Posted on 09/29/2009 5:27:45 PM PDT by bilhosty
Another Democratic senator may be at-risk in 2010. Arkansas' Blanche Lambert Lincoln trails all four of her leading Republican challengers in the first Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 survey in the state.
Lincoln fails to get 50% of the vote in any of the match-ups, and any incumbent who falls short of that level is considered vulnerable. In three of the match-ups, however, she is virtually tied with the challengers at this
This looks like a job for ACORN. :)
Any other seats up for election AR? I assume all house seats are up in 2010.
I think the Dems will get clobbered in states like Arkansas.
I would guess the Dems may get hammered more in the Senate than many people expect. Hairy Reid, Blanche Lincoln. Is that biotche in Louisana up for election too?
I think I’ll move to Arkansas and help her get whipped.
“Any other seats up for election AR? I assume all house seats are up in 2010.”
Funny you should mention that. I just saw on some site(I forget which one). The GOP congressional comitees are widening the playing field and getting some strong candiates against Ross and Snyder.
The Constitution has arranged it so that all House seats are contested every two years. Members of the Senate serve six years, so 1/3 of their seats are contested at every two year cycle. If a Senator dies or resigns, that seats goes before the voters, but only to fill the remainder of a regular six year term. The terms are arranged so that both of a State's two Senate seats do not expire in any given year.
For Arkansas, its Blanche plus all of the House Seats. Unfortunately, the House Dems are pretty popular save one. But, it will be a Republican year.
Possible in NW Arkansas, but I look for Blanche to win. The democrats will come out with the campaign that GOP is the party of the rich, don’t care for the working man, and are buddies with the Wall Street types.
parsy, who says the GOP is out unless Obama continues to screw up
Arkansas ping!
I think they ought to go after Conrad in ND too. Why not be bold and try to take out any of them from red states. Even blue state Demo senators like Dodd and Reid are in trouble.
Well, nobody be too smug...who can vote in the Republican primary? If only R’s, then good; whoever beats her and wins the R primary looks good in the general - the I should flee D and the R coast in...hopefully the R is more conservative than R.
Yeah I think you will see that nationwide with a lot of better Repubs who are well funded. At least i hope so.
Agreed. Target every seat you think you can win and some that are stretches. People are angry.
We need to support these challengers and make them win.
JoMa
These numbers are incredible:
2010 Arkansas Senate Race
Kim Hendren (R)
44%
Blanche Lincoln (D)
41%
Some Other Candidate
5%
Not Sure
10%
2010 Arkansas Senate Race
Gilbert Baker (R)
47%
Blanche Lincoln (D)
39%
Some Other Candidate
5%
Not Sure
8%
2010 Arkansas Senate Race
Curtis Coleman (R)
43%
Blanche Lincoln (D)
41%
Some Other Candidate
5%
Not Sure
11%
2010 Arkansas Senate Race
Tom Cox (R)
43%
Blanche Lincoln (D)
40%
Some Other Candidate
6%
Not Sure
11%
Sewer RATs and RINOs in Congress arrogantly chose to ignore this:
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/capitol-view-lo-res.jpg
The tsunami is rolling and gaining stength. Count on it!
The liberation of Arkansas has begun..........
Want to see the targets by state?
“Who brought US to this point? Congressional Score Card.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2341921/posts
I plan to do the same type of analysis for the Senate.
Ain’t that the truth...
2010 Arkansas Senate Race
Ficus Plant (R)
52%
Blanche Lincoln (D)
33%
Some Other Leafy Candidate
9%
Not Sure
6%
Spoken like a true Social Democrat. She’s out, Parsy. AR is a GOP state with Democrat overrepresentation (thanks to Huckster). It’s gonna start reflecting reality beginning in ‘10.
Sweet merciful McGulicutty. Rasmussen polls are fairly accurate. Even Kim “that Jew” Hendren leads?
Unlike the Republican senate hopefuls in some states these candidates qualify as conservatives. A win in ARK would be awesome.
These numbers send a thrill up my leg. I hope they’re real.
They must hate Berry and it’s rubbed off on Blanche.
The rat congressman should targeted in AR too. Snyder has a top tier opponent. Berry has a second/third?-tier one and Ross has none yet according to poltics1.
Impy, who wonders why a certain freeper is allowed to openly back the democraps. (Hi there Parsy!)
The first Berry I mentioned is Obama not the congressman.
Parsy’s a funny guy, but he can’t quite grasp big gubmint is a colossal failure. Socialism doesn’t work (no matter how much you hope and pray that it does).
Conrad isn’t up in 2010, but Dorgan is. If former Gov. Hoeven runs, as he is considering doing, we would be favored to win the seat.
Remember during the Rat primaries there were pics of a Che Guevera poster in an Obama office?
The GOP should have posters of Senator Joe McCarthy plastered all over the place. The parallel couldn't be clearer, and the pic is worth 1,000 words.
That’s awesome!!!
A question to Arkansas folks...
Will bringing in Billy J hisself to campaign help or hurt ole Blanche?
“Will bringing in Billy J hisself to campaign help or hurt ole Blanche?”
(I’m not from Arkansas, but I can tell you that it would be a double-edged sword for Lincoln.)
Just wait we will have the scumbags out in 2010
Arkansas is a conservative state and often goes GOP in presidential elections. Many democrats in Arkansas do not view themselves as “liberal” and they don’t view their reps and sens as liberals. What there is in Arkansas, except in the northwest part of the state, is a very poor view of the GOP. The GOP is viewed as the party of the rich, and the party that don’t give a hoot about the working man. Since most Arkansans are on the poor side, this is not healthy for the GOP. It don’t help any that the GOP really is the party of the rich, and really doesn’t give a hoot about the working man.
Perhaps if republicans could start doing a little thinking for a change and ask themselves how many of their beliefs are “conservative” as opposed to “libertarian”, they could once again become a viable, pro-active party.
In the meantime, the libertarians, who would have a hard time winning an election for dogcatcher, will suck off the GOP like a big ol tick and the GOP will continue to decay.
If an intelligent and real conservative republican could win in Arkansas, that would be great in that conservatism is a good thing. However, knowing the GOP, they will run some libertarian masked as a conservative for office, and the candidate will spout off the typical GOP slogans, and if he wins, go to Congress and do nothing.
parsy, who wonders why the government nihilist party (GOP) even bothers.
We’ll see. The GOP has a bad reputation in this state and most of the republicans tend to not be typical Arkies.
parsy, who will wait and see
Everything you say would be true if it were not for the fact that the Democrats are the party of the rich. I live in one of the lowest-class areas of Nashville, and my district and an adjacent one are represented by Republicans on the Metro Council, yet the upper-class areas are represented by rabid liberal Socialists. I can’t afford to be a Democrat, they’re out of my economic class. You have to be filthy rich to afford everything they stand for. Their goals are twofold, to protect their rich buddies and to keep the poor VERY poor.
Aside from Congressman Boozman, the other 5 federal officials scored on the far-left of the political spectrum. Marion Berry got an 87% liberal rating from the ACU (he was the most Conservative of the AR Dems). Mike Ross got an 88%. Blanche Lincoln got a 92%. Snyder got a 95%. Mark Pryor got a 96%. These aren’t Arkansas values. Those are San Francisco values, and their votes are WAY out of touch with Arkansans.
We used to have a lot of those “Arkansas Democrats” here in TN, until the voters finally found out they were being lied to about how “Moderate/Conservative” they were, and tossed out a good chunk of the ones sitting in GOP districts. Unlike TN, where 7 of 9 districts vote GOP at the federal level, ALL 4 of AR’s districts do. There’s no need for any AR federal official to be a Democrat. Nada.
Go to the ACU website and click on “How we scored the votes.” Heck. I would come in as a “liberal” on the 25 votes they picked to look at, most of which were tax related. I will re-read when time but I am not sure they aren’t confusing conservatism with libertarianism again, some the GOP tends to do a lot.
parsy, who most definitely isn’t a libertarian
Well, no kidding, Parsy. You’ve already made it plain you’re not a Conservative and are fully supportive of big gubmint and high taxes. I presume you’ll give Blanche DuBois your vote over any of the Republicans ? She’s gonna have to depend on the kindness of duped strangers to get her another term.
Heneren is a RHINO, and would not trust him in an out house with a muzzle on. Don’t know why Arkansas can’t seem to get any good Republicans to run for office.
http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_freedandtrad.asp
This link is from ACU. It’s about what conservatism is, and the devil’s alliance with libertarianism. Notice how conservatism is about families and small businesses. That ain’t where the GOP has had its interest lately, over the past 30 years.
The GOP has its head up Wall Street’s *ss. That why the GOP and Demos, too de-regulated some of the markets and why they have failed to regulate others.
Talk about families, yeah Reagan, who I thought was a great president, cared about the rich families. So did Bush and Bush. Did they give a hoot about the middle class or poor families. I haven’t seen a whole lot of evidence of it. I hate to keep flogging dead horses, but when it came time to choose between rich credit card companies who made irresponsible loans, and regular people, Bush, the GOP and the Dems sided with the banks.
The problem, IMHO, is that conservatives aren’t conservatives anymore for the most part. They have morphed into libertarians. Many conservatives have forgotten what it is all about. They don’t believe in limited government, they have been duped into believing in no government.
Read the Wall Street threads on FR. There are a lot of people who get it and want Wall Street castrated, to where they will stay in the field and do what they are supposed to do. There are a lot more freepers who are against re-regulation and think the whole crisis is the fault of the poor and the CRA.
Sorry, but the second group has lost its way.
parsy, who says label it as you will
Parsy, you and I have ended up with long-winded discussions that after I end up responding point-by-point, you just leave them hanging.
#1 I don’t consider a mix of Conservative and Libertarian (to a degree) to be a bad thing, because both share some similar points.
#2 If the GOP has its “head up Wall Street’s ass”, why does Wall Street give obscene amounts of money to the party of the rich, the Democrats ?
#3 Reagan cared about ALL families. He didn’t play that class warfare bull$hit. If he didn’t care about the poor, he wouldn’t have freed the slaves of Communist Eastern Europe or unleashed economic prosperity across-the-board unseen in the modern era.
#4 Last I checked, it was Democrats like Barney Frank that demanded loans be made to bad risk people, and if they didn’t, their companies were accused of racism. They then point the fingers at the GOP. How come you never blame the Democrats for their epic-scale corruption and destructiveness ?
#5 A lot of people would disagree and say that Conservatives have forgotten about Libertarian positions and getting back to shrinking the beyond-obscene scope of the federal government. Too many are content to manage BAD liberal policies and governance. Republicans need not only to be for smaller government, they need to start enacting policy to get us there. They didn’t do that last time around.
#6 For whatever Wall Street’s excesses are, we need to reign in the excesses of the federal government and stop these insane and unconstitutional bailouts that will soon lead to hyperinflation and make our currency worthless like so many African/Marxist dictatorships.
You’re right, we have fussed about this a lot. You like libertarians. I think they are childish twits. I think the GOP ought to be less interested in the rich, and big business, and you don’t, and think the Dems are just as guilty, which I agree with more than I disagree with.
I think the GOP is composed of government nihilists because of the libertarians, and that if they ever do get off their duff to do anything, it would be to protect the wealthy and big business interests at the expense of the rest of the country. I think the Democrats are more likely to do something than the GOP, even though I sometimes shudder at what they might do.
So, in short, I have placed my bets on the democrats, while hoping the GOP will one day throw off the LICE, and become a true conservative party instead of this weird hermaphradite.
parsy, the realist
Correction: I like some aspects of Libertarianism. The garden-variety government shrinkers are good. But I’ve done battle with the hard-core Libertarians, the anti-WOD people and the paleos that think an 18th or 19th century view on foreign policy is acceptable in the modern era when you’re one plane flight away from bringing down our skyscrapers. I think Ron Paul is a nut with a few good points.
But we simply don’t have enough Republicans willing to shrink the government. You can call them nihilists, but when the rubber hits the road, I’ll bet you couldn’t get 10 members of the GOP caucus to make dramatic cuts. Even Ron Paul the hypocrite gets his skrimps subsidies for his district.
But supporting the Democrats ? That party is pure evil. In the late 19th century, a group of anti-American Marxists set out to purge the moderate Bourbon interests and impose their twisted and delusional ideology on the public at large, and they’ve proven a rousing success at doing just that. But their end goal is totalitarianism with no dissent tolerated, no different than Communism/Fascism/Naziism, et al, all the different fingers on the left hand. Republicans and Conservatives inside and outside of government haven’t aggressively fought that evil nearly enough.
The GOP plays by Marquis of Queensberry rules while the Dems play it the Chicago Way, no rules, send the other guy to the morgue (and no worries, since they have no consequences for cheating, with the corrupt media, amoral entertainment industry, brainwashing educational system, and their corrupted judges and political hacks working overtime to make them look like the innocent party, free from original sin). Sorry, Parsy. I saw how they operated from the time I was in school, I saw behind the curtain, and that chilled me to the bone. I’ll say it again, these people are evil.
Shrinking gov’t means cutting social security and medicare. Neither of these are particularly heinous programs. Add defense and interest payments and there isn’t a whole lot left to play with.
Local government is a waste because most dollars there seem to be for education and the kids are coming out stupid, IMHO.
When you add to your fiscal problems the gross irresponsibility of Wall Street, the uselessness of the super rich, and the suck-up politicians, the whole mess turns to doo-d00.
Sensible things can be done. Put the tax rates back on the rich that were there in Reagan’s days. Re-instate Gall-Stegall. Put a transaction tax on Wall Street and put the leverage rules back. America ain’t about a guy in a suit on Wall Street swapping paper around or some rich dude receiving high interest rates on money his grandpa earned.
America should be about the majority of us. The ones of us working every day. We are America. GOP don’t believe that.
parsy, who is sorry they don’t
We’ve been over this before...
#1, Social Security MUST be phased out. That is an abomination. Medicare and Medicaid have no business being a part of the federal government. These “well intentioned” programs are a fiscal disaster. Their proponents either lied or drastically underestimated the costs of these programs. We can’t afford them, period (and even if we could, it’s NOT the federal government’s business).
#2, Local government is closer to the people. Education is still controlled and monopolized by the federal gov’t and the single biggest impediment to change, the teacher unions. They were a nightmare when I went to school in the ‘80s, and they’re as horrible as ever.
#3, Wall Street is NOTHING compared to gov’t corruption.
#4, Putting tax rates back up to obscene percentages is guaranteed to put us in a permanent Depression. BTW, when’s the last time a poor person gave you a job ? Rich people aren’t my most favorite people, but they cannot solve our economic woes, and STEALING from them at rates above 10% is immoral, anti-Capitalistic and un-American. Socialism doesn’t work, Parsy. Why can’t you understand that ? Have you ever heard of something called the rate of diminishing returns ? At a certain point, you can jack up the tax rates as high as you’d like, but you won’t be bringing any more money. Rich people aren’t going to just sit there and take getting screwed and have their money stolen. Either they will lay off people en masse or move their businesses, themselves, etc. to other countries where the gov’t doesn’t screw them. Either way, you will have destroyed the economy.
“Have you ever heard of something called the rate of diminishing returns ? At a certain point, you can jack up the tax rates as high as you’d like, but you won’t be bringing any more money.”
yes. Apply that same principle to the rich. At some point they have so much money they can’t spend it wisely. They start buying $25,000 watches, 5th and 6th homes. Then they start throwing money at the stock market, the real estate market, and offshore investments. They start gambling in hedge funds.
Money that is produced in the United States, by all the working people, is being sucked up by the rich and put into speculative gambling on Wall Street. There ain’t a fair distribution. There ain’t a fair playing field.
Look at sharecropping FOR AN EXAMPLE. Rich guy inherits land from hid dad. Sharecropper does all the work for 2/3 of value of crop, less seeds. Rich guy gets 1/3. Sharecropper is barely making it on the remainder. Who has produced the wealth?
a) The sharecropper
b) The rich guy
c) Both the sharecropper and the rich guy
Is sharecropping wrong?
parsy, who will teach you
“I think they ought to go after Conrad in ND too.”
Republicans are awaiting a decision by Governor John Hoeven.
Wall Street has showered nearly $11 million on the Senate since the beginning of the year, and more than 15 percent of it has gone to a single senator: Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York.
Schumer’s $1.65 million take from the financial services industry is nearly twice that of any other senator’s — and more than five times what the industry gave to any single Republican senator.
While the industry has scaled back its political spending in the wake of last year’s economic collapse, data from the Center for Responsive Politics show that it’s still investing heavily in the Senate, where it’s likely to have its best shot at stopping — or at least shaping — the crackdown on Wall Street that President Barack Obama has proposed.
And it’s clearly looking to Democrats to do it.
Of the $10.6 million the industry has given to sitting senators this year, more than $7.7 million has gone to Democrats. Schumer got his $1.65 million; his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand took in $886,000; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada received $814,000; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut scored $603,000; Colorado freshman Michael Bennet got $401,000; and Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas— who will have a big say on the derivatives portion of regulatory reform — got $336,000.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27643.html#ixzz0SduESENc
Then we need to post it daily on Free Republic. And ditto for the GOP recipients, also. I’ll be glad to do my share of putting up the post. Thank you for the link!
parsy, who says let the chips fall where they may
Parsy, it’s not up to you (nor to me) to tell rich people how to spend their money. If they want to buy the Hope Diamond, that’s their business. What you preach here isn’t freedom, Parsy, it’s Marxism and it is tyranny. Marxism doesn’t work and cannot ever work, because it is antithetical to human nature. Take a look at Cuba and North Korea where there are no rich people (except for their hypocritical, deranged monster leaders). Is that what you want our country to look like ? Everyone poor, miserable, and without freedom ?
Conservatives and libertarians naturally share a desire for smaller government.
I guess you are a “conservative” in the same way welfare state loving British Tories are.
OOC, would you tell me some Republicans from the past 50 years you like and think were “conservatives” like you? Ike? Nixon? Chuck Percy?
BTW I’m glad you haven’t been banned despite being an open democrap. I was “suspended” with no warning (the impression I get is that it’s permanent) from Yahoo answers yesterday for a ridiculous reason.
Better to be too lenient than forum nazis who ban without warning like TWOP and Yahoo Answers.
Impy, who thinks you are amusing. ;)
I’m still sleepy but I’m not sure I take your meaning.
Oh yeah your party loves the working man. That’s why they hike his taxes and try to take away his right to a secret ballot (card check).
That Leno guy isn’t very funny, you should take his place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
