PPP: Lincoln Is Toast

In an ironic sidebar to the White House's claim that Labor wasted $10 million, Tom Jenson of the PPP polling outfit writes:

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. [. . . T]here are just a boatload of races where Democrats have a better chance to win this fall and could use their resources more wisely.

(Emphasis supplied.) To coin a phrase, apparently it would be "f--king retarded" to spend any money on Blanche Lincoln for November. Heh.

Speaking for me only

< Joran Van der Sloot: His Chilean Version, The Sting and Unanswered Questions | Casino Pictures of Joran Van der Sloot and Stephany Flores >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Lincoln will be free to 2012 doorknock for ObRahma (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:17:39 AM EST
    Hope ya got change.

    PPP is a junk polling firm (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 10:01:29 PM EST
    so I take them with a grain of salt(though clearly the CW has been for sometime that Blanche is toast in the GE).  That said, labor should continue to sit this one out, and ANY and ALL elections of anti-labor Democrats.  They MUST prove their muscle to these Democrats.  The establishment Democrats laughing at the unions for not supporting their girl in the primary protest too much.  The last thing Democrats want to have to do is spend money fighting their single largest constiuency in future primaries, and lose those boots on the ground in upcoming elections.

    Of the choices available (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    I'd much rather see cash spent on Paul Hodes than Harry Reid. But guess who gets the cash first?

    The DSCC is an incumbent protection racket as first priority. For better or worse. . .

    "DSCC is an incumbent protection racket" (4.00 / 4) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 09:02:41 PM EST
    Which is the best reason I know not to donate funds to the DSCC or any other Democratic organization.

    IMO donations are best spent funding the individual candidates that support your policies.


    Yup (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 09:06:39 PM EST
    It should go to (none / 0) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 09:35:18 PM EST
    Sestak, Fisher, Carnahan, and Reid right now. All are in tossup races. Hodes is going to have to make some strides before he finds large chunks of cash headed his way.

    Don't forget about Barbara Boxer. (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 10:18:36 PM EST
    Did you see the hot mic (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 10:40:58 PM EST
    CF footage today?

    I can't believe I may have to get out there and work for Boxer or Brown if the moneybags they are against get any leverage . . .


    Didn't see. Don't know about Brown (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 10:42:55 PM EST
    but I'll be really disappointed if Californians unseat Boxer.  

    Fiorina's problem (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 10:19:20 AM EST
    is that her single biggest resume line is a massive- Bush as President style failure- As CEO of HP the companies stock fell 60% and thousands of its jobs were shipped oversea's- put it this way on the day the HP board announced she was canned their stock jumped 10%- and that's not even getting into the allegations of illegal behavior on her part as CEO, only assessing her raw performance in the position.

    I think her biggest problem (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 10:21:06 AM EST
    is that she is sort of rabidly pro life and running in CA.

    good luck with that.


    And Fiorina had a commercial (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:52:00 AM EST
    saying Boxer was a bitter partisan....Fiorina seems very nasty herself.  

    I just don't (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:58:37 PM EST
    see that as a tossup. I would think Barbara glides in with at least a 6% margin.

    But it could be like DiFi v. Huffington (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:54:11 AM EST
    in 1994.  That was a Republican wave year and DiFi barely won.

    But, Fiorina is anti-choice and California is far more of a blue state....


    The DSCC (none / 0) (#11)
    by Watermark on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 03:45:40 AM EST
    spends money on what is most likely to get Democrats elected. Since incumbents have such a huge advantage, that is almost always going to be funding towards incumbents. Spending money on an individual candidate that is never going to get elected anyway is not a good use of your money.

    Their job is to protect incumbents first (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 06:05:44 AM EST
    When Chuck Schumer decided to deviate at all from that in 2006, it was something of a surprise.

    some guy, i forget who, (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 10:30:11 PM EST
    once said:

    pols are pols, they do what they do

    BTD (none / 0) (#10)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 12:06:37 AM EST
    Would you also say it was retarded for the Democrats to spend money against Lincoln in the primary?

    I'm not BTD (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 10:22:13 AM EST
    but I think it depends on whether Labor thought Halter could win in November- if this was just about  knocking off Lincoln it was an unbelievable waste considering the GOP will probably do that on their own dime- if they thought Halter could win conversely its not a horrible gamble.

    not directed to me (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 08:02:29 AM EST
    but I am an arkansas resident and I do not.

    I do not think (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:03:27 AM EST
    spending money on Lincoln is retarded.

    So you need to ask the White House that one.


    See Greenwald on Lincoln/Halter (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:09:18 AM EST
    run-off.  Didn't know Greenwald was instrumental in recruiting Halter.

    So we can count on Rahm to direct (none / 0) (#14)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:59:02 AM EST
    that a pile of millions get spent in Arkansas to try to save the unsaveable Lincoln.

    Like he's done before....