It's nice for Blanche Lincoln that she won the runoff in Arkansas last night but I hope that no groups that care about getting Democratic Senators elected spend another dollar in the state this year. That doesn't have anything to do with her ideology- judging her worthwhileness there is not part of my job as a pollster- but there are just a boatload of races where Democrats have a better chance to win this fall and could use their resources more wisely.
There hasn't been a non-Research 2000 poll showing her down by anything less than 17 points to John Boozman in over three months. Our last survey of the race found her down by 23. Contests where we've found Democrats doing better than Lincoln since that poll include:
-The South Carolina Senate race where we found Vic Rawl, who actually lost the primary last night to a nobody, trailing Jim DeMint by just 19.
-The Georgia Senate race where in March we saw Johnny Isakson up just 9 points against a generic Democratic candidate before the party recruited a strong challenger, Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond, into the race.
-The Arizona Senate race where John McCain led little known challenger Rodney Glassman only 49-33 in late April.
And those decidedly second tier races where we've seen Democratic candidates faring better than Lincoln are just in addition to the obvious pick up opportunities the party has in places like North Carolina, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio.
Between Barack Obama's unpopularity in her state and her own problems Lincoln is pretty much bound to be the Rick Santorum of this cycle- down a ton early and not ever able to really come close to catching up. National Democratic groups should use their resources elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
What stands out about the Lincoln Runoff:
Halter promised to stand up and fight for labor unions. Lincoln promised to stand up and fight AGAINST LABOR UNIONS. And voters -- even Democratic primary voters -- chose to candidate who openly pledged to fight AGAINST LABOR UNIONS.
The impotence and/or unpopularity of the labor unions over the past year is staggering. Unions' failures in VA, NJ, MA, NC, PA, and AR are starting to reveal a pattern. Add to that the Democratic candidates railing against unions in NY (Cuomo) and CA (Mickey Kaus). And the preference of NJ voters for Chris Christie rather than the teachers' unions.
And the decidely more anti-union tone of left-leaning editorial boards.
http://bigjournalism.com/tcowgill/2010/06/04/are-journalists-finally-getting-over-their-pro-teacher-union-fetish/
Is it any wonder why Democrats are floundering in the Midwest?
I think your overall point is fair, but you chose three bad examples, where (1) Rawl didn't win the primary, as you acknowledge; (2) Isakson will crush Thurmond, as this is Georgia after all and no one is even taking a bet on Thurmond at 10% on Intrade; and (3) McCain is an Arizona legend and will cruise if he beats Hayward.
That doesn't nullify your argument, of course; there are other races. But I wouldn't put the ones you mention ahead of Arkansas. (For what it's worth, Lincoln is going for 1.50 on Intrade).
Speaking of Intrade:
state R D
AL 90 no bid
AK 90 no bid
AZ 90 12
AR 90 11
CA 44 70
CO 60 40
CT 29 70
DE 90 12
FL 50 15 33(Crist)
GA 90 10
HI 20 80
ID 90 no bid (10 other)
IL 57 40
IN 94 11
IA 85 10
KS no bids
KY 70 37
LA 90 7
MD 20 94
MO 65 36
NV 50 52 (recently 55-50)
NH 60 40
NY 18 90 (Schumer)
NY 20 84 (Gillibrand)
NC 89 15
ND 89 7
OH 67 40
OK 90 15
OR 07 80
PA 55 48
SC 90 no bid
SD nb 20
UT 85 no bid
VT 10 no bid
WA 35 65
WI 39 80
Judging by those putting their money where their mouth is, Republicans will pick up 8 senate seats (AR, CO, DE, FL, IL, IN, ND, PA) and hold ALL their incumbents' seats. And they're much greater chances of party control flipping in WI, WA, NV, CT, and CA than in AZ, AR, NC, SC, GA, NH, OH, MO, or KY.
@WT I think that's their point. A guy who lost his primary to someone who didn't even have a website, a guy running in one of the most reliably Republican states, and a guy running against one of the most established candidates in the country all perform better in the polls than Lincoln. It wasn't that they might win, it is how miserably her chances are.
Labor sowed the seeds of resentment when they took over GM. Then they became them, not us. This does not change the fact that historically unions have helped push up wages, up until recently. The thing is Big Labor is now its own corporation, and people see that.
Young progressives like myself are sick of self serving political hacks that glad hand us every so often all the while returning to their members with weaker and weaker contracts. Unions that are properly run can protect against unfair practices, but mostly, they are their own interest group.
The future belongs to the working independent man, not group, because factory and manufacturing will never be the same. Thus the need for unions diminishes. It is up to us to put in fair labor standards as a country so that everyone has fair treatment without joining outdated cliques. If we could remove our lips from corporate butt long enough to protect the worker we would return power back to the laborer. What it comes down to is that in the beginning, back in the slave shop era, unions brought more pie to the employee side of the table. After a while union heads realized they could keep more and more of the pie for themselves. So what you have is three distinct interests, the worker, the union, and the corporation. All three fight over the pie, but only two of them have the clout to control it.
The only thing not considered is the cost of running ads to support Lincoln in Arkansas.
The media markets (TV and radio) are very cheap. She can make up some lost ground much faster and easier with a concerted effort. If it takes 10 days of ads to move a candidate up +3-5% in a poll, by the money, Lincoln is a better investment than almost any of the other Democrats in "competitive" races in which the Democrat is losing.
@jlwolff
The point was that there are better places for Democratic groups to spend money than AR:
"And those decidedly second tier races where we've seen Democratic candidates faring better than Lincoln are just in addition to the obvious pick up opportunities the party has in places like North Carolina, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio."
My point was that while it may, of course, still be true that there are better places for Democratic groups to spend money than AR, those 3 examples do not prove the point, and are not better places. Lincoln's victory at least has a hope of a prayer, whereas the others are sure losers.
Bluejoy, I think we can amicably agree that unions have become corrupt and do not represent their members or protect the interest of workers. It's bad enough when unions misrepresent and exploit private sector workers, but when unions shakedown taxpayers (government employee unions or private companies getting bailouts), then taxpayers have to unite to oppose the union agenda.
The Clintons are clearly trying to save the Democrat Party, probably with an eye towards Hillary ’16.
"The Clintons, clearly, are trying to save the Democrat Party by propping up Democrats like Lincoln, and other moderates across the country. In the midst of the Democrat Civil War, the Clinton and the DLC are trying to save these Clintonian/Jacksonian Dems from not just angry voters, but the vitriol thrown at them by the Left."
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/06/09/the-clintons-are-clearly-trying-to-save-the-democrat-party-probably-with-an-eye-towards-hillary-16-this-is-something-we-just-cant-help-them-do/
Christian the Union agenda has changed. The agenda used to be about workers and benefits. What happened is very similar to corporate America.
People took over that did not pay dues in the trenches. It is hard to lead those who bleed and sweat if you have known nary a band aid or hot warehouse. The delegates and reps are professional businessmen just like their management adversaries. The regular worker has less of a voice.
Most of this Tea stuff is populism rooted in rock and hard place resentment. Too poor to prosper like they really want, too rich to get the benefits they resent and yet still need. The average American wants to work, and prosper, on this we agree. But wages have to come up, and until that happens you will see an unhappy electorate.
The Clintons are clearly trying to save the Democrat Party, probably with an eye towards Hillary ’16.
"The Clintons, clearly, are trying to save the Democrat Party by propping up Democrats like Lincoln, and other moderates across the country. In the midst of the Democrat Civil War, the Clinton and the DLC are trying to save these Clintonian/Jacksonian Dems from not just angry voters, but the vitriol thrown at them by the Left.
It’s a continuation of what the Left started in 2008, actually, where Donna Brazile, Howard Dean, and others in the DNC hatched their plan to purge the party of moderates. They deliberately have alienated working class, rural, and conservative Democrats (now former Democrats) to drive the party squarely to the Left, putting radical Leftists in the nation’s driver’s seat for the first time in history.
The results speak for themselves.
The Clintons know a shellacking is coming in November. It’s sad and hilarious the Left doesn’t realize this, and keeps insisting the problem is that the Left just isn’t communicating its ideas better. No — the problem is that the Left’s ideas and agenda are insane and destructive, and that the tactics they employ to advance their pet projects are rooted in base thuggery, intimidation, fraud, and all things un-American. The electorate is having a visceral reaction to all of this, and just as Democrats purged the Clinton Coalition from the party in 2008, American voters are poised to purge Leftists from office in the fall.
And the problem for the DNC is that they rebranded ALL Democrats as Leftists in 2008. Proudly so.
The Clintons are trying to mitigate the damages to the party and save people like Lincoln, in the hopes that after the Obama Democrats fall, the Clintons can take back the party, move it back to the middle, rebuild it, and then probably try to run Hillary Clinton again in 2016 once Americans see Democrats as centrists again.
We just don’t think this will work."
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/06/09/the-clintons-are-clearly-trying-to-save-the-democrat-party-probably-with-an-eye-towards-hillary-16-this-is-something-we-just-cant-help-them-do/
WT, you still don't get it. Tom's point was that even these no-hope candidates have shown better numbers than Lincoln has. He then says there are real top-tier chances, it goes without saying, where the DSCC should spend its money:
"And those decidedly second tier races where we've seen Democratic candidates faring better than Lincoln are just in addition to the obvious pick up opportunities the party has in places like North Carolina, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio."
We're talking about sleeper races and no one has mentioned Iowa? Do not sleep on IA.
1. The private sector employee is not going to be for unions any longer because public sector union employees are making 1-1/2 to 2 times what private sector is making for the same job. This is a ridiculous situation especially when public sector employees are viewed as goofing off while the private sector puts in a full 8 hour day.
2. Public sector union employees have now taken the place in much of the public's eye for what ACORN was doing until their funds were cut off. When the common folk view SEIU members standing on the front porch and all over the lawn of a private person, their leaders with bullhorn in hand, they become thugs and not acceptable members of society.
3. With few exceptions, unions only hurt their members by trying to extract exorbitant wages and benefits while bankrupting the companies they work for. This is counter-intuitive for most people who would like to see jobs stay in this country. It is kind of like Congress threatening BP about their dividend payments. If you cause all investors to drop out, the company goes bankrupt and the only entity left to pay the bills is the gov't which means US.
Unions have outlived their purpose -- all the necessary laws are on the books.
Reasonable people should be figuring out how to get rid of minimum wage so everyone could go back to work and make a wage based on their merit and not no their seniority or tenure.
@Dustin Ingalls
This is such a strange debate. It's not even clear what we disagree about. We even cite the same passage of the post, so it's unclear what I "don't get."
Regardless, my original point, which is so minor that I have trouble understanding why it got you so riled up as to insult me, was that the examples listed in the post are not better places to spend money.
You'll notice that the post says that these 3 races "are just in addition to the obvious pick up opportunities the party has" where money could be better spent than in Arkansas. I disagree.
I don't really care whether the numbers are better for the Dems in these races than they are for Lincoln currently. Those numbers bely the fact that these Dem candidates could never win, while Lincoln could still come back and take the race.
Post a Comment