Kurt_and_Hunter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 10:35 AM
Original message |
Blanche Lincoln already lost the seat. A primary challenger can't make it worse. |
|
Edited on Mon Mar-01-10 10:47 AM by Kurt_and_Hunter
Someone arises to take on a weak incumbent in a primary. The party goes on to lose in the fall.
What is the chain of cause and effect?
A challenger doesn't help but when a challenger arises it is usually because the incumbent is screwed anyway.
There is almost always a primary challenge insofar as there is usually a Mike Gravel type candidate on the ballot. The races where we identify a real challenge are only where the challenger is competitive.
Buchanan could have been Mike Gravel or less in 1992.... gotten 200 votes in New Hampshire and never appeared on TV. The reason he did surprisingly well was that GHW Bush had alienated the nut-right. The efficacy of the challenge is about the incumbent, not the challenger.
Same with Eugene McCarthy. He didn't bring down LBJ in 1968. LBJ was already down. McCarthy didn't create anger over Vietnam, he merely symbolized it.
I expect that Blanche Lincoln will win the primary and get creamed in the general election. But that was going to happen anyway.
And if she loses the primary then Halter will get probably creamed in the general election.
Either way, the pugs are picking up the seat. And either way there will be a post-mortem talking about how the process divided the Democratic vote.
But Lincoln would lose to anyone in the general. And the certainty of her loss is exactly what motivates a challenge, however Quixotic.
I went through this in 1984. Gary Hart was kind of a silly candidate but I backed him because Mondale was going to lose badly. Hart would also have lost badly but at least he would have been trying... even while losing just as many states he might have roughed up Reagan a little.
So I will root for Halter, not because he might win in November but because he might actually say something interesting on the way to the inevitable pug-pickup. Maybe make a case for Democrats or something. Who knows?
I don't know that he will. But we all know that Lincoln won't.
|
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 10:42 AM
Response to Original message |
1. This is the perfect situation to challenge |
|
Some challenges are just dumb, they cost the party too much money that could be better spent elsewhere and there's no real benefit in the run itself. If Lincoln's challenger starts telling Arkansans the truth about various policies, that can only be good for everybody. She is so far gone from reality, she just really blew it. I think Arkansans could be convinced to be a little more populist, if they had their leaders going in that direction.
|
DevonRex
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 10:44 AM
Response to Original message |
2. I think everybody knows that the seat will go to a republican. So |
|
in this case there shouldn't be any argument about a primary challenge hurting the candidate who wins the primary. I say "shouldn't" but of course there will be. :hi:
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 10:48 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I only /heard er once...this AM, but I already think he's thousands better than Blanch! |
|
Why do you already think he can't win? I'm not from AR so I guess my opioion doesn't matter, and I don't know who his Pub opponent will be, but he sure seems to at least have a chance in this one.
|
Kurt_and_Hunter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Looking at how Obama did in Arkansas vs. McCain... |
|
...it looks like with Bill Clinton a distant memory that state is trending deep red.
So I don't expect any Dem to hold that seat.
(What are Obama's favorables there? I would guess pretty bad.)
|
Enrique
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 11:30 AM
Response to Original message |
5. why can't Halter win in November? |
|
because Rahm says he can't? Because Tweety says that corpo-dems are the only kind of dem that can hold that seat?
What's wrong with Halter?
|
Stuart G
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. While this may be true..There was something about a black man becoming President, that |
|
I recall a couple of years ago. Which I might add, I believed too. Let us not forget this.
|
Me.
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 11:35 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Anything Can Happen. While yours is the likely scenario, anything can happen, like Brown in Mass. Let's not talk ourselves into a loss before the ballots are even cast.
|
KingFlorez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 11:41 AM
Response to Original message |
8. I think the primary challenge gives us a chance at salvaging the seat |
|
If Halter won the primary, he'd go into the general as a non-incumbent and that is a good thing.
|
jgraz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 02:10 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Who's challenging Harry Reid? |
Orsino
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 04:58 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Either way, the Dem will be a bill halter. n/t |
|
Edited on Mon Mar-01-10 04:59 PM by Orsino
|
truebrit71
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 05:43 PM
Response to Original message |
12. I would add something |
|
Blanche Lincoln's approval numbers were fine a year ago and she looked like she would likely win re-election. I think we need to consider what has changed since then.
|
Kurt_and_Hunter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-02-10 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
I'd suggest that all Dem incumbents are weaker than they were a year ago.
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-02-10 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
19. True and why is that? |
|
IMO it's because congressional Democrats look like the Keystone Cops because they couldn't get health care through. If they would act collaboratively to pass the bill instead of each trying to grab their share of the pie, they would all be in a better position now. Thus Lincoln has really contributed to her own demise by being an obstructionist on health care.
|
warm regards
(350 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 07:35 PM
Response to Original message |
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 07:40 PM
Response to Original message |
14. I disagree about Hart |
|
Look at the constituencies and the primary election map.
Hart hit Reagan at both his strengths and his weaknesses.
Mondale was a sure loser- and hurt downticket in many state and local areas.
|
Kurt_and_Hunter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-02-10 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
|
Yes, Hart probably would have done better because he couldn't have done worse. But I didn't want to side-track the OP into that question since I was arguing that he would have been better for the cause even if he didn't get any more votes than Mondale did--conceding parity to make a point.
But yeah, you're probably correct.
|
GrantDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 11:10 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Keep in mind that Halter is the Lt. Governor |
|
Therefore we know that he is, at least, capable of winning a statewide election.
|
liberalpragmatist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-01-10 11:51 PM
Response to Original message |
|
There are plenty of stupid primary challenges. This isn't one. Yeah, Halter will probably lose. But as you said, Lincoln likely will too. We might as well give her a scare - she might vote with us a little more often - and if Halter does win the nomination, he can't do any WORSE than Lincoln, who has already pissed off most Arkansas Dems without getting any support from independents or Republicans.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:23 PM
Response to Original message |