Poll: Matthews Running Behind In Potential 2010 Senate Run, But Might Have A Shot
Could Chris Matthews have a real shot if he goes through with running for Senate in Pennsylvania against GOP Senator Arlen Specter? The answer, according to a new poll of the 2010 Senate race -- we already have one nearly a year in advance of the race really beginning in earnest -- is that he is currently running behind, but might just have a chance.
The new numbers from Public Policy Polling (D): Specter 40%, Matthews 27%, and a very high 33% undecided.
The internals have good news and bad news for both candidates. Specter is below 50%, a bad place for an incumbent, but he's grabbing 30% of Democrats and a 41%-28% plurality among independents, indicating that he's able to draw some crossover support like he usually has in his previous races. If he can solidify the 32% of undecided GOP voters, he would basically have it made.
The good news for Matthews is that 47% of voters age 18-29 and 43% of voters age 30-45 are undecided, and those groups both went big for Barack Obama in this past election. Also, 44% of black voters say they're undecided, and 25% are for Specter -- but if they break big for Matthews as the Dem candidate, he could quickly make up some ground.
Tweetie for Senate! Woohoo!
He'd be an interesting addition to the rolls. But could he keep his show?
November 11, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, bat puchanan had to give up his TV punditry to run for pres. i imagine there's no difference for a senate campaign.
November 11, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't see this as feasible. There are what, how many years of video clips of Tweety on Hardball that could be turned into campaign ads?
Guess I'm just a skeptic.
November 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
For better and worse, look to the Coleman/Franken campaign. So, the clips would definitely be used, but much of the public would be able to look beyond it. The question is whether much = enough.
November 11, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
How come you cats like Tweety so much?
November 11, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most people on here can't stand him, but I like him. I like his excitement and enthusiasm. As I said below, I think it's genuine.
November 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
its no doubt genuine, but he's got to learn to think before he speaks. and if he hasn't learned at this stage in his life, its doubtful he ever will.
i just don't think he's got the gravitas to pull it off. people don't really take him seriously. yes, he knows a lot about politics, but what does he know about policy? there's a difference. and its the difference between being a talking head and united states senator.
i can't believe this is actually a serious enough possibility that they already have a poll on it.
November 11, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
We look at Tweety and think "DINNER!"
November 11, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I thought!
Matthews says he voted for Bush in 2000. I guess everybody can make one mistake, but still . . .
November 11, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sentiment exactly. I find it hard to believe that Matthews can overcome his years on television.
November 11, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had to double-check the PPP document to make sure Chris Matthews is indeed our Tweety from MSNBC and not some local PA pol with the same name that I just hadn't heard of. Yep, it's Tweety all right.
Jeez. First Terry McAuliffe, now Tweety. The parade of buffoons has burst upon us. At least Jon Stewart will have some material for a while!
November 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jon Stewart for Senate!
Sign me up I'm all about it!
November 11, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with CT. He'll have the same problem as Franken. They'll kill him with edited clips. He might overcome it, but he better be ready for it to be painful. And can you imagine him staying on message?
November 11, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthews is also too old. Democrats need to be bringing up some young candidates who can develop into leaders for the long run.
November 11, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Crazy. I'm sure the party has much better candidates out there. And what kind of signal does it send to people in lower offices, when celebrities keep parachuting in and taking one of the most important offices in a state? Ambition must be served, and it should be served for those who have served the party.
November 11, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The one argument in favor of someone like Chris is that it sometimes takes someone with name recognition and celebrity status to dislodge an incumbent like Specter.
November 11, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
More celebrity? Is that what we really need for leadership? Why is it that celebrity gets valued over experience and a genuine devotion to public service? There are hundreds of people who are serving in lesser offices who would be far better candidates than Mr. Talking Head, yet because he has name recognition and a national forum, he gets to leapfrog over those who could do a better job at oversight and legislation.
If that's what we vote for, we get what we deserve: flash and sparkle instead of substance and proven competence.
November 11, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. I'm not advocating for more celebrities, just simply pointing out the fact that in general incumbents are incredibly difficult unseat.
November 11, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter is going to be harder than most. He's tremendously popular in PA even among Democrats. He tends to buck the GOP whenever it suits him and now that the party is reeling, Specter is pretty much accountable only to himself. He's really entrenched in PA politics and it's going to take something pretty explosive to unseat him.
I'm guessing that the seat is his as long as he wants it.
November 11, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not just a celebrity. He's worked a great deal in Washington. See my comment below.
November 11, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that his work in Washington qualifies him to be a Senator or even a rep. He was a political operative, i.e., a hired gun. He worked for the princes, not the people.
If you were looking for someone to provide you with food, how would you hire: Joe Starrett or Shane? We need fewer gunfighters and more farmers right now.
November 11, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
how = who in a contorted sort of way.
November 11, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine. And I see what you're saying. My point only was that he's not "just" a celebrity. He's not "just" a talking head.
November 11, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe not, but if he were to run it would be interesting to see what he trades on: his economics degree (did he get one?) and his political experience, or his insightful punditry delivered from a rather unique forum.
Having spent a few years in West Mt. Airy, and if given the choice between Arlen "Mr. Philadephia" Specter and Chris "Washingtonian Hardball" Matthews, I could guess where the rubber would meet the road in a few more years.
November 11, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's more of a shouting head. ADHD, with a big emphasis on the H.
November 11, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then give him an extra big dose of Adderall XL and keep him on Hardball. The Senate has too many hard surfaces (and issues) for him to ricochet on.
November 11, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Matthews in the Senate? You've gotta be kidding me!
November 11, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we run Rachel Maddow instead?
November 11, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would be the day, wouldn't it?
November 11, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. I think Matthews' passion for politics and government could be an awesome addition in the Senate. I know a lot of people dislike him, but I think if anything he's genuine.
November 11, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's so genuine it's almost painful, which could be his downfall as a campaigner. But I think his sense of having an obligation to serve is very strong, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him give it a go. I'm not a fan, but I can think of worse potential candidates for public office.
November 11, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. It's a rare to see anyone else with the obvious passion not just for the theatrics of politics but also for the issues. As much as he's annoying as hell sometimes, it refreshing to see someone who is so genuinely into it.
He does wear it on his sleeve a bit tho...
November 11, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, a nitpick, it's not nearly three years until 2010. It's more like one year until these races start seriously.
If Tweety polls this low with his name recognition, I don't see how he can improve that drastically. I wonder if folks make the connection or even take it seriously enough to give a true picture of his chances.
November 11, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just be glad it ain't Billo or Hannity!
November 11, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those guys would be GREAT! I would love it if they ran. One of the best sources for snark is the blatant cognitive dissonance displayed by the knee-jerk right those idiots represent.
As a very astute poster on this site once noted, in order to recognize irony and dissonance there must be cognition. When it goes unrecognized, there's a wonderful opportunity for deep, meaningless snark :-)
November 11, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding right. I don't really see a political bone him in terms of running for office. He can't shut his mouth for starters.
November 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My question is, what qualifications does Matthews have to be a senator? The US Senate is where laws are written and passed. IMHO, a senator should have a background in law, i.e. be a lawyer.
Sure, Matthew's celebrity will bring in some votes, but what happens after the election? One of the contributing factors in the GOP's downfall has been electing unqualified individuals to public office.
November 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
From his Wikipedia page: "did graduate work in economics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill."
"In Washington Matthews worked for four Democratic politicians. He worked in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie before he himself campaigned for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, losing his party's nomination to Pennsylvania Congressman Joshua Eilberg in the Democratic primary in 1974. Matthews received about 23% of the vote.[2] He was a presidential speechwriter for four years during the Carter administration. Matthews later worked six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan administration."
I think he's perfectly qualified.
November 11, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't need to be a lawyer to be a Senator -- quite the opposite, there are more than enough lawyers already in the Senate - we need people with a range of experiences -- businesspeople, labour leaders, stay at home parents, academics, economists, historians, baristas, taxi drivers, real estate agents, diplomats, veterans, and a variety of other experiences --- it is that diversity of real life experience and expertise that is needed to make sense of the complexity of decisions Senators make. A Senate of 100 lawyers would be a huge mistake.
November 11, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The prospect sends a tingle down my leg, or is that just my middle aged prostate at work?
November 11, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am no fan of Spector. He habitually cries foul at his own Party for time on camera and then caves into the partyline. But Matthews is a blowhard and blows with the wind.
November 11, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Matthews? Seriously? Could there be a WORSE choice in terms of a serious, progressive politician?
Why not simply elevate Britney Spears to the US Senate? He offers little more.
Matthews is truly a buffoon and a bully. His idea of reaching consensus is just slightly more sophisticated than that of John McLaughlin.
He is not a serious journalist, nor a worthy pundit. He's just self-identified, adopted member of the 'DC establishment' who is more often wrong than right, and always disruptive and dismissive, who barely scratches the surface of any issue he purports to discuss.
People: get a grip! Chris Matthews should be run off television, not elevated to the US Senate. Sheesh…
November 11, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not a bad guy, although he's just as much of a nonstop talker offscreen as on. I suspect his campaign speech will begin with his announcement and not conclude until election night. We'll all just hear selected excerpts, much the same as Neil Diamond recording a 36-hour album back in 1973 and releasing bits and pieces of it ever since.
November 11, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Being a good listener is definitely not one of his strong points.
November 11, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter could destroy Tweety's chances before the little bird even takes flight.
All he has to do is switch to the Democratic party come January. If (as I suspect) we win 2 of the 3 still-unresolved Senate races, it will be 59 to 41. A Specter switch would give Senate Dems the 60th vote. It would give Specter:
A. Serious committee chairmanships (Homeland Security anyone?)
B. It would nearly guarantee his re-election.
C. It would put him in the party with a filibusterer proof majority. Senators get a lot more of what they want when they're in the majority party, they get even more when they've got a filibuster proof majority. While those in a filibuster-less minority often get nothing.
Another motivation for Specter is that if he doesn't jump, Susan Collins or Olympia Snow just might beat him to the mark. If the Dems are at 59, they'll play Specter against Snow and Collins, and give the first to switch plum committees.
If Specter's smart, he'll wait until January then switch. For him it would be a win-win-win.
November 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't see Matthews in the Senate. It would be too much of a come-down from celebrity status and the ability to say any berserk thing that comes to mind to a TV audience.
November 11, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
He would be a horrendous candidate and a worse Senator -- this is a guy who shouts over everyone (in private discussions as well as on TV), whose laugh would drive voters away en masse, and whose treasure trove of whoppers and idiotic statements on tape would put Al Franken's entire history to shame. His campaign would end up being an endless embarrassment of gaffes and a tribute to an ego run amok.
The only good thing about him running would be that it would finally deprive him of his daily hour long harangue on MSNBC.
Given Specter's age and health, I think it has to be seriously questioned if he will end up running again. If he runs and stays a Republican, there would be a risk of a primary from the right (he barely survived one last time). If he switched and ran as a Democrat, I suspect the field would be cleared for him.
My choice to draft for US Senate in PA is Richard Trumka. Running a progressive Democrat like Trumka from western Pennsylvania would offer the opportunity to keep the old coal/steel areas from slipping away from the Dems permanently, appeal to the Casey Dems, but still offer appeal to African-Americans, progressive whites, and suburban Philly voters. He's the kind of candidate who could appeal to all parts of the Democratic electorate in PA.
November 11, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between Tweety and Franken (other than the latter being funny) is that Franken has guts. Tweety NEVER EVER challenges the person on the side of public opinion. His fire is reserved for the guys who are unpopular.
Case in point-- Dubya was manly to him coming in on the aircraft carrier. He only attacked Dubya AFTER Dubya fell in opinion polls. This is the ONLY reason he attacks republicans now. They lost.
We don't need anymore brave souls defending the the victorious. Screw him. (Can't Rendell change his mind and run?) Pat Murphy is unfortunately about 6 years away...
November 11, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
My feelings exactly. The guy is a windsock. Is everyone forgetting that before he started chewing out Republicans and got Michelle Bachmann to say she thought Obama was anti-American, everyone on the left was mad about his "man-crush for McCain"? It's not because he's either a liberal or a good journalist, it's because he picks the soft targets.
November 11, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tweety shouldn't give up his day job. He's a joke. He'll be a human gaffe machine. He'll piss off women voters. He makes Joe Biden look like a model of brevity and caution by comparison.
There have got to be some good Dems in Penna. ready and able to take Specter on.
November 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthews is neither a true Democrat nor a true progressive. He went along with the beltway boys in trashing Al Gore as a pathological liar, spreading fairy tales about him claiming to have invented the internet and other nonsense. He shined up Bush as someone he wanted to have a beer with. He has described black people as political sheep in the control of party bosses. He is a misogynist who repeatedly tells his female guests how beautiful they are, and he has attacked female Democrats in gender specific ways and male Democrats as not macho enough. He happens to love Obama now for what ever psychological reasons foster hero worship in him. But he is not a progressive and not a true Democrat.
November 11, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you take a wrong turn somewhere?
The small-tent party is THAT way. —>
November 11, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So someone posts their view on whether Matthews should be boosted as the Democratic candidate for United States Senator from Pennsylvania, citing multiple flaws in Matthews actions and comments impacting black people, women, and previous Democratic candidates, and your reaction is to say get out of the Party. Apparently your view of the party is one in which dissent and criticism is not tolerated.
November 12, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
God help us.
In the words of Homer Simpson's campaign slogan "Can't someone else do it?"
I find this guy absolutely insufferable. If the choice is six more years of Arlen Specter, then the chance to elect a REAL Democrat, I'd vote for Specter. But I hope somebody good, like Joe Sestak or Allyson Schwartz, gets the Democratic nomination, not this blowhard.
November 12, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink