I myself am going to be ecstatic if Lincoln burns

1. It shows indies in AR that dems will knock out a bad incumbent

2. The (more) progressive candidate kicked a conservatives ass in Arkansas(!)

3. Halter has won a statewide general before, unlike Boozman.

Don't get me wrong, if we loose seats like IL and CO, AR is DOA, but this does make our chances better.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

---

by: daman09 @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 18:07:33 PM UTC

This

is telling:

http://hotlineoncall.nationalj...

Third-party groups have played a major role in the race, hammering Lincoln on the airwaves without business groups going to bat for the incumbent.

Guess pandering to the Chamber of Commerce and Wal-Mart didn't work out for you Blanche eh?

Speaking of which, you would think the DSCC would be helping Blanche Lincoln with her ad buys like they did Specter. But I guess Menendez realizes that Lincoln is DOA on Tuesday.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 18:33:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh man, I was thinking AR's Run-off was 6/22

But it is actually NC's, which I have no interest in (Cunningham isn't going to win).

June 8th is going to be a pretty Super Tuesday.  As a general rule, I think the national committees shouldn't get involved in primaries, why they did in PA kinda gets me mad.  They can endorse someone, but don't waste money on a D Vs. D race.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

---

by: daman09 @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 18:38:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Specter himself actually raised all the DSCC money spent on him. Also...

...I've found myself always fascinated that so many Democrats complain substantively about Lincoln when in fact her support for the Democratic agenda is what's probably ending her career on Tuesday.  Arkansas is conservative, Obama didn't reach 40% there, and his job approvals have stayed in the tank there his entire Presidency.

And yet a lot of Democrats complain about Lincoln as if this is blue Connecticut.

I actually want Halter to win the nomination, for the cold-blooded reason he has a slightly better chance than Lincoln of winning in November.

But the substantive criticism of Lincoln strikes me as tone deaf.  I mean, complaining about Wal-Mart, really?  In Arkansas?

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 19:20:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hear ! Hear ! God forbid someone actually represent their constituency eom

---

by: vicupstate @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 19:24:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good point about Specter

You can easily earmark your donations to the DSCC for a particular candidate. Whether they eventually honor that is a different question.  

---

by: andgarden @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 20:56:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, please. Like Arkansans aren't screwed by Wal-Mart, too.

Like most Arkansans wouldn't benefit from having the EFCA, even if, or even because, it takes Wal-Mart taken down a peg.  This same type of excuse is used for Ben Nelson's insurance company whoring, because, apparently, Nebraskans are immune to the horrors of insurance companies.  

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

---

by: TheUnknown285 @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 22:24:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You know that

And I know that. The problem is the majority of Arkansans don't believe it.

---

by: conspiracy @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 22:26:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some Arkansans would benefit from EFCA

Many Arkansans would lose money or even their jobs if Walmart gets taken down a peg.  

You can make a moral argument for EFCA, and I'd agree, but it wouldn't be a clear benefit for Arkansans.  Outside Arkansas it would be.

---

by: NewMex9999 @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 22:40:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hrmm

Yeah, take Wal-Mart down a notch, it wouldn't have an impact in Arkansas. I mean, why would it? Wal-Mart's HQ is just located there. Hurting Wal-Mart would not have an impact on Arkansans.

Blah.

---

by: RuralDem @ Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 23:22:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Versus increased worker rights.

And with it, the ability to fight for better conditions, better pay, and better benefits.  Those benefits far outweigh the whatever proportionally small effect it would have on Wal-Mart's bottom line.

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

---

by: TheUnknown285 @ Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 01:16:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're making a wishful assumption. It may not be remotely true for Arkansas......

It's standard for voters to be protective of their own dominant industries.  And often with good reason.  Worker rights and benefits don't come without at least a short-term cost.  It's just that on the left we see an economy that can grow into absorbing those costs safely.

You don't have any idea how much Wal-Mart and its employees, right down to the janitors, would be affected by EFCA and so much else.  Nor you do know how much it would hurt Arkansas.  I, too, don't have any idea.  But I know every policy decision has benefits and costs, and they're usually distributed UNevenly.

But ultimately conspiracy is right, that whatever we know to be true in Wal-Mart exaggerating an inability to absorb higher labor costs for its workers' well-being, Arkansas voters don't believe as we do.  And that's what matters.  Lincoln is not in a position to change minds.

Some on the left need to learn that quite a few voters, tens of millions in fact, are just plain AGAINST US.  There's no changing their minds.  And they're distributed unevenly, with a lot of them in certain states.  And Arkansas is one of those.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 01:25:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Lincoln had a clear lead for the general election

and Halter was going to get drubbed, I would have to grudgingly support Lincoln, for the reasons given in this thread. However, that is not the situation, and while Halter's comparatively less bad position going into the general election is certainly the major reason to root for him in the runoff, the degree to which Lincoln has engaged in types of politics I consider sleazy - regardless of the explanatory arguments given here - certainly makes it a bonus to me for her to lose.

All that said, it will be a pretty hollow victory if, as is likely, Boozman wins in November.

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

---

by: Pan @ Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 01:32:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

She's running Artur Davis' playbook, with more of an edge, and I shrug it off......

Her strategy, to the extent I can rationalize it, is to play to a general election audience using Halter as a foil.

I remember thinking not long after Halter announced, that this could ironically end up being the best thing for Lincoln's reelection chances.  I thought, Halter's challenge could be the thing that lets us her persuade general election voters to distinguish her from Obama and national Democrats.

And as far as I can tell, that's exactly what her primary strategy appears to have tried to do.

The problem is, its success depends on two things:  (1) Lincoln surviving the primary; and (2) Lincoln's general trial heat poll numbers improving as a result of the primary strategy.  Neither of those things is happening. Halter is going to win on Tuesday, and Lincoln continues to poll worse than Halter.

I'll reiterate here as elsewhere that I have been rooting for Halter from the start based on his slightly better general trial heat numbers and the fact I think Lincoln is toast in November no matter what she does...I was open to changing my mind on the latter point as explained above if her using Halter as a foil would have worked, but it didn't.

But all that said, I can't really fault her approach, to the extent my read on her strategy is correct.

Of course, it might just be no real strategy at all, and she's just flailing with no idea what to do.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 18:07:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wal-Mart is getting better

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11...

But the changes in its policies have accomplished what once seemed impossible. Many of its most ardent critics have put down their pitchforks. Andrew L. Stern, whose Service Employees International Union set up an advocacy group to attack Wal-Mart three years ago, now concedes that "there is clearly a focus on covering more people."

http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com...

Elsewhere, Radley Balko at The Daily Beast points  to research confounding expectations that Wal-Mart's cheap food offerings can't be healthy for poor communities. Rather, a study found a "small but statistically significant reduction in obesity rates in communities with a Wal-Mart, perhaps because the store also sells fresh produce of good quality at a good price."

---

by: tietack @ Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 18:39:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Walmart has its ups and down

Neither its detractors, nor its supporters, have it completely correct.  They are horrendous on workers rights and hurting small business, but on the environment, organic foods, and other matters they are quite good.  Also its detractors have never acknowledged that its low prices have had a beneficial socioeconomic impact on its communities.

---

by: NewMex9999 @ Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 15:02:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]