if that is a decent argument at all. Mark Halperin says Specter is the worst possible candidate for this election cycle - but Sestak is calling himself "the" Democrat in his ads, and both sides are portraying Specter as an independent sumbitch; that looks like a good position to be in.

The Devil You Don't Know

One of the rules of thumb I've always used when I go into the booth is that, lacking an evidence of bad character, I tend to vote for the devil I know, rather than the devil I don't know. I also tend to vote against issues that I don't understand, on the same principle. That's proven an awfully good predictor of how others vote, as well.

Chris Matthews has been promoting Sestak hard, but he's had a hard-on for Specter for a long time; he came close to running for this seat himself. I think Matthews' personal feelings are affecting his own judgment, and that others are influenced by Matthews' position, thinking that Matthews probably knows this election better than anyone else.

Calling It

So I'm calling it for Specter as well. Meanwhile, on the GOP ballot I'll be casting, it's a choice between tired far-right candidates and fresh ultra-right ones. I thought about switching my registration, in order to vote as a Democrat, but as a Goldwater conservative, that just didn't work for me.

Other Bloggers On Related Topics:
Muhlenberg - Quinnipiac - Sestak - Specter - Tea Party