AR: Public Policy Polling: Sen. Lincoln (D) trails badly

[Tender Branson]

New Poll: Arkansas Senator by Public Policy Polling on 2010-01-31

Summary: D: 33%, R: 56%, I: 0%, U: 11%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

.....

John Boozman (R): 56%
Blanche Lincoln (D): 33%

[Tender Branson]

You know it`s a very bad year for Democrats when uber-popular Gov. Mike Beebe trails Boozman by 1 ...

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

She's done. I don't see any scenario where she pulls this one out.

[Guderian]

Wow, Boozman with a 23 point lead? We all knew he was bad news for Blanche, since she had enough trouble with second-tier challangers, but this is extraordinary. Arkansas is now almost just as bad as North Dakota for Dems.

[Brittain33]

Good grief. I don't care for her politics and have no expectation she'll be in Congress next year--if Arkansas wants a Republican, they can have one. But as a human being I feel bad for her being humiliated by these terrible polls, one after another. She's not Rick Santorum or Bob Torricelli, and she's done a lot of good for the very wealthy of her state.

[Hash]

Wow.

[Ronnie]

I expect to hear Blanche Lincoln's retirement announcement any day now.

[Eraserhead]

She'll really be missed. *tears up a little*

[Sam Spade]

As I said middle of last year - Lincoln = Santorum.  Was obvious then, is more obvious now.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I expect to hear Blanche Lincoln's retirement announcement any day now.

     While that will probably be the case, I don't see that as having any sort of effect on the outcome of the race.

[Badger]

As I said middle of last year - Lincoln = Santorum.  Was obvious then, is more obvious now.

Other than the fact one was a bona fide wingnut and the other unlucky enough to represent the epicenter of anti-Obama backlash.

Poll numbers wise though, there's certainly a comparison.

[live free or die]

As I said middle of last year - Lincoln = Santorum.  Was obvious then, is more obvious now.

Other than the fact one was a bona fide wingnut and the other unlucky enough to represent the epicenter of anti-Obama backlash.

Poll numbers wise though, there's certainly a comparison.

That is a bit hackish.

[Badger]

As I said middle of last year - Lincoln = Santorum.  Was obvious then, is more obvious now.

Other than the fact one was a bona fide wingnut and the other unlucky enough to represent the epicenter of anti-Obama backlash.

Poll numbers wise though, there's certainly a comparison.

That is a bit hackish.

How exactly?

Santorum was my congressman before he became seantor. trust me when I say he was a wingnut. He just hid it reasonably well.

[Sam Spade]

As I said middle of last year - Lincoln = Santorum.  Was obvious then, is more obvious now.

Other than the fact one was a bona fide wingnut and the other unlucky enough to represent the epicenter of anti-Obama backlash.

Poll numbers wise though, there's certainly a comparison.

Politics was never a formulation in that comparison and rarely is in my polling observations.

Rather, I could have just said Lincoln = toast and it would be the same remark.  Unless she gets a kook, a scandal-plagued competitor or Martha Coakley.

[Padfoot]

In a way I'm almost glad Lincoln is going down so hard.  If it shifts the negotiating chips away from the DINOs and towards the RINOs I think their will be a positive effect on the quality of legislation we see in the 112th.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

With that name in that state it was only ever a matter of time. Seriously though, as Lincoln has always been a horrible candidate and as the environment is perhaps a little on the hostile side, this hardly comes as a surprise.

But she might not stand down. It is a mistake to assume that incumbents facing defeat, no lets make that heavy defeat, always, or even usually, stand aside. We'll have to wait on that.

[Badger]

As I said middle of last year - Lincoln = Santorum.  Was obvious then, is more obvious now.

Other than the fact one was a bona fide wingnut and the other unlucky enough to represent the epicenter of anti-Obama backlash.

Poll numbers wise though, there's certainly a comparison.

Politics was never a formulation in that comparison and rarely is in my polling observations.

Rather, I could have just said Lincoln = toast and it would be the same remark.  Unless she gets a kook, a scandal-plagued competitor or Martha Coakley.

Fair enough comparison, just as I noted regarding the similarity in poll numbers.

I may've over-reacted, but I just can't stand anyone being compared to Santorum without great reason.

Oh, BTW Padfoot, whatever Republican the Arkansas GOP runs will be anything but a "RINO". That and considering that even so-called RINOs (with the very rare exception of the Maine sisters) have wholeheartedly backed every vote against cloture, the effect on the quality (or amount) of legislation is hardly likely to improve.

[Brittain33]

As I said middle of last year - Lincoln = Santorum.  Was obvious then, is more obvious now.

Other than the fact one was a bona fide wingnut and the other unlucky enough to represent the epicenter of anti-Obama backlash.

Poll numbers wise though, there's certainly a comparison.

That is a bit hackish.

What's hackish about it? Santorum was a unique personality, to say the least, and that did him in by a huge margin when the environment went south. No one would say that about Blanche Lincoln.

[J. J.]

As I said middle of last year - Lincoln = Santorum.  Was obvious then, is more obvious now.

Other than the fact one was a bona fide wingnut and the other unlucky enough to represent the epicenter of anti-Obama backlash.

Poll numbers wise though, there's certainly a comparison.

That is a bit hackish.

What's hackish about it? Santorum was a unique personality, to say the least, and that did him in by a huge margin when the environment went south. No one would say that about Blanche Lincoln.

There is a major difference.  Santorum was definitely right of center, even for a Republican, and was defeated by a person to the right of the Democratic party, possibly slightly to the right of center.   Lincoln is to the far right of the Democratic Party; from what I can tell, Boozman is farther to the right than center.

[jokerman]

The right-left dichotomy has been breaking down, something that Lincoln has failed to understand this decade in the Senate.  She is a far right Democrat in the sense that she is very pro business (and this represents itself in her astronomical, by Arkansas standards, fundraising so far), but in doing this she has created as negative an image as she would if she voted like Barbara Boxer.

Right now she has $5 million cash on hand, and St. Sen. Gilbert Baker has barely raised half of that.  Boozeman has the potential to challenge that and become the establishment candidate, in which case Lincoln is ed.  Her best shot is for an absolute wingnut to win the GOP nomination, someone who wouldn't get the support of the business community.  In that case she could so absolutely dwarf the GOP candidate in fundraising and organization that she could pull it out.  Make no mistake, Arkansans pretty uniformly disliked Blanche even in 2004, but because Jim Holt was the GOP nominee she won by 12 points.

[perdedor]

Good riddance. Lincoln is the exact sort of Democrat that is strangling the life out of this party.  We should try and draft Bill Halter to primary her, from what little polling I've seen, he does substantially better than Lincoln against the Republican opposition and would be a much better Senator for the progressive cause.

[Beet]

Good riddance. Lincoln is the exact sort of Democrat that is strangling the life out of this party.  We should try and draft Bill Halter to primary her, from what little polling I've seen, he does substantially better than Lincoln against the Republican opposition and would be a much better Senator for the progressive cause.

A PPP poll shows Halter down 30 to 53 against Fay Boozman, almost identical to Lincoln's 33 to 56 in the same poll.

The issue here is not who the Democrats nominate. The issue is that the Democrats need to hold as many seats as possible.

Right now we could be looking at a loss in every Senate race that's up. Period. With Schumer's latest favorables only around 50, both New York seats are vulnerable, Illinois is vulnerable, California is vulnerable, Indiana is vulnerable, Wisconsin is vulnerable. Even Blumenthal could collapse.

I am sick of Democrats saying "good riddance" or "good" or "go Republican" to every race. Massachusetts was not a win for the "progressive cause". If things keep going on like this we'll lose every single Senate race this year. Realistically. Is that what you want? Because it's not what I want.

[Sam Spade]

Good riddance. Lincoln is the exact sort of Democrat that is strangling the life out of this party.  We should try and draft Bill Halter to primary her, from what little polling I've seen, he does substantially better than Lincoln against the Republican opposition and would be a much better Senator for the progressive cause.

A PPP poll shows Halter down 30 to 53 against Fay Boozman, almost identical to Lincoln's 33 to 56 in the same poll.

The issue here is not who the Democrats nominate. The issue is that the Democrats need to hold as many seats as possible.

Right now we could be looking at a loss in every Senate race that's up. Period. With Schumer's latest favorables only around 50, both New York seats are vulnerable, Illinois is vulnerable, California is vulnerable, Indiana is vulnerable, Wisconsin is vulnerable. Even Blumenthal could collapse.

I am sick of Democrats saying "good riddance" or "good" or "go Republican" to every race. Massachusetts was not a win for the "progressive cause". If things keep going on like this we'll lose every single Senate race this year. Realistically. Is that what you want? Because it's not what I want.

Hawaii should be safe unless Inouye kicks the bucket - who knows if things get bad that could happen... (just joking).  Oregon is safe unless I missed something.

I can't see Schumer losing, and for that reason I doubt Gillibrand is going (though she needs to - god I hate that bitch).

Boxer is one of the toughest campaigners I've ever seen.  If she's in danger, you'll probably have to worry about Murray too (probably more, actually).  Might have to worry about Murray anyway were she to get a real opponent (unlikely, but who knows).

As for the rest, I agree.  Feingold's margins over the years have not been impressive enough for me to think that he's anyway near safe if a wave gets bad.  Indiana is a weird state and can swing wildly at times, which is the reason why, when I saw indications of a potential wave, I moved Bayh down.  Even though his margins have been impressive.

Anyway, look, a new candidate might stand a chance in Arkansas, and certainly a better chance than Lincoln, but exactly who is going to take that chance?

[Jensen]

This deal is sealed.

[HAnnA MArin County]

If Hillary were President, Lincoln would be the safest Senator going into 2010.. just sayin'.