Looking Stable

These are more realistic numbers than those other ones that came out a few weeks ago. With Lincoln possibly taking over the Agriculture Committee from Tom Harkin (who moves onto HELP), it should increase her profile a bit. Now, if she could just get onboard the public option, I think she can be assured of reelection.

---

by: Don't Tase Me, Bro! @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:23:05 PM UTC

Oh well...

I believe Lincolns chances will improve once/if the economy begins to improve, and national sentiment goes back in favor of Dems instead of hate for everyone.
Also Gilbert and company are probably near their max support. Republicans/Conservatives are in a mood were they will vote for anyone besides a Democrat. And I'm assuming that once Liberal and Moderate voters learn who Lincolns opponents are they will not be inclined to vote for them.
However though given the chance that Lincoln will lose she isn't a democrat I'm too saddened to see lose.

---

by: Hamtree @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:27:12 PM UTC

To a Republican extremist?

Make no mistake, any Republican who beats her will be an extremist.

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

---

by: Pan @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:51:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True but it wouldn't change much.

We need votes on issues such as health care, cap and trade, EFCA. Votes that Lincoln isn't giving us. All she is good for is voting on penny ass issues; issues which we already have enough votes. Meaning she is useless. Her constant appeasing of radical Conservatism,and vocal support for it only provides us with bad PR.
It would probably be better to have a radical Conservative then her; at least then the radical conservative will make a fool out of the right.

---

by: Hamtree @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:48:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The PR would be worse

if we lose the seat...a radical conservative ousting a two term Democrat doesn't make a fool out of the right, it gives them power and credibility.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 07:38:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think so...

When you have a dem vocal supporting the right it makes them look sain, it makes their views look more "bipartisan"
At this point losing Lincoln doesn't give the GOP any more power then they already have. Name one bill were Lincoln was needed to get it passed?

---

by: Hamtree @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 08:27:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I won't fight for her

and I'm not suggesting it's important for Democrats to fight hard for her, if she keeps voting the way you describe. If she doesn't vote for at least cloture on a decent healthcare bill and even a sucky cap and trade bill, as far as I'm concerned, her name is Mud. But that doesn't mean any Republican who would oust her wouldn't be worse.

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

---

by: Pan @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 13:22:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's basically how I feel about Bayh.

He certainly won't get my annual $20/year maximum political donation. I find him ethically and morally repugnant and a complete condescending jackass to boot. There's no way in hell I directly vote for the Republican, given how crazy most Indiana Republicans are.

The question is, is writing in Mickey Mouse and thus indirectly electing a Dan Quayle-like GOP extremist who'll likely come in at #100/100 in the Senate power structure worth potentially cleaning house of one of the worst, most obstructionist, most self-absorbed, sold out loose cannon members of the anarchic Democratic caucus? I'm thinking it is. As long as Bayh is sitting up there at the top of the ticket, he's making it harder to bring the Indiana Democratic party into the 21st century. I accept that only Blue Dogs are going to get elected statewide here, but Bayh is a silver-spoon fed relic of the discredited DLC ideology, and getting rid of him would do a lot of long-term good for the party.

As for Lincoln, she represents the state in which the Democratic party at the national level lost the most ground between 2004 and 2008. If she loses re-election, it'll merely be a reflection of that trend.

The good news is that Lincoln's opposition is so incompetent that even if she did lose, we're looking at a Tim Hutchinson, not a Mike Huckabee. Especially given the number of southern populist Dems in Arkansas, I don't think the GOP would have the seat for long.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 13:54:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know that I agree with you

I remember people making a similar argument during the 1980 Presidential election - that Carter deserved to lose, no matter that Reagan would win. I disagreed with that, and I believe that the Reagan Administration's anti-poor, anti-environment, anti-labor, anti-environment, and imperialist, even unconstitutional policies bore me out. But I certainly understand the argument that some politicians suck so bad that they deserve to lose, almost no matter what.

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

---

by: Pan @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 16:14:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ag Chair Position Should Help

It will help her reach out the rural voters who are more inclined to vote GOP by making a strong case that keeping her will allow Arkansas to directly benefit from having a Democratic majority.  If she plays this right it ought to seal the deal for her.

She'll vote against the public option though - which isn't surprising.  These poll numbers are tained.  Any poll that involves a pollster "explaining" a certain policy has to be taken with a grain of salt.  Do we have the text they used to explain to voters what it is?

That said, I wish the Democratic leadership would have leveraged this Ag Chairmanship into forcing her to vote for the public option.  It's the biggest legislative item for the Democrats, so it's not unreasonable for them to force her to vote for at least cloture if she wanted it.  But that's the core problem with Democratic leadership in the Senate, in that they can never ideologically "maximize" their friendly territory or majority.  There's plenty of states (CT, AR, PA come to mind) that could field way more progressive Senators that would be politically safe, and to top it off they continue to give chairmanships (Agriculture, Homeland Security, Finance) to recalcitrant members that refuse to play ball with their agenda.  You'd never see the Republicans do that when they had the majority.

---

by: DFLer @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:52:52 PM UTC

The text of the question

"Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

Which I think is a relatively neutral description.  The problem is that the GOP has successfully framed the public option as a Government takeover of health care, so if her constituents hear that she supported it, that's what they'll think of.  

28, Unenrolled, MA-08

---

by: Marcus @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:58:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That could mean a co-op too though

Some sort of public option will end up in the bill, but it may not be one liberals like.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 01:20:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In Arkansas

I get the feeling it has less to do with the issue per se, than the general notion that Blanche Lincoln doesn't want to be tied to Barack Obama in any way, shape, or form.

That's really the complicating factor for a lot of Dems like Lincoln, it doesn't really matter that the public option itself is reasonably popular, what matters is whether it's tied to Obama who, like it or not, is not popular in their district (or, in Lincoln's case, her state).

Now, Dianne Feinstein and Joe Lieberman are just being assholes, but that's a different story...

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

---

by: DGM @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:15:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama isn't proposing that

Sadly, his proposal is for only uninsured people who can't afford anything else to have access to a public option.

If Lincoln doesn't at least for for cloture on this, she's an asshole and a lousy representative of her constituents' interests.

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

---

by: Pan @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 13:24:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lincoln will probably end up winning

but it will be a close, hard-fought win. She only managed 56% against extreme-right wingnut State Rep. Jim Holt in 2004. I would expect a Lincoln victory to be around 52-48 this time around.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 23:02:54 PM UTC

She has the bad luck

of running in GOP-friendly years.  It will be a hard-fought win, but she'd likely win with a larger percentage and be comfortably safe if it were a more neutral cycle.

---

by: DFLer @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 23:07:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

interesting point that the

one-third of Dem. Senators running now for 2010 missed out on the two big Democratic waves of '06 & '08.
That was unlucky for Lincoln, and also for Dodd & Reid, too.

---

by: homerun @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 23:19:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The '08 wave

was set up because a lot of weak Republicans got into office on the 2002 wave, not only setting up a disproportionate number of Republican seats to defend compared to the Democrats but also creating weak incumbents that were easy to pick off.  We're seeing some of that in 2010 with NC, FL, OH, NH, MO, and KY as those all had weak challengers or incumbents that were aided by a boost from Bush in GOP turnout (hence all the retirements).  

In truth, Reid should've been knocked in 2004 but he faced no real challenger.  He's always had a history of narrowly pulling out victories in Nevada, but his time may have finally come.

---

by: DFLer @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 23:34:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Solid point.

Dems will be facing the same problem in 2012 and especially in 2014, when at least two "controversial" progressives (Franken and Merkley) will be up.

On the other hand, 2012 could get rid of a lot of the DINO dead wood in the Dem caucus that skated in 2006, a problem that the lockstep Republicans don't really have. I'd rather have a 51 vote majority led by someone other than Reid and minus, say, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, than a 60 vote majority with aforementioned idiots holding up the process for everyone and Reid providing nothing short of an epic leadership fail.

If Reid had been knocked off in 2004, the media could've had their "crowing about the defeat of Democrats" moment twice over, and Senate Dems might actually have learned something. Ha ha ha.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 00:49:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's be real

Democrats have 60 Senators, they may very well have more after 2010, 61 or 62...after that, there is no where else to go but down.

---

by: DTOzone @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 01:19:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I really dont think 2012 will be that bad

If Obama can do as well as he did in 2012 as he did in 2008, he should be able to carry Webb, Tester, and McCaskill, who are our three obviously weakest Dems (open seats are another thing to deal with that I wont go into).  Obama won Virginia pretty big, he came extremely close in Montana (!!!!) and barely closed the deal in MO.  Webb could run behind the ticket by 6% and still win, McCaskill needs to run only 1-2% better than Obama and Tester like 6% but as we've seen time and time again, Democrats are able to run ahead of the national ticket by massive amounts, and win.  Tester can hopefully hold on (the history of Dem Senators from MT is astounding) so there we go.  Those are our toughest seats for 2012 (except for possible open seats) and we should be able to hold them all.

---

by: Andrew @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:17:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

2014 will be our tough year

While we will lose some incumbents in 2012 (McCaskill comes to mind), Obama's GOTV operations will have a strong down-ballot effect for a lot of Democrats and keep them in office, barring any disastrous moves by the Administration that leads to another GOP tide.  2014 will be bad because there were some '08 folks (Franken, Merkley, Hagan) that really only won because of the wave and the opponents they faced were damn weak.  Also, assuming Obama wins again in 2012 (knock on wood), voters tend to get the "6 year itch" and vote out a lot of members of the sitting President's party in the second midterm.  I know 1998 was different, but it's not the norm.  I think the GOP knows that as well, and realistically that's when they can retake the Senate if they play these next two cycles right.

And to think, if Reid had been knocked out in '04 we most likely would have had Durbin as the Majority Leader, with Schumer as Whip.  Imagine how different that would be...

---

by: DFLer @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 16:24:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Had Reid Lost, there'd be NO Schumer

Reid had to beg and plead with Schumer to stick it out in 2006, Chuck wanted to run for Governor. Reid cut a deal saying "stick around, be the DSCC chair, and we'll put you way up in the leadership." Schumer kicked ass, and got a brand new position created for him as the new #3 in the Dem leadership.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

---

by: trowaman @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:49:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's surprising

Durbin would have almost certainly been majority leader if Reid were gone given his position on the ladder.  Schumer would've been offered a leadership position due to the void created and would have stayed.  I never heard about his gubernatorial ambitions though, considering how he recently seems to be angling for the Majority Leader spot once Reid steps down or is defeated.

---

by: DFLer @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 20:00:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

His ambitions to be the first Jewish president

Are well know. He certainly wanted to run for governor in 2006. Seems to me the guy is tailored made to be Senate Majority leader - ultra-safe seat, not exactly a wild-eyed liberal, loves getting his face on tv, in the mainstream of the party, excellent fundraising contacts, resume of bringing in more Dem senators. And he strikes me as somebody who can bang some heads together. Durbin doesn't convince me like that. I suspect he is too nice like Reid.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 20:06:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Presidential Ambitions?

He said on the Charlie Rose show last year he had no ambitions to run for President because he knows there's no way Americans would vote for a liberal Jew from New York.  Maybe he's changed his mind since then?

---

by: DFLer @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 21:20:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We are talking pre-2006

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 21:31:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So you have it backward

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 21:33:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's what I'm implying

at some point from pre-2006 to today he changed his mind about running for President.  Wonder what triggered it.

---

by: DFLer @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 21:55:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like you said

He likely came to the conclusion he couldn't win.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 22:21:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Begich yes

Franken maybe (depending on the challenger and how well he does as senator) but Merkeley is in little danger. Gordon Smith was the GOP statewide bench, and with him gone, the party is sliding further and further into irrelevance.

---

by: corran horn @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 13:50:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You forget Greg Walden

I think he'd make a strong statewide contender even with Oregon's makeup.  In an off-year environment like we're talking about, Merkley could still be vulnerable if he went up against the right kind of Republican - he has to grow into his position to really cement his status in the state.

---

by: DFLer @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 20:03:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have my doubts

They don't have a great record of winning seats in Dem leaning states. Certainly not as Dem leaning as Oregon. It would take some wave to take Merkley out. There has to be a breather sooner or later. Can't have a wave every election cycle.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 20:09:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Walden's no stronger than Smith

and he has little or no interest in leaving his safe seat for what would be a very difficult race. Furthermore, while Smith cast a few moderate votes to disguise himself as a moderate, Walden has not, and I don't think he would go over well in western Oregon.

---

by: corran horn @ Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 14:53:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe so...

but it's a good thing that these waves coincided with classes 1 and 2.  They very likely saved some very good democrats like Cardin and the new jersey delegation.

---

by: benjso99 @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 23:37:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed

Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar are two that come to mind as good Democrats that were greatly aided by the waves.  It also helped protect Bill Nelson and Maria Cantwell, hopefully giving them a boost come 2012.

---

by: DFLer @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 23:57:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dem Candidate are stronger

Candidates who win in democratic waves are stronger than those who win in republican waves.

Examples

Strong Democrats: Brown, Whitehouse, Casey, Saunders, Shaheen, Warner, Udall-MN, Udall-CO, McCaskill

Weak Republicans: Talent, Chambliss, Isakson, Martinez, Coleman, Sununu, Murkowski, Vitter, Burr

---

by: jmartin4s @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:37:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The disparity is glaring

The wave Dems are, by and large, a really good bunch. I may not agree with all of them on everything, but each brings something to the table. Oh, and it's SANDERS not SAUNDERS.

The wave Reps, on the other hand, yick! Talk about driftwood!

---

by: corran horn @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 14:41:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's obvious

Any Democrat that wins in a GOP wave year does so because they either a)are in super-safe territory or more likely b) they triangulate and compromise the hell out of their position and become a conservadem.  They survive, but box themselves in so it becomes a wash.  If you think about the 2006 incumbents that so many folks got pissed off at, remember that some of them were survivors of '94 which is what created the mess to begin with (same goes for the House).

---

by: DFLer @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 16:17:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I take a few qualms with a few of those though

Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, and Tom Udall (from New Mexico, not Minnesota ;)) are definitely strong incumbents who will probably have few problems running for re-election, but considering all the crap that happened to his opponent this time around, winning by a ten-point margin isn't all that great, and might spell some trouble for him down the road, and Claire McCaskill probably will be a vulnerable incumbent in 2012, just because of the nailbiter in 2006.

I'd also point out that there were a number of Republicans who won in 1994 who became electorally strong, including Olympia Snowe (I wish she were weaker, but that's another matter).

Good political analysis recognizes strengths and weaknesses, and we shouldn't presume that our candidates are invincible for winning in a pro-Democratic year (when they win re-election, then we'll know).

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

---

by: DGM @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 17:48:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not arguing that at all

Rather, I'd argue that usually candidates who win in wave years are much weaker than they appear.  Some, like Collins and others you mentioned, do go on to do very well, but those type of candidates would win just as handidly in neutral environments.  Sherrod Brown is one incumbent I have some worries about - he's a good Democrat but I'm afraid of him getting tagged for being "too liberal" for Ohio.  Overall though, wave years do tend to gloss over many a candidate's weaknesses.  Some of them are able to wield incumbency as a tool to solidify themselves with their constituents, others not so much.

---

by: DFLer @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 18:32:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was actually responding to jmartin4senate

And I actually do agree with you generally (although, I would note that Sherrod Brown's 20-point win against DeWine will probably make it a lot harder for the Republicans to get a credible challenge against him, especially if the Democrats win Voinovich's seat this time around).

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

---

by: DGM @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 20:04:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Slight correction

It was 12 points.

DFLer: I'm not too concerned about Sherrod because, while he may be liberal, Ohio has elected liberal senators before and in unfriendly years. Howard Metzenbaum, Sherrod's mentor, held that seat from 1976 to 1994 and even when George H. W. Bush won Ohio by double digits, Howard won 57-43. In only two instances since 1945 have an Ohio Democratic senator lost re-election, and both were in primaries. In 1968, Frank Lausche (who makes Ben Nelson look like Wellstone) lost to Frank Gilligan (the future governor), and in 1974, Metzenbaum, who had been appointed to succeed Republican William Saxbe, lost to John Glenn in the primary.

Republican senators have had less success. Bob Taft Sr lost to Metzenbaum in 1976, and Mike DeWine lost to Sherrod in 2006.

God, I'm a election geek!

---

by: corran horn @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 22:00:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good to Know

It's just a shame that while Sherrod fights the good fight in swing state Ohio, Feinstein and Liberman can't do the same in their deep-blue states.

---

by: DFLer @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 22:45:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Feinstein and Leiberman are completely different

Feinstein go on tv and threatens to go against the party but always votes with the democrats in the end. Leiberman on the other hand used to side with the dems for a good portion of the time but then went on this crazy arogent conservative streak against the democratic party because they dare primary challenge him for his support of the Iraq war. Leiberman is likely to loose to Lamont in 2012 unless Lamont decides to try and primary Dodd and then go on to crush Simmons.

---

by: jmartin4s @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 03:19:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

2002 was hardly a wave

It was a good year for the GOP for sure but they only actually net gained two senate seats.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 11:37:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Given how most midterms go

I think it would be fair to be considered a "wave."  Most presidential parties lose 20-30 seats in the first midterm - for the GOP to have held onto as many seats as they did AND to pick some up really says something.  Not 1994 or 2008 conditions, but a heavily favored environment for one party nonetheless.

---

by: DFLer @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 20:05:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]