Google Ads


Site Stats

AR-Sen: Lincoln Running Neck and Neck With No-Name GOP Candidates

by: James L.

Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 11:12 AM EDT


Public Policy Polling (PDF) (8/21-24, registered voters):

Blanche Lincoln (D-inc): 40
Gilbert Baker (R): 42

Blanche Lincoln (D-inc): 40
Curtis Coleman (R): 41

Blanche Lincoln (D-inc): 40
Tom Cotton (R): 39
(MoE: ±3.5%)

Ugly. Horrendously ugly. Any incumbent who's failing to crack a higher mark than 40% against three C-grade GOP opponents with single-digit name ID is pretty far from being in a comfortable position for re-election. Her approvals, too, are underwater at 36-44.

While I'm sure that the NRSC will make an effort to get a better nominee in place than gaffe-prone crackpots like businessman Curtis Coleman or Kim Hendren, this poll suggests that the GOP could make a race of it even with a less than top-tier challenger.

RaceTracker Wiki: AR-Sen
James L. :: AR-Sen: Lincoln Running Neck and Neck With No-Name GOP Candidates
Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
AR-Sen: Lincoln Running Neck and Neck With No-Name GOP Candidates | 46 comments
Just doesn't make sense
...these numbers just dont make sense to me.  I'm anxious to hea what the Arkansas residents who post on here have to say.

I get the anti-Obama thing in the south but aren't these numbers against "nobody" and "somebody" a bit too negative for Lincoln?

Ehhh...
I know this isn't the most popular view here, but I wouldn't necessarily lose sleep if Blanche Lincoln went down to defeat. Considering she's probably been the worst Dem senator on healthcare after Nelson, and supports lousy policies like repealing the estate tax, she's one of my least favorite Dems. I'd be much more upset at losing Dodd or even Harry Reid.

At the end of the night, if we are still at 60 dems, but we've replaced Senator Lincoln with a Senator Hodes or a Senator Carnahan, I'd be thrilled.

I think we've been a bit spoiled the past two cycles without having lost any Dem seats at all. While I don't actively cheer for a Lincoln defeat, I am ambivalent. Just my two cents.  

Problem is
At the end of the night, if we are still at 60 dems, but we've replaced Senator Lincoln with a Senator Hodes or a Senator Carnahan, I'd be thrilled.

If we end up losing Lincoln, I could see us losing other seats, as well -- including many of the Opens. Look, I'm no Lincoln fan, either, but I doubt that we'll be able to write her seat off and still expect to stand in place at 60.

[ Parent ]
60 votes
Lincoln may not be a liberal but she's probably a lot easier a get on certain votes than her republican counterpart would be.  Also, if we can get to 67, we could change some rules in the senate and get rid of the filibuster.  We could also overide vetos if a repub captures the pres n 2016...
[ Parent ]
"If we can get to 67"?
Is there anyone who still believes this is possible anytime soon? Even if we net a couple of seats in 2010 (which is an outcome I'd gladly take at this point), it's not like the 2012 map offers a lot of room for Democratic growth.
[ Parent ]
I think it's possible
Maybe not likely...but possible.  With breaks, I see 64 or 65 (possible adds in MO, NH, OH, KY, and NC) seats coming out of 2010.  That would give us two more to get to 67.  If they come, it'll be at the expense of Ensign and, probably, Kyl.  2012 is a tough map, though.  In that, you're right.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
All good points...
To James point, I don't know that a Lincoln defeat would necessarily mean widespread losses elsewhere. I'd worry about the West, but I don't think the Midwest or, certainly, Mid Atlantic-New England area will be moving back towards Republicans in 2010 (barring terrible economic conditions). On the other hand, I am beginning to agree with the theory that 2010 will be lousy in the greater South region no matter what happens--in fact, all of our 2008 House incumbents who lost were in the South (lumping Boyda/Kansas in there).

To Admonk's point about 67 votes/ending filibusters, we're having enough trouble getting Lincoln, Nelson, Landrieu, Pryor as it is.

I guess my point is that if we don't have massive losses across the country in 2010, we may actually be better off having 58-60 Dem senators who are more "solid." It may be easier to whip the caucus into shape.  

[ Parent ]
The problem is having too many red state Dems
And too many blue state Repubs. In theory it would be possible to sustain close to 70 Dems but not when Maine has two Repubs and Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida, Missouri, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina and Indiana have one each. The way they are elected over three classes makes it impossible due to changing circumstances.
[ Parent ]
If we can get to 67
would we even want to get rid of the filibuster?  And do you really think there's a chance in the world that all 67 dems would vote to kill it?
[ Parent ]
No way
I dont think the Senate would ever vote to get rid of the filibuster.

As much as it is a pain in the ass, when the shoe is on the other foot, I'd certainly like to still have the filibuster around.  The Dems were just giant wusses and never used it when we were in the minority.

[ Parent ]
Not happening
If there were 67 Democrats in the Senate, the filibuster would be a totally moot point, and getting rid of it then would just smack of arrogance and riding roughshod over opposition. It won't happen.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Generally would agree, but not right now
Believe, me, I have absolutely no love for conservadems.  I want Bright, Minnick, Marshall, Griffith, Boren, etc. to lose and rid us of the PR liabilities those political leeches are.  We have the room in the House to compensate for losing them.  

We don't have that luxury in the Senate, though.  If I knew for sure that Hodes and Fisher/Brunner would win and that Braley would run against and beat Grassley and that we'd defend Reid, Gillibrand, Bennet, Dodd, Illinois, and Deleware, I would agree that we're better off without Lincoln.  But I'm not convinced yet.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Huh?
I can understand not liking Boren and Griffith as one quasi-attacked Obama and the other Pelosi, but outside of being Conservative, what have the others done that you want them out of Office.  Surely you realize, they are the best we can do in their districts?  That having them with using 60-80% of the time is much better than having a Republican with us 3% of the time.  You realize that right?

Also under no situation should we want Lincoln to lose, ever.  She's not outspoken against Liberals and she gives us votes often enough.  Replacing her with a Republican would mean another vote we would have to make up on other issues.  If you don't want to donate money or support her, that's fine, but saying we would better off is pretty out there and really bad politically.

29/D/Male/NY-01

[ Parent ]
Im over that argument
The seats mentioned are seats we have no business winning and having such ridiculous conservadems on our side really does muck up the PR.  I'd much rather have perfect PR and less seats than terrible PR and an overbloated majority made up of Democrats representing seats that really should be Republican.

My attitude for Senators is a bit different.

[ Parent ]
I agree
Someone voting with us 50% of the time doesn't mean shit when they're stalling good, progressive bills behind the scenes.  It doesn't mean shit when they're publicly refusing to endorse Democratic candidates for hiring office.  It doesn't mean shit when they're regurgitating right-wing talking points, thus giving the Republicans' talking points bipartisan power while disrupting our own messaging.  It doesn't mean shit when their breaks with the majority create another media distraction (ie, "Mr. President, how can you sell this bill to the American people when members of your own party don't support it?"), further disrupting Democratic messaging.  It doesn't mean shit when their votes tie the Democratic Party to conservative failures.

If we can't get better than Boren or Bright or Marshall or Minnick from those districts, then fuck those districts.  It's not worth the monetary and public relations cost.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Totally agree
Wanting Lincoln to lose to a Republican is not a rational position for a Democrat or a liberal of any kind.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
thank you tekzilla and pan
I really dont quite get some of the vibes on ehre about getting rid of conservative dems and replace them with ultra conservative repubs.  Tekzilla and Pan i couldn't agree more, i'd rather have 100 dems and have 30 or so split of and be conservative and still carry on most of what the party stands for.

At the end of the day, voting for cloture on issues that aren't healthcare or efca happen alot on other important issues.  Just because a senator represents her state and not the democratic party or even the majority of the country is no reason to root for the ultra conservative republicans in the south.  Arkansas senators, dem or repub, probably won't vote the same as NY senators, that's the beauty of america.

I dont know what the PR costs are to be honest.  I mean at the end of the day, the Health Care thing has been screwed up from a PR persepctive from the beginning really.  A healthy Ted Kennedy would have been perfect at shepherding this through, but there was no one to take his place.  The conservatives, well, give them credit, they were able to turn opinion against the health care debate quickly and effectively....as they had in 1994.

I say go Blanche Lincoln.  Also, the fact that her name is Blanche reminds me of the Golden Girls, and that show was funny!

[ Parent ]
GG
Great show!

29/D/Male/NY-01
[ Parent ]
They almost look like generic numbers
Considering PPP always have lower undecideds than most I don't think panic stations are in order here. Health care is taking a toll on everybody's numbers right now. When the topic changes and people focus on general economic improvements next year then this will pass. But I will say I could see a scenario where Blanche could lose while other Dems win, even in GOP open seats. I think AR has moved that fast because of Obama - fewer blacks in the state than the rest of the South, latent PUMA feelings and now birthers/deathers/teabaggers foaming at the mouth.
Time for a DSCC Moneybomb...
Lincoln should start running positive bio ads.  She also needs to build up a huge money edge.  If that doesn't work, who knows what will happen.  Arkansas is getting tougher and tougher.
AR
I wonder why Bebee is so unaffected.

29/D/Male/NY-01
He's not a part of the Federal Government
And you know who's in charge of the Federal Government.  
[ Parent ]
Beebe, Mike Ross, and Marion Barry
are seen as conservative "good ole boy" Democrats, and for that matter so is Mark Pryor.  If Pryor was running instead of Lincoln, he'd be similarly safe, the GOP knew that, which is why they didn't even run anyone against him in 2008.

Of the Dems in the congressional delegation, Vic Snyder is vulnerable, but he has a strong base of sanity in Little Rock.  I'm willing to bet that a majority of AR-2 believes that Obama was born in the US.  I doubt that is the case in any of the other three districts.

[ Parent ]
Marion BERRY
Council Barry's certainly no "good" old boy  : P

Male, 23, DC-At Large
[ Parent ]
*CouncilMAN, of course


Male, 23, DC-At Large
[ Parent ]
Snyder in little danger
His district was actually the friendliest to Obama (he lost by only 54-44).  
[ Parent ]
It was indeed
as I said, there is a strong base of sane people in Little Rock.  The rest of the state has a majority of loons.
[ Parent ]
I'm not surprised at all
This is an electorate where just 45% think Obama was born in the US.  We're not dealing with a state, but a bunch of loons.
If you think about it
Perfect storm state for anti-Obama sentiments. From race, through the Democratic primary, ignoring it in the general through to conservative fury today.
[ Parent ]
I'm willing to bet that
every Southern state except for Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and possibly Georgia and Texas have a majority that believes that Obama was born in the US.

I think the entire South will be a bloodbath next year.  It looks very similar to 1962, where the Dems would have gained seats in the House if not for the South.  

[ Parent ]
Nothing Lasts Forever
This is typical of a new President's first midterm election. With the exception of the 2002 GOP tide under Bush, most incumbent parties end up losing seats in the first two years of a new president from the same party. I'm surprised that despite this trend against Democratic incumbents who should not be vulnerable, the party is still on track to pick up seats in Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, and possibly Kentucky. Count your blessings.
Bennett/Gillibrand numbers
Hard to believe a scandal free 2-term incumbent is polling that badly. It could be worse, she could be getting Reid/Dodd numbers.

Remember what Pryor said in Religulous
He supported creationism - I would not be surprised to see Lincoln go the same way.....    
Lincoln
Is pro-choice. I dont know of too many folks who are both pro-choice and pro-creationism. Usually those who are pro-creationism are religious fundamentalists.
[ Parent ]
AR
I am not surprised by this.I have thought Lincoln could be
In trouble considering how much antiObama most of the
south Is.Unlike some I don't see It as doom for Democrats.
Especilly Is a health bill that Democrats like and Obama
has a approval In the 50's.

At worse I can see Dodd,Lincoln,Reid,and Bennedt going down.If Castle runs In Delaware he could win but that Is
a big If.And Republicans win the kentuckey seat and Burr
hangs on In NC.We have good shots at winning Missouri,Ohio,and NH.  

I can make an argument that Lincoln is the Democrat's version of Richard Burr
I'm not a big fan of Blanche Lincoln, but she is better for us than most other Arkansas politicians that don't have last names like Clinton, Pryor, or Bumpers.  We need her to be reelected.

What this poll is really stating is that the Arkansas electorate is pretty much torn between re-electing Lincoln vs. electing a generic Republican.  Richard Burr was having the same problem, although recently Burr's had the wind at his back.

I wouldn't fret over these numbers....yet.  Arkansas has become a red state this decade, so we know we will have a fight on our hands.  I think our states that are vulnerable at this time include CT, CO, NV, IL, DE (only if Castle runs..which is doubtful in my mind), and AR.  We have good opportunities of picking up NH, OH, and MO, plus a decent chance at KY and NC.  I think LA will be an uphill battle comparative to Musgrove in MS last year.  I'm about to toss out any chance of winning FL, even if Rubio pulls off an unlikely upset.

I say we will probably break even in 2010.  Worse case scenario is that we lose (net) 3 or 4 seats.  

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

This is similar to the Chafee situation in 2006
Although voters certainly didnt hate Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island in 2006, they knew he was a Republican and in the same party as George W. Bush and that was all that mattered.  I see the same thing happening to Lincoln.  Although voters certainly dont seem to dislike her strongly, she is a Democrat when the voters in the state probably want a Republicans to "check" Obama.  This is an arguement that I suspect will work for Republicans in the South.  I just thank heavens that Lincoln is the only Democratic incumbent Senator up in 2010 from the South.

I dont even want to see what happens to poor Charlie Melancon if he decides to run against Vitter in Louisiana if a well-established incumbent like Lincoln cant even win reelection.  

Lincoln tends to underperform
she won 56-44 in 2004 against a state rep who raised very little money.

I don't understand why. She's ideologically the same as Pryor, maybe an inch to a left. Is it sexism? Does she just not do constituent services well? Is there some other explanation?

Given the buildup to these numbers
those are terrific numbers.

She's tied with three people who nobody knows the negatives on, well gee, fine!  

LOL, this is not Reid or Dodd numbers.

Sure below 50% is not good, but those generic R numbers are not going up unless a strong candidate appears, and there aren't any looming.

Lincoln has a very simple road ahead of her... expose the flaws of her opponent.  

Bottom line the poll says nothing because they didn't poll Huck or Hutchinson or Boozman.  If she was ten points behind Boozman, that would say something.  If she was five points ahead of Boozman, that would say something, as would 10 points ahead of Hutchinson.

Even worse for Linocln
37% of respondents were Democrats, 29% were Republicans
Typical
That's a typical, if slightly off, skew of the Arkansas electorate.  Most are former Dixiecrats who never bothered to change registration.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
Tom Cotton
The characterization of Tom Cotton as "C-list" is inappropriate -- Cotton is the Arkansas-native and Harvard Law-graduate and attorney who left his successful Washington-DC practice to sign up to fight in Iraq. He then signed up for a second tour, this time in Afghanistan. Cotton also clerked for the Eighth Circuit, meaning if he had continued with his law career he probably could have become a federal judge.

(When this fact made the news some nut-jobs on the far Left attempted to "prove" the non-existence of Cotton, disbelieving that any real person would quit a lucrative job to go to Iraq. They probably still disbelieve his existence.)

Cotton is regarded as personable and charasmatic, interestingly, both in conservative circles and by the local media. Cotton also is well-connected in Washington-DC conservative legal circles, meaning he would have access to money if he ran. The only thing he is missing is name recognition but he otherwise suffers from no negatives at all.

http://arkansasnews.com/2009/0...

Do you have a citation
for the "nut-jobs on the far Left" who "attempted to 'prove' the non-existence of Cotton"? Thanks for the link you provided which, however, made no such assertion.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Cotton is real
Here is one of the typical responses when one blog discussed the letter Cotton wrote criticizing the NYT. The response by the Left was immediate and unwaveing: Cotton isn't real, a Rove creation, a neo-con creation, blah-blah.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...

[ Parent ]
Some unknown subscriber to a listserv
Who the fuck cares?

That's "the Left" to you? I suspect you of being a troll.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
Yeah, seriously
Goodbye, Professor.
[ Parent ]
AR-Sen: Lincoln Running Neck and Neck With No-Name GOP Candidates | 46 comments

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

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox