By Brittany Foster, Contributing Writer
Former Congressman and Admiral Joe Sestak has come out very publicly against PA Senator Dominic Pileggi’s plan to change the way Pennsylvania allocates its electoral votes.
Harshly critical of the plan that he believes will disenfranchise many voters, Sestak is confident that the legislation will not pass in Pennsylvania. “I have, as I always have, believed in the common sense of the voters of Pennsylvania.” He says that as the initiative becomes more publicized by Pennsylvanian media, voters will realize that the significance of their votes would be diminished.
If it were to pass, Sestak believes that PA would see less candidates in election years. “We only have a few electoral votes, because time is your most precious resource, spend your time where you have the greatest impact on the greatest number,” and that is not a state that allocates their electoral votes in the same way as small states like Maine and Nebraska.
He’s also keeping up his own public profile in the biggest flurry of activity since the Libya conflict began. He’s given an interview on MSNBC and created an online petition to discuss issue (as well as a DADT op-ed on Advocate.com). Under the Admiral’s familiar navy blue logo with his name abutted by three stars, Sestak explains why he is against the legislation.
He has yet to give a hint as to his future political aspirations.
“I’m not going to rule out, or rule in, another run for political office,” he said. In the meantime, he continues to travel around and out of the state to thank all of his volunteers and donors from the 2010 election.
Before coalescing around a challenger to Rep. Pat Meehan, insiders and prospective Democratic candidates are watching Sestak closely to see if he will decide to get in the race.
Saying that he intends to continue his life in public service, don’t be surprised to hear from Sestak again. “I want to stay a part of the fabric of discussion.”
Loading ...
14 Responses
I know Shelly,she is a Sestak “groupie”,he can do no wrong in her eyes!
@Shelly– I could care less if an elected official served in the military prior to running for office. Military service does not make any candidate more or less qualified for any seat. The fact that Joe Sestak over the years has constantly made references to being in the Navy has gotten very annoying. He’s speaks as if he’s the only elected official to ever serve in the military. Patrick Murphy has military experience but he doesn’t go around bragging about it in every single speech he gives like Sestak does. Its nice that Sestak served but in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t really matter when it comes to being an elected official. If Joe wants to always talk about being in the military then why doesn’t he try to be a General instead of running for public office. Oh yeah that rights he can’t go that route because he got fired and demoted to the rank of 2 star admiral.
Flyover and small states could no longer be ignored under National Popular Vote. 2/3rds of the states and voters are now ignored – that’s more than 85 million voters. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. Flyover and small states — DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13) — have been the first to enact the bill.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should get elected.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
When the National Popular Vote bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
Shelly-
1) I object to calling Sestak a “leftie”, because he simply isn’t left-leaning, liberal or progressive. He’s a conservative (bet he voted for Reagan, *twice*) posing as a Democrat.
2) I’ll explain the comment about using his military credentials as a prop. Even though Sestak enjoys support in Delco, there are veterans outside in other counties (like Westmoreland) who believe that Sestak uses his military jacket like a prop.
Example 1: He wears it at events where it is warm in the room and everyone else takes off their jackets.
Example 2: When Joe spoke at opening of his Philly HQ at 20th & Sansom St….. he got out of his car, without his jacket, walked about 20 feet and put the jacket on to enter a tiny packed office to the staff.
Example 3: He tosses in military examples when they don’t apply and pretends like any criticism of him is an attack on the military.
3) Also, Sestak keeps lying and dodging the fact that he was kicked out because he was a poor leader who mistreated the men under his command (the same way he continued to mistreat his campaign and congressional staffs). While Sestak may well have been a brilliant strategist and tactician, he was an example of the abuse of power and a disgrace to the military in that particular regard. This is why Admiral Mullen kicked Sestak out NOT, as Sestak claim, because he proposed cuts to programs.
As for National Popular vote: The fly-over states will never go for it. Some of them have populations near the size of Delaware county. They would lose most of their already small influence.
• Name calling does not help anybody’s cause.
Tea Party calls our president ……something…..something
Then others call Joe Sestak… “Lefty” or “non-lefty”…. Something … something.
• “People should never use their military credentials as a prop to run for public office.”??
I am not sure I understand this comment!
Americans have a very special place in their heart for those leaders who has military credentials. All our present and future political leaders, Republicans or Democrats would do anything to have Joe’s military credentials.
• “The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).”
This will be true if all states change the system. Just changing the system in Pennsylvania will hurt Pennsylvania.
A survey of 800 Pennsylvania voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states or districts (in ME and NE). No more distorting and divisive red and blue state and district maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed iin recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.
On Election Night, most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state… they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Republican legislators seem quite “confused” about the merits of the congressional district method. The leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party just adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support. While in Pennsylvania, Republican legislators insist we must change from the winner-take-all method to the district method.
And up in Maine, the only other state beside Nebraska to use the district method, Mike Tipping reports on Republicans, also newly in the majority like their counterparts in Pennsylvania. This year, Republican leaders in Maine proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, will require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Now they want to pass a majority-only plan.
Dividing Pennsylvania’s electoral votes by district would magnify the worst features of the system and not reflect the diversity of Pennsylvania.
The district approach would provide less incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in all Pennsylvania districts and would not focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the whole state. Candidates would have no reason to campaign in districts where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind.
Due to gerrymandering, in 2008, only 4 Pennsylvania districts were competitive.
When votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When votes don’t matter, they ignore those areas.
In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine’s 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored)
In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska’s reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
When votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When votes don’t matter, they ignore those areas.
Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.
ditto and ditto to the comments above. People should never use their military credentials as a prop to run for public office. I will be watching Murphy with this as he runs statewide, not familiar with him. I do know he has no where near the legal experience that the other candidates have.
Loser Joe is right, after Sestaks actions in 2010… it would be best if maybe Joe runs as an independent. After you defeat someone in a primary, you are supposed to reach out to the other side. My opinion is… Joe’s arrogance is what lost the past election for him. Huge turnoff.
Loser Joe-
My sentiments exactly. I actually feel a bit plagiarized. 🙂
Its obvious that Joe is going to run for something because he’s a guy that needs a title attached to his name. Since the guy actually lives in Virginia I would hope that he runs for office where he lives rather than PA. At any rate the Democratic Party does not need this guy trying to put himself above everything else that’s going on. Hell, I bet the Republicans are excited because Joe’s Senate run in 2010 resulted in Republicans winning more seats hence why we have Toomey and Meehan. If the PA Democratic Party and their membership was smart then they would totally shun Sestak and force him to run as an Independent. It would probably be better for everybody considering the fact that no person is more critical of the PA Democratic Party than Joe Sestak. I could see him now running for office in 2012 while still crying and complaining about the party supporting Specter in the 2010 Primary. Sestak is a loser and a loose cannon. The guy has no respect for the Democratic Party and he’s a selfish man who lacks principle and he uses his military career to promote himself as if he’s the only military guy to ever run for office. Pat Murphy is a military guy but he doesn’t use that fact as a promotional tool like Sestak does. Joe had a weak record as a Congressman and he used that office not to serve to public but instead it was a stepping stone for a higher office. Joe Sestak is all about himself and the title that goes with his name. PA Democrats need to reject him because he has no problem in weakening the party in order to serve his selfish needs.
First of all, Sestak is NOT a leftie. He just plays one for Act Blue donors, and other progressives eager to pull up their skirts behind the bleachers for his empty promises of support. So, PLEASE stop insulting us lefties by associating Sestak with us.
Joe’s the “best” in a few decades because Weldon held the seat for 20 years and was abysmal. So, by that low standard, Sestak could be considered the “best”.
As for Joe running for his seat: YES, he is.
1) Joe reactivated his defunct campaign website to host a freshly designed petition page, with background software to update a Google Docs spreadsheet to gather the information (which he will likely use for his campaign). This sort of professional work is rarely free, and Joe’s not one to spend a nickel unless he has more to gain.
Note: The PA Dems already had a petition page, and Sestak could just have linked to that one, if he wasn’t using the issue to promote himself.
2) “Joe’s” been posting on his Facebook page a lot lately. (I use quotes, because it’s really a staffer doing the posting, not Joe.)
3) As of the last campaign finance report filed with the FEC, Sestak still was paying a staffer out of his Senate campaign funds. (So, if he’s not running, he’s got some explaining to do to the FEC.) The next FEC report covers this month, so there should be some expenses listed for the website and software development (even if as an in-kind contribution).
4) The 7th is the only seat (besides St. Leg) that Sestak can win. A congressional race would allow him to raise money that he could divert to a Senate race in 2016, or it would allow him to remain in the public eye for a shot at Governor in 2014.
Note: For his failed Senate bid, Sestak diverted $4 million dollars that he collected to defend the 7th, thus deceiving donors who had intended the money to stay in the district.
5) The only realistic thing that would keep Joe out, would be if St. Leg redistricted him, but I doubt Gerlach wants to run against Joe in the 6th.
Questions for Joe for his 2012 Congressional race:
1) Can he make a public promise (in writing) that he won’t divert his campaign funds again from the district?
2) If elected, will Joe conform to the principles of minimum hourly wage, and pay his staff 70 hours pay for 70 hours work?
3) How long is Joe going to drag out announcing a decision he’s already made? (Is he going to pretend that he has to check with his family?)
Hi John,
You are correct. It will not change our mind about Sestak that he is the best Congressman Pa district 7 had in last few decades.
You can call him a lefty or whatever names you have in your vocabulary. But that will not change the fact that Admiral Sestak has served the country for decades and he continues to that. He will be back soon. His supports are all rested to start the race again with full energy. You non-lefties just watch it.
Regards.
Shelly
Sestak can do all of the interviews and “thank you tours” he wants. It won’t change Pennsylvania’s opinion of him…we said no once and we will say it again and again. We don’t have room for a lefty-liberal with no grasp of reality to represent us. Go back to Del Co and leave us along Joe.