Google Ads


Site Stats

AR-Sen: Griffin (R) Won't Run Against Lincoln (Apparently)

by: DavidNYC

Mon May 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM EDT


Blanche Lincoln catches a break:

Former interim U.S. Attorney and Karl Rove aide Tim Griffin says he's no longer considering running for the Republican nomination to challenge Sen. Blanche Lincoln next year.

Griffin said Sunday that he's focused on his other responsibilities, including his service in the U.S. Army Reserves' Judge Advocate General's Corps as a major. Griffin told The Associated Press that he thinks Lincoln, a Democrat seeking a third term, is still vulnerable and will keep a close eye on the race.

Who knows what "keep a close eye on the race means" - maybe he'd let himself be dragged back into it in the future. But for now, at least, Griffin is laying down his arms. And it's a good thing for us, too, as the lone poll of this race showed him quite competitive with the incumbent Lincoln. Griffin has all sorts of baggage, as a Rove acolyte who was at the epicenter of the Alberto Gonzalez-US Attorney scandal - but still, we're better off without him in our faces, since the GOP bench is otherwise not terribly strong:

State Sen. Kim Hendren, as one Republican operative recently put it, "that Jewed" himself out of the race with his completely inappropriate reference to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. State Sen. Gilbert Baker has yet to make up his mind. That leaves Curtis Coleman, the Little Rock biotech executive, who recently formed an exploratory committee. He's the only candidate inching toward the race.

Lincoln may get very lucky in the end.

DavidNYC :: AR-Sen: Griffin (R) Won't Run Against Lincoln (Apparently)
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Republicans have used
every dirty trick in the book, going back before whitewater, to try and gain a foothold in Arkansas. The trends of the state should have made this easy for them.

Instead, they still have almost no presence. It's astonishing.  


My Take
Arkansas probably is the more intelligent part of the South. You know, the part where people don't let their opinions be formed on the basis of a couple of lousy attack ads and other dirty tricks. It was where Bill Clinton got started. Sad to say that those dirty tricks worked decently well on the rest of the country.

[ Parent ]
I have a simpler explanation:
Arkansas isn't as black as several of its neighbors, and unlike TN, it doesn't really have any Republican tradition to speak of. And also, Bill Clinton helped water the home team during the 90s.  

[ Parent ]
indeed
and so the state missed the reallignment. I think Dems are safe there. If obama can prove himself he'll improve.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Bring Baker on
he only won 53-47 in 2--8 in what is a fairly, (by state standards), Republican Senate Seat. He was mired in several scandals and led, as chairman of the state Republican Party, to its weakest levels since the 1970s, loosing 6 house seats and gaining no senate seats, even when they should have, and two statewide offices they already heard, and they didn't crack 44% in any statewide race that year. I'd like to see what kind of Senate race he could run.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

Griffin
Was Griffin the strongest potential candidate? I'm not sure that it is a good thing for Lincoln that he's not running, it may help the GOP avoid a tough primary. Not sure how good of a candidate Coleman is...

If the GOP doesn't run a first (or even second tier)
candidate against Lincoln, she really has no excuse to vote against EFCA. I wonder if Arkansas has any ballot access laws that would screw the GOP over if they don't run anyone against Lincoln or Beebe - they already didn't run anyone against Pryor, after all.

Found the answer to my own question
If the GOP fails to run anybody against Beebe in 2010 and the Green Party does, the Greens effectively become the only other party in Arkansas.

A party has to get 3% of the vote for Governor to be recognized for ballot access laws


[ Parent ]
Does that ever happen?
I can understand not running a candidate for Senator - if nobody wants to do it and the Senator keeps their head down and is unbeatable (especially if they're closer to their state than to their party) then there may be the occasional uncontested race.

But surely for Governor a candidate is always run, even if it's going to be a 70-30% drubbing, merely because the opposition in the legislature has to have voted against something and if they don't put up a candidate it makes them look non-serious.


[ Parent ]
The only example in recent memory
is Illinois 1986, when LaRoucheites won the nominations for Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Adlai Stevenson III, created a third-party ticket and ran a separate slate of candidates. Technically there was no Democrat on the ballot for Governor.

Aside from that, no, there's not really any instances of a major party not providing a gubernatorial nominee.


[ Parent ]
well, Beebe has about an 86%
approval ratings and Republicans are utterly in a down and out rut in Arkansas.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
3% seems a reasonable threshold.
Unlike, say, 10% por some even much higher political party thresholds that I've recalled reading about.

[ Parent ]
Unopposed
It's not quite so recent, but South Carolina only began electing Governors in 1865 and since then has had unopposed candidates for Governor 25 times in the general election including 13 out of 14 elections between 1918 and 1962.  During that period the only opponent was Republican Joseph Tolbert who got 283 votes in the general election compared to 49,009 for winner Burnett Rhett Maybank (D).

Some of the unopposed candidates were quite well known: Strom Thurmond (1946) former US Secretary of State James F. Byrnes (1950) and Ernest Hollings (1958).  Except for Civil War General Wade Hampton and Populist Ben Tillman, I have not heard of the others but then again I am not from South Carolina.

Before the Civil War the South Carolina state legislature elected the Governor and chose the electors for President.  Turnout before the modern era (pre 1966) tended to be very slight for US House and US Senate elections as well and these often went unopposed.  In 1942, for example, the six unopposed "races" for the US House drew 23,356 votes total for an average of 3,893 votes.  The average US House race nationally drew 64,539 votes .  The average non-Southern race drew 82,335 votes.


I think the South Carolina example
is not that interesting.  Before the 1960s, SC was a one party state, and the all white primary almost always determined the eventual winner.

[ Parent ]
Most of the Southern states were pretty lopsided for the Democrats back in the day
Hell, more often than not, the Republican presidential candidate simply wasn't on the ballot in South Carolina (even in 1928, when Hoover won with nearly 450 electoral votes, Al Smith, the Democrat, still won over 90% of the vote in SC).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
Hey!
Maybe the Republicans could run Jim Bob Duggar!

He did run for Senate in 2002.
Though he lost to Tim Hutchinson. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05...

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox