Arlen Specter: Now a Democrat!

Considering the sheer nastiness of the invective directed at him by the base of the Republicans...I suppose it was really just a matter of time.

The only reason I have not switched my own party affiliation at this point is sheer laziness.

Lots of interesting comments at John Cole's blog on the fallacies of assumption built into the rapidly dwindling Republican Party.

Case in point is the assumption that conservatism can never fail.

Itr can only be failed by weak RINO's.

I wonder how that is working out now... ;P

I'm having a hard time determining if the "A Complete Shocker" is you being sarcastic or serious, Rod.

Good riddance to Specter. If you're going to act liberal at least come out of the closet. Too bad he didn't do it before he was up for re-election. The voters of PA should recall his sorry butt...but probably won't.

Arlen Specter has been a Democrat to all intents and purposes for years. This may be the first honest act of his political career.

Good riddance. Now if only Olympia Snowe would join him.

Good riddance. Now if only Olympia Snowe would join him.

Because the more people forced out of the GOP...the more they win!!

Victory at last!

Is the party down to just enough people to drown in a bathtub yet?

The really fun thing about watching a party decide that it needs to kick out all of its moderates is that there is always someone who is more moderate than average who can be kicked out for being to moderate. Erin Manning and Darcy, the Democrats thank you for your attitude. They couldn't have done it without you and people like you.

Don't worry, Lord Karth, the country already knows what the Republicans do (or do you spell that the Republics) and don't like it. When things turn out well for the Democratic Party it will keep the Republicans out of power for the next generation or until they reform themselves.

Not a complete shocker if you knew anything about Pennsylvania or politics north of the Mason-Dixon line. But you don't.

Specter, with those two ladies from Maine who manage to stay in power somehow, is the last of the moderate Republicans. And from "up North". Specter's defection speaks to two trends and I'll highlight them for you:

1. The US is a place with a lot of overlapping senses of identity. These often work against one another. That is, one can have two senses of self that are in conflict, and when this happens usually one sense of identity beats out the other. As it stands, one of the, if not the, most prminent identities for (at least white) Americans is whether you're a "Yankee" or from "Dixie". Southerners do not like the North; if you're from "up North" and had the (dis)pleasure of travelling through the Confederacy, you get a lot of this. God forbid, especially, if you're from New York. And Southerners traveling up North can look forward to being considered a klansmen.

This regional split is old, old, old, and fundamental to the social makeup of the US, even today. A great many cultural battles fought over the last 100 years have come down to splits along these geographic, rather than ideological, lines (think of voting patterns vis a vis party identification in passing the Civil Rights Act legislation.) Nevertheless, major parties, like the Democrats 50 years ago and Republicans more recently, can assemble coalitions that nevertheless transcend these divides.

But, North and South still dislike, and even hate, each other, as we ever have. So when the power base of a party goes too much to one extreme or another, the regional/cultural identity begins to win out over ideological ones. We saw it in the 1960's and 1970's as the northern Democratic liberal took predominance in that party, and this drove away Southerners. *We're seeing the same thing right now with the North.* Northerners, regardless of party affiliation in many cases, simply do not want the Southern Jesus-freak neo-confederates telling them how to live. This is why, in part, PA has been shifting blue. People there just aren't that crazed-for-Jesus, or hate gay people or minorities enough. And the GOP is having such problems with other messaging that "taxes, taxes oh my God the greatest injustice in history taxes!" simply isn't enough to get them to overlook the snake handlers. Which leads to:

2. Demographic shifts are happening right now to reduce the electoral vitality of the South as a voting bloc, especially in presidential elections. People are moving South, yes, but West in larger relative proportions. That is, even as the South increases its electoral clout vis a vis the North the West will do the same, but moreso. Further, people out West, conservative or not, generally do not identify with the Southern-fried Jesus-freak types. But as the GOP powerbase shifts to the Confederacy, the West becomes less enamored with Republicanism, since western "leave me alone!" style conservatism doesn't often jibe with the "I get to tell you how live!" southern-fried conservatism that dominates today's GOP. So, almost by default, as the evangelical southerners consolidate their grip on the GOP, the West turns blue.

Isn't it remarkable? For the first time in what has to be 100 years, *you can become President and your party can dominate Congress without Southern support in any meaningful way*. Think about that. All the kowtowing and history rewriting and self-delusions in which American society has had to engage for 150 years is now no longer necessary. You see, Rod, I see it from you on this blog all the time - vindictiveness, spite, defensiveness, hatred about your status as a Jethro from Louisiana. You dislike the rest of us. Southerners remind us of that constantly. And now, after all this time, we can say "Guess what, Jim-Bob? We really hate you too." And it won't cost you a thing at the ballot box. That is the true significance of shifts like Specter's: the total cultural and political irrelevance of the GOP and its southern-fried handlers. We don't care how much you hate gays or brown people anymore - you're irrelevant. Finally!

If laughable had been asked to write a thesis on why democracy is crap, (s)he couldn't have done a better job.

Ha. Ha.

~ Nelson

And now the GOP can go huddle in the cloakroom and scream "NO" to their hearts' content. The adults in the Congress will get about the business of cleaning up the mess made by the GOP since 1994.

Eventually the GOP will have what they deserve: a caucus that can fit into one stall of the executive washroom in the Senate Office Building.

laughable -- just a hint: not everyone is as obsessed with North/South politics and identity as you are. In fact, it is a non-issue and has been for many decades.

Why is a man who voted for a tripling of the national deficit and favors legalized infantacide (in DP Moynihan's memorable phrase) called a "moderate"? Do any of you cruchy cons who claim to believe in sustainability and fiscal responsibility want to see this political hack be sent to pasture or is he your hero now that he has a nice, new shiny "D" after his name?

You know, I keep hearing Specter described as a "moderate Republican", and various smarty-pants going on about how the GOP can't afford to "kick out" all its "moderate Republicans".

It occurs to me, I have never heard of a "moderate Democrat". I've heard of "conservative Democrats", but never a moderate one. You'd think a guy like Lieberman would fit the bill, but no. Even when the Dems were a small minority in 2004, in was seemingly taken for granted in the media that they represented the mainstream center, and everyone to the right of them was "conservative". I don't recall anyone saying that they needed to be less extreme, and stop alienating the "moderates" in their party, in order to come back.

Gee, I wonder why?

Erin Manning wrote:

I'm also counting on them to be too incompetent and too focused on in-fighting to accomplish too many of their big-government nanny state goals; the Dems keep their dissident voices whipped once they're in power, and are thus much more greatly to be feared.

I'm surprised that the eight years of the Bush administration didn't change your mind. If this country has ever seen a party in lock-step, it was the Republicans who almost completely sublimated their party ideals to follow the President's orders (with immigration policy being the only notable—and very late—exception).

On spending, expansion of government, prescription drugs, torture, disregard for the rule of law, the Republican congress was largely supine. Indeed, on some of these issues, they still feel compelled to kowtow to Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al.

Erin Manning says;

"Arlen Specter has been a Democrat to all intents and purposes for years. This may be the first honest act of his political career.

Good riddance. Now if only Olympia Snowe would join him."

Can we have Susan Collins too? Anyone else you want to get rid of? We'll take just about anybody but Bush. I know, he's too liberal for you guys with his compassionate conservatism. The problem is us "anti-life" liberals really do think you shouldn't go into a country and destroy it just to avenge a purported assassination attempt against your father...or to win your father's approval or whatever. We're also pissed about being lied to on the WMD's thing.

But I'm getting off on a tangent. My point was, if there's anyone else you want to ditch from the Republican party for being too liberal, we'll probably take them, with thanks. Isn't there a Bible verse about being thankful for the things God gives you? Well, we'll leave you guys to settle that out, since we prefer religion to be between you and God and not a matter to muck about in our laws.

Isn't it remarkable? For the first time in what has to be 100 years, *you can become President and your party can dominate Congress without Southern support in any meaningful way*. Think about that. All the kowtowing and history rewriting and self-delusions in which American society has had to engage for 150 years is now no longer necessary.

Huh? The GOP had no more than a toehold in Dixie in the period 1900-1970 and yet held the Presidency for roughly half that period, and Congress for about a third of it. This is nothing new in US politics.

The Deuce,

Part of the reason that Democrats haven't had the discussion about being too liberal is that they haven't been. Clinton was part of the DLC, an organization mocked as Republican-lite by more liberal Democrats, and during his presidency business Republicans got most of what they wanted. Carter was also quite willing to end regulations and accommodate business.

Under Howard Dean, the Democratic Party went to a great deal of effort to field candidates everywhere who can win, not just candidates who would look good on a liberal scorecard. It worked for them. Lieberman is a mixed bag, conservative on some items, more liberal on others. It would depend on the context whether Lieberman would be called conservative or moderate, but Democrats are called both.

As a PA resident, I just got really interested in the 2010 election. When I heard Toomey was running against Specter I thought that ensured a win for the Dems if Toomey won the primary, as I think he would have a very hard time in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Who knows if any Dems will be willing to run against Specter in the primary? Will the Dems on either side of the state fully embrace him? Philadelphia and Pittsburgh really decide the statewide elections here. In the large center part of the state (fondly called Pennsyltucky by many) Obama got very, very little support, but with the population heavily weighted to the East (Philly) and West (Pittsburgh) it didn't matter in the end. Toomey would EASILY carry the middle, but I don't think he has any shot at carrying the borders unless Dems don't really turn out for Specter or whoever wins the Dem primary. Rendell is quite the political gamester, though, and, since this is it for him as governor, I bet he'll really "bust a hump" as I've heard him say to make sure there are two Democratic US senators. Specter's pretty old, and has been quite sick, so he may not stay in the mix too much longer.

laughable- Unfortunately, you're living up to some of the stereotypes about "Yankees" I heard from many of my acquaintances while I grew up in Louisiana- that "Yankees" are obnoxious and rude. I know that to be false- I've lived all up and down the east coast- from Kittery, Maine to Jacksonville, Florida- while I was in the Navy. I imagine you've met plenty of decent, friendly, non-judgmental southerners, but they didn't stand out in your mind, so all you've got memories of is the obnoxious ones.

By tarring all southerners with the same adjectives, you're grouping together southerners like Martin Luther King Jr, Bill Clinton, John Lewis, and others, with the likes of Jesse Helms and George Wallace. We're a diverse lot, just like northerners.

[also YN 2:24]

Beaumont George is highly optimistic that the South has gotten over the fact that they lost their rebellion. The problem for those who are still waving the battle flag, screaming for "states' rights", trying to violate the Constitution by forcing others to put up with religiosity, etc. is that a lot of folks with no connection to the 1861 temper tantrum have moved there over the past few decades. Florida is already roughly-evenly split among the Midwest, Northeast and Old South. Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia will soon find that most of the white residents had grandparents who lived in the North.

Will the transplants decide to join the cheering for the Old South or just ignore this? Regionalism is breaking down, but not terribly quickly.

"As a PA resident, I just got really interested in the 2010 election. When I heard Toomey was running against Specter I thought that ensured a win for the Dems if Toomey won the primary, as I think he would have a very hard time in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Who knows if any Dems will be willing to run against Specter in the primary? Will the Dems on either side of the state fully embrace him? Philadelphia and Pittsburgh really decide the statewide elections here. In the large center part of the state (fondly called Pennsyltucky by many) Obama got very, very little support, but with the population heavily weighted to the East (Philly) and West (Pittsburgh) it didn't matter in the end. Toomey would EASILY carry the middle, but I don't think he has any shot at carrying the borders unless Dems don't really turn out for Specter or whoever wins the Dem primary. Rendell is quite the political gamester, though, and, since this is it for him as governor, I bet he'll really "bust a hump" as I've heard him say to make sure there are two Democratic US senators. Specter's pretty old, and has been quite sick, so he may not stay in the mix too much longer."

Beth in PA, I am from PA myself and can add a wrinkle to your otherwise (in my opinion) accurate analysis:

Specter was always a moderate Republican. He has long been pro-choice-ish, and got endorsements from unions(!) in elections past. PA has long been a moderate blue-collar democratic state, with a sizable republican faction, meaning that moderates from either party (Specter, the Caseys, Tom Ridge) can be elected. Of course there are exceptions cough-Santorum-cough, but the crazies that do happen to get in state-wide office tend to be from the mountains or western PA, which is less populated (and has less clout) than the east. In general in PA, for politicians, bland is beautiful.

Specter got to pull this off because the Philadelphia suburbs, straight-up northeastern types, were typically moderate republicans... like Specter. Now that the GOP nationally has thrown its lot with the snake handlers (remember, LOTS of PA residents are catholic, not prods), the Philly suburbs, northeastern, not anti-urban, moderate, began to blue. These people, as I said, are Specter's base - he's from Philly and they've known him forever. He must follow them. Philly suburbs turning blue = Specter turning Dem or risk ouster. That simple.

It seems like freelunch, laughable, and other likeminded posters are primarily exercised over social conservates' "forcing others to put up with their religiosity." That argument has always sounded strange to me because social conservatism in the political realm is mostly a rearguard defensive effort. Gay marriage, for example, is being foisted on the previous, more traditional culture. Socons are merely trying to keep things as they are (you may disagree with their stance but they aren't doing the pushing on that issue.). The only issue social conservatives are on the offensive over is abortion, and that is a matter of medical and scientific fact. It is the pro-choice side that is fighting from the shifting sands of defining who is and isn't a person.

In my opinion, Republicans can regain some measure of power if they would display competency in government. If they went wrong, it was by doing nothing but showing social conservative bona fides to the primary voters and then making a mess of governance. Katrina, Iraq WMDs, the overall budget 2001-2005, etc., come to mind. Too many socons would give elected officials a pass on screwing things up because those officials were "good people." Maybe, but good people need to govern well, also.

He voted for the porkulus bill, which was a complete insult to this country. He was looking down the barrel at a coming primary loss, and preferred to keep power, rather than go down in flames later this year against Toomey. Pretty simple. Frankly, his views have been in line with democrats' for quite some time, IMO.

Micheleq,

Do you really think that Toomey has a chance to win in Pennsylvania? I can see how he can win the Republican primary, but how do you think he can he win the election against any Democrat?

midtown wrote:

In my opinion, Republicans can regain some measure of power if they would display competency in government. If they went wrong, it was by doing nothing but showing social conservative bona fides to the primary voters and then making a mess of governance. Katrina, Iraq WMDs, the overall budget 2001-2005, etc., come to mind. Too many socons would give elected officials a pass on screwing things up because those officials were "good people." Maybe, but good people need to govern well, also.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, the two questions are intertwined. The primary qualifications for appointed political positions in the previous administration were (1) loyalty to the President above and beyond all else (2) ideological purity and (3) competence somewhere way down the list.

Some Republicans are waking up to the idea that personal loyalty, as opposed to national loyalty (or even party loyalty), is not such a great thing in government (unless you want a monarchy or dictatorship where the leader is the state). But the idea of putting competence before ideological purity is something that they cannot apparently stomach. The whole idea of retaining Gates as SecDef or offering Commerce to Judd Gregg precisely because you want a wide range of views at the table seems anathema to the modern Republican party (some Democrats and liberals too, but apparently not the President).

Now Democrats should not be prematurely celebrating the demise of the Republican party. They do first have to deliver on the economy. And it remains to be seen just how well their policies will work in the medium term (when the next elections are fought). But I submit that even a fairly anemic recovery, set against all of the talk of depressions and the end of civilization as we know it, will reflect well enough on Obama and the Democrats to keep Republicans from exploiting that issue in 2010 and 2012.

So you're left with the social issues which Republicans have used so effectively in the past to divide the electorate to their advantage (and pro-life people please note: the Republicans have never actually done anything to effectively advance the pro-life cause, which leads me to believe that they'd rather keep it as a means of turning out the vote). But, aside from abortion, the political tide is working against Republicans there, and the whole "divide and conquer" strategy that worked so well for so long may not be as effective.

Unless there's a major crisis along the lines of a 9/11 that Obama fails to adequately respond to or prepare for. Then all bets are off. But pinning your hopes on something that is fundamentally unforeseeable is not exactly a wise strategy.

PA resident here also. We registered Dem, wife and I in 50's, first time ever so we could vote against Clinton in the primary. We had planned to re-register Republican to support Specter, also hoping that the Republicans could get themselves back together. I see no hope for them at this point. From what I know of Toomey, have only met him twice, I will vote for Specter. Would consider a real viable, non-psycho libertarian also.

Steve

The GOP has now had the the biggest 2-year Congressional meltdown a political party has suffered in 50 years. It has lost 15 seats in the Senate, and about 14% of its House seats. Party affiliation is now down to 21%.

The GOP rump is going to become more united in message (basically, the message of King Canute to the incoming tide 1000 years ago), but its success now depends much more on opportunistic exploitation of weaknesses of select incumbents - even so, in this environment, in many places independents will have distinct advantages over Republicans. The GOP may be facing, in certain parts of the country, the fate of the Whig party. And the diaspora from GOP-dominant bubble areas is going to mean formerly red parts thereof will get more purple, while the bad taste may linger long enough not to make destination bluer areas significantly more purple.

But there are unfortunately people who, with their shortened sense of eschatons, desperately crave the feeling of being an embattled minority. I know some of the lefty versions thereof - many of them, even in the Obama era, are like Japanese warriors hidden in the jungle of Pacific islands 30 years after the end of WW2. Now they will have more GOP confreres.

freelunch,

A few semi-disconnected responses:

I think *you* are overly optimistic about how much the North has gotten over its plunder of what Robert Penn Warren called "the great storehouse of virtue" -- a plunder which has financed every hubristic and pseudo-messianic crusade (both foreign and domestic) that the U.S. has indulged itself in (and mostly at the North's behest) in the past one hundred and fifty years.

To wit, and taking just three examples among many more, drawn just from the first fifty years subsequent to the Civil War:

(1) The "Gilded Age" consolidation of capitalist plutocracy, with all the attendant social, cultural, political, economic, and environmental damage that has wrought ever since.

(2) The final subjugation of the American Indians at the hands of the same Union army that has supposedly liberated African-Americans in the South.

(3) The conquest of the Philippines as the model for at least one subsequent Asian war, brought to us all by "the best and the brightest" that the North could "bless" us with.

----------

Why, pray-tell, is it Northerners moving South and not the other way around, if the North is so superior as you seem to think, in every conceivable way?

Why would anyone -- least of all Northerners themselves -- not want to live there?

----------

I suspect that laughable's view of the South is conditioned by the understandable responses engendered by his greeting of Southerners he meets as "Jethro" and "Jim-Bob," which would be a lot like a Southerner greeting Northerners he or she meets as "Felix Unger" or (even more to the point) "Arnold Horschack."

I'm more of a conservative than a Republican, but if Republicans "lose Snowe" conservatives don't gain anything. She's not keeping Maine from voting in a conservative Pro-Life Democrat/Republican. Maine is one of the least religious states in the nation and low on social conservatism.

Let's not forget that it was scarcely 5 years ago when Republicans were crowing about their "permanent majority," when the Dems were in the dumps, convinced that demographics and a lack of support among "values voters" would doom them. Or who can forget when GHWB secured a landslide win in 1988, and few Americans had ever even heard the name "Bill Clinton," and the Party of Reagan seemed locked in asecendancy.

Anyone who mistakes short-term trends for permanent shifts is making a huge error. Ruling parties make mistakes; professionals and opportunists in minority parties exploit those mistakes. New issues announce themselves and divide old loyalties. Parties fortunes' ebb and flow.

We all like to think that every time "our side" wins it has triumphed for the ages; good has vanquished evil once and for all! Recent history alone ought to disabuse us all of that pretense.

Like everything else of this world, this, too, shall pass ...

So, the RINO switched. First act of intellectual honesty in the man that I can recall. Good for Arlen. Good for the GOP. Now we can pump money into senate candidates in PA who are loyal to the brand.

So, it doesn't bother you that he is a proven liar? Look it up - he denied he would switch parties a month ago. When Jeffries switched, he advocated forbidding a Senator from ever doing so again.

freelunch, sure I think Toomey will have a challenge on his hands in PA. But republicans there had had enough of him, with his lame vote on the porkulus. Putting grandkids I don't even have in hock more than any big-spenders before this current crop of pols. Specter had lots of help from Bush and other party people last go-around, and this is the thanks he gives them?? He really should have voted NO on porkulus. The rate they are throwing money around for junk spending at this time is just way too much. If you can't count on a republican to vote no on obvious junk (porkulus), what can you count on him for?

BTW, anyone even slightly surprised by this has paid absolutely NO attention to the fact that Specter's very much a radical liberal, like the democrats are.

I am registered R, but what I thought was a silk purse is now revealed to be a sow's ear. I plan to re-register, probably as Independent.

Snoozer, if you think that Specter is a radical liberal, you think that two-thirds of the country is. That's fine. My view of the spectrum is from much closer to the center than yours is, so I only see him as a moderate who would have stayed in the Republican Party if the economy-destroying Club to, er, for Growth crowd hadn't targeted him.

The Club for Growth and their snake oil solution of cutting taxes for every single problem got us into this mess. What voter who is paying attention would want to have them make it even worse?

"If you can't count on a republican to vote no on obvious junk (porkulus), what can you count on him for?"

Uh - you were perhaps not paying attention for the past eight years? Bush's budget only looked a little bit smaller because he put Iraq and Afghanistan "off budget."

In any event, the Dems may be able to keep Spector in line for the next 18 months, but I doubt they'll have much control over him if he gets re-elected. They should actively court Snowe and Collins.

BG- the response to your comment about why northerners move south was right on. It is cold up here! We tend to come back to northern health care when we get old or sick, however.

Snoozer, if you think that Specter is a radical liberal, you think that two-thirds of the country is. That's fine. My view of the spectrum is from much closer to the center than yours is, so I only see him as a moderate who would have stayed in the Republican Party if the economy-destroying Club to, er, for Growth crowd hadn't targeted him.

Compared to... let's call it "The actual way things work", the democrats are extremely radical leftists. The Republicans are... quite a bit to left. Specter's voting for the bailouts, for instance, is a clue he's EXTREMELY left in his economic views. Nobody but mindless ideologues actually believe in the current garbage set to wipe out the nation.

The Club for Growth and their snake oil solution of cutting taxes for every single problem got us into this mess. What voter who is paying attention would want to have them make it even worse?

Any intelligent voter would, if they actually learned something about economic realities would rather commit suicide than vote Democrat. Seriously, I can't imagine more UNintelligent actions than what Bush and Bush II ( you call him Obama) have committed economically. Their economic and fiscal behavior could easily be prosecuted as criminal, if they weren't in government. But, somehow, people actually believe that government can defy reality, walk on water, and drown us in debt without consequence.

Your post reveals you're actually in favor of the criminal behavior of Congress and Obama. I guess that means you have absolutely no understanding of anything economic, fiscal, or even have the ability to add and subtract. Anyone with those WILL BE OPPOSED to what's going on. And in reality, I don't know anything about the "Club for growth", but if they advocate tax reductions, well, then they're saying at least one intelligent thing. The government's consumption of our wealth has passed the point where it is gauranteed to bankrupt the country and wipe out the currency.

BTW, if your side "wins", and if the internet survives the coming apolcalypse caused by what's been done and what's being done, I'll gladly remind you just how astoundingly stupid it all was.

I AM correct, and you and every Democrat IS WRONG.

I had to stop the last post before finishing (family first!).

Basically, parties should purge the morally or fiscally corrupt (David Duke, Ted Stevens). But parties should keep those who vote with them most of the time, but not as much as they would like (Joe Lieberman) and those who are personally annoying (again Joe Lieberman).

Arlen Specter was the Republican version of Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is venal, self-serving, and annoying. But he votes with the D's more than he votes against the D's. We'd be insane to kick him out and make him vote more against us than for us. Fortunately, the Democrats have adult (albeit imperfect) leadership. That's something the Republicans lack right now.

Liam, great posts. I am a nearly lifelong Democrat who recently changed my party to Republican (because there's no 3rd Party). However, I find myself still voting for Democrats, at least in the general elections. Fed up as I am with the Democratic Party, it seems to me that the Republican Party is worse.

I was happy the Democrats didn't have a filibuster-proof Senate (because I thought it would encourage more bi-partisan action) until I witnessed the past 100 days. The Republicans in Congress haven't been opposing Obama for any rational reasons that I can see. The idea that the Party that presided over 6 of the past 8 years has suddenly "returned to its roots" is laughable.

I think some of those roots may be rotten. Gingrich on the Today Show this morning saying that people don't want big government to stay big permanently. What a joke. Other than ideologues, ordinary people don't care whether government is big or small. They care whether it is effective. They care about good government. By those standards the Republicans in 6 of the past 8 years created one of the least competent governments that I can remember in my lifetime.

"Obama's majority was the highest for a non-incumbent President or VP election since Ike's in 1952"

In most such cases there was a strong or moderately strong third party vote, but this election there wasn't. Also this is kind of a specific subset.