AR-Sen: GOP Smurfs Beating Lincoln in New Poll

Rasmussen (9/28, likely voters):

Blanche Lincoln (D-inc): 39

Gilbert Baker (R): 47

Undecided: 8

Blanche Lincoln (D-inc): 41

Curtis Coleman (R): 43

Undecided: 11

Blanche Lincoln (D-inc): 40

Tom Cox (R): 43

Undecided: 11

Blanche Lincoln (D-inc): 41

Kim Hendren (R): 44

Undecided: 10

(MoE: ±4.4%)

Back in August, Public Policy Polling put out a release with Lincoln in tossups with some of these same names. Research 2000, more recently, had a somewhat healthier diagnosis: she was ahead of all of these guys by anywhere between 7 and 19 points, but she only did so while scoring in the mid-40s — well under that magical 50% line. Whether or not Rasmussen is painting an exaggerated picture (and, arguably, they’re not that far out of line with PPP) is questionable, but the fact remains that Lincoln hasn’t posted a higher showing than the low or mid-40s in any poll we’ve seen this year.

RaceTracker: AR-Sen

252 thoughts on “AR-Sen: GOP Smurfs Beating Lincoln in New Poll”

  1. No f@%king way Kim “That Jew” Hedren is ahead of Lincoln.  Again, I’m going to do the “Rasmussen Shift,” taking 7% away from the Republican to get more believable results:

    Baker 40, Lincoln 39

    Lincoln 41, Coleman 36

    Lincoln 40, Cox 36

    Lincoln 41, Hedren 37

  2. the Dems will come home.  If she continues to show no difference between herself and a generic Republican, then there is no reason not to replace her with the real thing.

    it’s basically the same thing as with Reid in Nevada.  2010 is going to be a whole series of local elections where the winner is the one who best brings out the base.  if healthcare/health insurance reform pass with the Public Option Lincoln and Reid will have a base willing to walk on glass for them and a dispirited Publican base that won’t show up in the same numbers.  However, if they sell out their base, join a Publican filibuster, their base won’t show, the other side’s will, and they are gone.

    I have said for a while that Harry Reid is the best thing the Publicans have going for them right now (ie if Schumer or Durbin were running the show in the senate Dems would be sky high right now).  Same thing with someone like Lincoln.  Her being a timid little mouse scared of her own shadow and voting Republican in order to get the meanies on the other side to stop picking on her is a recipe for an electoral beating.

  3. seeing a lot of conservative dems going down in the next election. While I once argued that conservative dems were better than republicans because they’re not going to be shrill vocal extremist Christians, I now take that back in light of the public option debate. Let some Republican win this seat and yell about how we’re all fornicators and we’re all going to hell – it won’t matter. If the Democratic party can’t do something for the working class like get healthcare passed, then what do we stand for?

  4. because she isn’t supporting the public option and Democrats won’t support her for being too conservative, then she should therefore be vulnerable to a challenge in the primary from the left against someone who can win a general.

    If she is not primaryable, then she is not losing for being too conservative, she’s losing for being too liberal.  

  5. She’s going to be chair of Agriculture.  Maybe she can use that to claw her way back to popularity somehow?  Can she at least get some major pork for Arkansas?

    It’s very frustrating that all her incentives, at least through the primary, are to tack right.  This stinks.  Usually, most of the point of primary challenges (from the left) is to get incumbents to tack LEFT…

  6. and if Obama, having lost AR by nearly 20 points, is even less popular there now and probably by summer 2010, Lincoln really is in a tough place and she probably thinks putting distance btw her and the Prez is the right thing to do, but that is Inside the beltway stuff.

    The question is two-fold: Is she in (a) generic national party ID deficiency a la DeWine/Chafee/Coleman/Sununu/Smith situation or (b) incumbent rejection situation a la Burns/Santorum/Dole situation. It’s hard to tell but I would suspect she is safer in situation (a) than in (b). If it is (a), then putting some distance btw her and the prez might help, IF, and it is a big IF, AR voters can seperate Obama from Lincoln; however, if not, then Lincoln has to also run on her record. I doubt if it is (b) since she really hasn’t done anything to piss people off, conversely, her become Ag Chair should help.

    Assuming it is an anti-national democratic party electorate that shows up in AR in Nov 2010, then Lincoln has to stand on her record and what she’s done for AR and do that loudly and clearly to preempt guilt by association tags. But cowering and hiding behind mealy mouthedness is not going to do it, even if she is Ag Chair because she will get her ass handed to her and AR will get the kind of Bunning/DeMint Senator they deserve.

    Interestingly, since 1994, GOP Senate pickups have come mostly from Dem retirements, while Dem pickups have come mostly from defeating GOP incumbents (indeed all 2006 pickups were from defeating GOP incumbents). If that trend continues for 2010 and it is a situation (a) scenario, Lincoln must thoroughly and relentlessly destroy her GOP opponent before he/she can raise any money to tie Lincoln to the national Dem brand so the question for the AR voter in Nov 2010 is ” While I really don’t like Obama, didn’t vote for him and Lincoln is a Dem, she is not GOP candidate X and her record is OK, so maybe she is OK to be re-elected”. If she sits there twiddling her thumbs thinking she can run from party labels without showing her record, she deserves to lose.  

  7. Arkansas Dems, because of Clinton and local factors, have been able to keep the GOP at bay here.  No more.  The electorate is a natural GOP base.  Things will not be getting better for us here.  

    It might not be Oklahoma in five years; maybe more like Kentucky.  One or two Dem seats in the house, one senate dem (hoping Conway can pull it off, and assuming Pryor can’t lose) and mostly conservative dems winning state-level races.

  8. the more the public knows you, the more they think you suck.

    This is year when unknowns will poll better until they are known.

    Lincoln still isn’t in much trouble, though the flaming leftnuts who think it is better to have a dozen more Inhofes in the Senate certainly aren’t helping her.

  9. I so love the thought that we need all non-liberals to lose because they disagree on this.   It just makes me laugh.  

    I remember a time when winning in Montana would have been crazy for Democrats unless you’re last name was Baucus.  Wasn’t North Carolina going to be part of the repub south no too long ago.  And weren’t dems in the minority not too long ago.  Gosh how things have changed…sorta.

    Look, at the end of the day, its a double standard.  People say get rid of Blanche Lincoln and let a right winger take over, because she’s a cancer to the party.  Seriously, then these same people complain about Michelle Bachmann or ohter right wingers.  Its just nuts.

    We have people on here who spend hours drawing new re-districting maps who design them to eliminate republicans in states, but then complain that Texas is rigged republican.  Seriously?  

    C’mon, the whole goal of government at any level should be for those elected to represent who they were elected by.  We will not, NOT NOT NOT, have 100% agreement ever.  As such, civil discourse would say try to work together and get the people’s will done.

    What happened in the last 9 months is everyone thinks the country voted for universal health care, EFCA, 100% troop withdrawals from Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.  

    But guess what, we didn’t vote for those things.  You might think that we did, but we didn’t.  People voted for alot of things: change, hope, excitement, etc.  Heck many people probably voted for a guy because he was black (and many probably voted for McCain for the very same reason).

    But what we really voted for was pretty much more of the same.  I don’t know the exact numbers, but I’m guessing about 90% of the house is the same now as was elected in 2006 and about 95% is the same as 2006 as well.  Sure the president is different but he is an executive and can’t legislate.  And the Supreme court is about 88.89% the same as it was before Obama was elected Prez.

    So why then do we expect overnight change and wish that if we can’t get something done now it will never happen?  Who likes being backed into a corner with that argument (or any for that matter)?

    I think people want better healthcare, and I think such a bill will get passed.  Why?  Because most people want that.  I think universal health care with a public option won’t happen.  Why?  Because I don’t think large enough majorities in most states are ready for that.  And why would they be, do we know yet how to pay for Social Security and Medicare that are already entitlement programs?  Of course not.  But I bet a compromise will work for now.  And guess what, if it works, Democrats will get credit, more pro-healthcare democrats will get elected, and eventually better and better healthcare will win out.

    So here’s what I do.  I hope for better things.  I think that having awesome majorities in both houses is great.  I like the Democrats in control, and I for one like the pragmatic approach to most issues.  I like the public debate on things, and even though i don’t like some of the social sub-currents (birthers, “I want my America back” crazies, etc) its still nice to see democracy being democratic again.  I don’t think Democrats compromise on everything like some, I think they try to do what they can and improve things more at a later date (I like to think of minimum wage on this idea, remember what it was a few years ago and hadn;t been raised for a while, then Congress acted and gave it a big bump up, with another kicker a few years after…and they probably won’t deal with it again in the next 5 years).

    Here’s what I don’t do.  I dont wish for losses by Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, etc because they are “cancers”.  They are elected representatives of their state who differ with some other elected representatives.  We have certified vote tallies to prove they were elected, but only blogger heresay that their states want this or that and that they are betraying their constituents.  If they are, they’ll lose, and rightly so.  

    Of course if they lose, it’ll be most likely to Republicans, and I fail to see how that’s going to help the Democratic agenda.  However, many a man was made to look fool by cutting off his nose to spite his face…

  10. As someone who lives in a blood red state… TX…  I’d be tickled to go door to door for any conservadem who didn’t support EFCA or the public option.  I’m for both but I’ll take a conservadem over Cornyn or Kay Bailey any day.  Reasons why

    1. I’d take a moderate repub over a crazz repub, for instance, I will be and already have been to a smal degree campaigning for Kay for Gov.  Perry is insane, Kay is a conservative.  

    2. It isn’t arkansas’ fault we can’t get a public option.  You can blame Maine democrats, NH dems and indies, Ohio, Florida et al.   These states elect conservatives dems (Florida) or republicans when they don’t need to.  So that is what is hurting the party right now… not maxing out our potential.

    3.  Reffering to point two, Blanch is probably the best we can hope for in a blood red souther state.

    4. Even if we do lose her, she acts as a buffer to the rest of the party.  While republicans are spending money on states they should already have we can pick off one of theirs.

    So basically it i s a good thing to have sheep for the slaughter.  The problem is the republicans haven’t been defeated everywhere they need to be defeated.  If any of you New York Liberals have a problem with Lincoln, imagine another Ooburn, Vitter (who has committed a felony and yet will still win) etc.  Get Bent!

  11. I’m kind of surprised by what I’m reading in this thread. Let’s not allow our emotions regarding the healthcare debate and Blue Dogs get the better of us… This isn’t the Daily Kos, and we’re not here to advocate for ideological purity. Let’s stick to the analytical.

    Now then…some of you are basically condemning the Blue Dogs, saying that the Democrats don’t need them and that you’d rather have a crazy right-winger representing Arkansas in the Senate than Blanche Lincoln. Well, you’re entitled to your opinions. But I’d urge you to think about this for a moment.

    This is the United States of America. We have a government by the People — a People that is a patchwork of different ethnicities, cultures, religions, viewpoints, etc. This is not a leftist country. You may be a progressive — thousands of people on the Daily Kos might be — but that doesn’t represent most of the country. This is a country where our government must make legislation that is acceptable to a diverse range of viewpoints. We have a system of government that is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It is difficult to pass healthcare reform and other legislation in our bicameral national legislature because of the diversity of interests and opinions in the United States, the different opinions of different states and districts (as demonstrated by their elected senators and representatives). This is the very nature of our federal republic: the sheer number of interests represented in the Congress make it nearly impossible for the majority to ram through legislation that the minority views as harmful.

    That’s why ideological purity is not only unrealistic, but a concept that runs directly counter to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and the writers of the Federalist Papers. Moderate/conservative Democrats (or moderate/liberal Republicans) were not elected by their constituents to represent the interests of the progressive base. They were elected to represent the interests of Arkansas, and to evaluate how legislation will affect the nation as a whole, when voting. And in order to pass bills that are not only desired by the progressive base or even a center-left majority, but acceptable to a broader range of Americans, liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats need to be hammering out compromise, like the Senate Finance Committee bill. I thus commend Max Baucus. The Daily Kos loathes him, but I appreciate his dedication to compromise and his respect for the interests of the whole nation, not just a slight majority.

    Full disclosure: Although I count myself as an Obama supporter, I am a centrist and an independent and I do not support Democratic candidates blindly. Take that as you will.

  12. …but how productive is the continuation of this discussion? Clearly, no one is convincing anyone who wasn’t already in agreement from the beginning. How much more can be said about intraparty warfare before we get back to election nerdity? While I rarely and sporadically comment, I often enjoy reading what information and insight the comments can add to the main posts. In the past (I’ve been reading SSP since a little before the 2005 OH-02 special election), there have of course been heated ideological discussions in the comments (such as when the DSCC endorsed Bob Casey in the Democratic primary over his pro-choice opponents), but I have come to love this site for having a primary focus on electoral, rather than ideological, politics. Daily Kos (which I started frequenting around the same time as SSP) seems to be where most ideological fights take place, and I have found myself tiring of those fights and more and more coming to SSP to seek refuge, of sorts. Now, I’m not disparaging Markos, the other editors, or the site as a whole, and I think that Daily Kos has done some great things for the Democratic Party over the last several years, but I am just not interested in hearing the ideological arguments as much anymore, and I hope that these arguments don’t continue to spill over to SSP as they apparently have in this post. Again, if I’m out of line, tell me so. However, this thread seems very out of character for what is normally discussed on this site. Might we consider burying the hatchet on a seemingly endless argument?

  13. I’m a political science major and one of the first things about politics I learned is that voting isn’t about picking the perfect candidate, it is about picking who most represents your beliefs and ideals, who has the best judgement, or whatever criteria you set up.  Sure you’d love to have a liberal if you are a liberal.  That’d be great.  But should you settle for a blue dog if a republican who is worse is the other choice?  I’d hope not.  I will say it again.  Democrats failed to win where they should have won and thus we have to rely on seantors that we are damn lucky to have.  That’s not Blanch Lincoln’s fault that she isn’t a New York/Chicago/San Francisco liberal.  She’s not and nor should she be expected to vote that way.  A public option is a small step to a government takeover (aka single payer)  I’m all for that but there is a locial argument to be made against that.  Medicare is bankrupt, In the past week we reached a point where Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in.  The Post Office is a FAILURE!!!!  I could go on and on.  

    One of my close friends is VP for a construction company that bids on contracts for the DOD.  His comapny had 7 days to read a 1,932 page document for a building that this limb of government wants to use the lsat of their budget money on.  It is almost the end of the year (September) and they have to spend all the money in the budget (even if they don’t need it) so they can get the same ammount next year.  Needless to say the VP just threw fgures out there because there is no way he can actually sit down and figure out how much this will really cost but it doesn’t matter because the gov will pay him for a shitty building or a not quite perfect fit because they just need a building that costs so much.

     Governemnt isn’t fantastic either.  I’d much prefer a non profit heavily regulated entity to exhist and have it be a single payer of sorts.  That seems like the best way of doing things.  But that is unlikely to ever happen.  So everyone needs to calm down and take what we can get.  Democrats aren’t stupid enough (I hope) to force everyone in the country to buy insurance that sucks.  There would be riots in the streets and I’d be leeding the way with torch in hand.  Can’t we have a little faith that this will all work out for the best?  

  14. Ayotte Leading in New Hampshire

    A new American Research Group poll in New Hampshire finds Kelly Ayotte (R) leading Rep. Paul Hodes (D) in the U.S. Senate race, 41% to 34%, with 25% still undecided.

    Ayotte leads among indies 34 to 17.  I think that is pretty good news for Hodes honestly.  As long as Obama is still popular and Lynch is still popular, then Hodes should be able to bring those indies home.  Plus Ayotte has a primary to win against some pretty mean conservatives.

  15. I’ve always been fascinated with Arkansas politics, even before Bill Clinton was elected.

    Gov. Faubus was the “George Wallace” before George Wallace was even elected.  He played on the fears of integration and at the same time was an economic populist.  He could turn on the state to support his actions.

    Lincoln comes off somewhat “wishy-washy” to me.  I can’t see what she stands for except for Wal-Mart and some other large corporations.  Her voting record has been somewhat consistent with other moderately-conservative Southern Dems over the years, but she’s not very good at communicating her ideas.  I think that she’s really shown a lack of communication in the Health Care debate.  If she could get out of this position, and instead promote some economic prosperity to Arkansas, communicate it to the electorate, she will be fine.  She should consult with Dale Bumpers on how to relate with the Arkansas electorate.  Bumpers was able to get organized labor mad at him for stopping pro-labor legislation, but was always able to win re-election.

    OTOH, I’m not that enthusiastic about Lincoln.  She lacks charisma, is unreliable on many issues, and cannot shake Wal-Mart’s control over her.  However, compared to most of the Arkansas GOP, she’s by far the better candidate.      

  16. I think the thing Democrats need to realize is that us calling ourselves Democrats it the only thing that unites our party.  Unlike the GOP, we have a huge rift in the party between progressives and conservatives, which we all obviously know.

    To understand and, as I have become, to become more at peace with this to realize how this came to be.

    As I assume most of us know, during the Civil War time, it was the conservative Democratic South and the liberal Yankee Republican North.  Post-Civil War, it was the liberal Republicans sticking it to the conservative Democrats.  With the New Deal era, the liberal North became the liberal Democratic North and up until the present, this shift to the Democrats has solidified everywhere, with it being arguable that NH is just nearly there and ME just needs to get rid of Collins and Snowe, which will come in due-time.

    But what became of the South?  Nothing until the 1960’s, which is when they started to shift to the Republicans.  The South will probably take longer than the North did to fully shift to the Republicans as they have a lot further to shift as the South has put the term “one party rule” to levels not seen anywhere else in the country currently.  (Ive always been amazed that states like GA and SC voted for FDR 95%-3%)

    What we are currently living through is the liberal northerners now being firmly in control of the Democratic Party.  However, the conservative South isnt done being a part of the Democratic Party, either.

    This is how I reconcile Blue Dogs now.  We share a party but we have never shared an ideology and for most of history, we’ve been on opposite sides of the political aisle.  The choice that needs to be made is do we support the final purification of our new Democratic Party and do we support the transformation of it becoming a northern liberal party, which at the same time, means one supports the final touches on the big re-alignment of the 20th century and ceding the South to the GOP.  

Comments are closed.