Editorial

It was remarkable. Up until just five minutes before the polls closed Tuesday night, most well-known and well-paid pollsters and political analysts were still calling the race for the Democratic nomination for United States Senator from Pennsylvania “too close to call.”

Even as the results came trickling in, they stood by their declaration that incumbent Democrat and former Republican Arlen Specter and Congressman Joe Sestak were locked in a dead heat and that it could be “a while before a winner is declared.” At 10:15 p.m., just two hours and 15 minutes after the polls closed, Arlen Specter conceded that he had lost the seat he held for 30 years to the retired Navy Admiral.

The fact that Sestak won really isn’t that surprising. What is notable is that he won the nomination with 54 percent of the vote compared to Specter’s 46 percent. Not much of a nail-biter here, but it did keep people glued to the election play-by-play on television and radio (unless you are a die-hard Flyers or Phillies fan).

The consistent, down-to-the-wire predictions also kept big campaign dollars flowing into television and radio advertising well after the polls closed. You would think that airing campaign ads after the polls closed is a waste of donated campaign dollars. Somebody didn’t think it was important enough to check the airtime schedule before they approved and paid for the advertising. Those kinds of mistakes reflect poorly on the candidate.

Specter was doomed when he cast his vote in favor of the Senate’s version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. He was one of only three Republicans to support the bill. To many Republicans, that was the last straw. Specter’s switch to, and hoped-for support from, the Democratic Party came too late. Thirteen months

was not enough time to prove himself to the Democratic voters and gain their trust. You didn’t need to be an overpaid political analyst to figure that out.

Over the past three decades, Specter was described as more of a “centrist” – not leaning hard to the left or right. That position won him many general elections during that time.

Speaking of general elections, now the race begins to the big contest in November. Joe Sestak will face off against Republican Pat Toomey. The former Congressman from the Lehigh Valley handily disposed of his primary opponent Peg Luksik in the primary race.

The upcoming mid-term elections promise to be volatile. Campaign dollars will be flowing freely and high rollers and special interest groups will shovel money into this seemingly bottomless pit until record-breaking numbers are reached.

Meanwhile, the sane road for voters to take is to begin the learning process now and don’t stop learning about the candidates until you cast your vote in November.

Another election season will soon be over and so will the annoying phone calls by the “robo-dinner-interrupters.”

Let’s be honest. Some people simply screen the calls via caller ID and don’t answer. Many people simply hangup at the first sound of that irritating, machine-generated voice.

Many candidates, at the advice of their high-priced consultants, still use the aggravating phone call method of contacting voters because it is less expensive than mass mailings.

But perhaps the best con job run during election season is the voter telephone polls. The margin for error must be incredibly high – if it isn’t, it should be. Organized groups are popping up all over the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States pledging to give false information to pollsters in the name of “payback” for having to surrender their suppertime.

I also find it hard to believe that any candidate would actually pay to collect information that is intentionally designed to block out certain candidates or favor others.

I recently received calls from several pollsters, trolling the telephone circuit, inquiring whether I would vote for candidate A, B, or if I was undecided. I wanted to offer my answer that I would be voting for candidate C, but the computer generated voice told me my choices were A, B or undecided only. So I hung up without giving any answer. My decision to support candidate C meant nothing to the automated data collector.

I received a similar call, offering the same options, from a “live pollster” and posed my same dilemma – he offered the same response! So, if you plan to vote for candidate C you will either offer a false response

or your information will not be collected. Those are your only choices. Imagine how that information and the results are collated and presented to the pubic and imagine how much of the candidate’s campaign dollars paid for you to be inconvenienced.

Some voters are so turned off by the telephone terrorists that they vow to vote for the opponent of the fiend who set the robo-caller loose on them. If that mindset continues to grow, it will soon behoove candidates to send out telephone calls on behalf of their opponents (or at least make it appear that way). Either way, voters should not use that as their decision-maker when selecting a candidate worthy of his or her vote.

Candidates, and their high-priced consultants, will steadfastly stand by their assertion that it is still the least expensive way to reach the most number of people – no matter how many of the latter they alienate or offend. But cheer up for now – we have another five months until the next election season begins. Enjoy your dinner.