Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Arkansas, Hawaii election day thread

Conventional wisdom says Senator Arlen Specter needs relatively high turnout today to prevail against his Democratic challenger Joe Sestak, who has gained a lot of support in the last month and has a narrow lead in the polling average. It's been rainy today in the Philadelphia area, which isn't good for turnout, but many people may vote after work if it clears up a little. I learned from Michael McAuliff that there's a large ethnic Slovak population in the Pittsburgh area, which could give an edge to Sestak if turnout is high. I hope Sestak will win, but I don't feel confident about that at all.

Swing State Project previews the other Pennsylvania races here. The special election to fill Jack Murtha's seat in PA-12 will attract the most attention. it's the only House district in the country that voted for John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2008. Jeffmd posted pretty district maps and analysis here.

In Kentucky's Senate race, it looks like the Republican primary will end with a humiliating defeat for the establishment candidate, Trey Grayson. Rand Paul is the very likely winner there. In the Democratic primary, the more progressive and probably more electable Jack Conway has been gaining on Dan Mongiardo in the polls, but it looks too close to call.

In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln had to fill out a provisional ballot at her polling station, because she had requested an absentee ballot and not returned it. Oops! Unfortunately, she seems to have a comfortable lead over Bill Halter. The main question today is whether she will be kept under 50 percent of the vote, forcing a runoff election. Also unfortunately, Congressman John Boozman, the strongest potential Republican candidate, looks set to win the GOP primary easily.

The special election in Hawaii's first district is just a disaster. Ed Case should not have jumped into this race when most of the locals had already backed Colleen Hannabusa. As a result, those two are going to split the Democratic vote, and Republican Charles Djou will win a plurality. DavidNYC is also right; Neil Abercrombie should not have resigned from this seat, which forced the special election. He should have either held the seat while running for governor or declined to seek re-election in 2008. Let's hope we can win this seat back in November with the Democratic vote united behind one candidate.

Post any comments, predictions or tips on election results sites in this thread.

CORRECTION: Ballots for the Hawaii special election will count if they arrive in the mail by Saturday, May 22.

UPDATE: Conway leads in Kentucky with more than two-thirds of the precincts in, but his strongest areas appear to have reported already. The number crunchers at Swing State Project predict he will win narrowly, but it's too early to know.

UPDATE: Politico is continually updating results here. Conway leads by about 20,000 votes (46 percent to 41 percent) with nearly 80 percent of precincts reporting. Rand Paul easily won the Republican primary with nearly 60 percent of the votes that have been counted.

UPDATE: The Kentucky Democratic primary has been called for Jack Conway, who leads by about 5,500 votes. It's been a while since Democrats won a U.S. Senate election in Kentucky, but the Conway/Paul matchup is the most favorable one we could have hoped for.

The Pennsylvania Democratic primary has been called for Joe Sestak, who leads 53 percent to 47 percent (about 44,000 votes) with 74 percent of precincts reporting. Specker didn't get the turnout he needed in Philadelphia.

With about 21 percent of precincts reporting in Arkansas, Lincoln leads Halter 45 percent to 41 percent. If those numbers hold, the race is headed to a runoff. I have no idea what part of the state has already reported.

UPDATE: Conservative Democrat Mark Critz has beaten Tim Burns in the special election to serve out the remainder of Murtha's term in PA-12. The same two candidates won their parties' respective primaries, so will face off in November. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will be very pleased to have won this one, especially given the likely outcome in HI-01.

MORNING UPDATE: With almost all the votes counted in Arkansas, Lincoln leads Halter by 44.5 percent to 42.5 percent, with D.C. Morrison taking in 13 percent. (Boozman avoided a runoff on the Republican side.) The next three weeks will be tricky for Lincoln to navigate. I also have to wonder whether the president will cut more ads for her or make a campaign visit. Toward the end of the Pennsylvania race Obama didn't do much for Arlen Specter despite earlier promises from the White House.

Critz's margin over Burns was 53 percent to 45 percent in an R+1 district where Obama's approval is only around 33 percent. I have to agree with Matt Lewis, who said last night, "Republicans should be very concerned about the margin of defeat in PA-12. NRCC has major questions to confront." I also think we'll see President Bill Clinton campaigning for Democratic candidates in a lot of rural and/or working-class districts this fall. Stumping for Critz on Sunday, Clinton told the crowd, "Maybe [Burns] should move to California, if he wants to run against Nancy Pelosi."

Tags: AR-Sen, PA-Sen, PA-12, Arlen Specter, Joe Sestak, KY-Sen, Jack Conway, Daniel Mongiardo, AR-Sen, PA-Sen, PA-12, Arlen Specter, Joe Sestak, Blanche Lincoln, KY-Sen, Bill Halter, Jack Conway, HI-01, Daniel Mongiardo, Ed Case, Blanche Lincoln, Bill Halter, Colleen Hannabusa, HI-01, Charles Djou, Ed Case, Colleen Hannabusa, Charles Djou (all tags)

Comments

43 Comments

Please clarify what you mean

by your use of the word 'unfortunate'.

Unfortunately, she seems to have a comfortable lead over Bill Halter. The main question today is whether she will be kept under 50 percent of the vote, forcing a runoff election. Also unfortunately, Congressman John Boozman, the strongest potential Republican candidate, looks set to win the GOP primary easily.

Is it unfortunate that your choice might be trumped by the actual voters whose choice ostensibly matters in these races, namely citizens of Ohio? I find your word choice odd and quite frankly, patronizing. 

It's will not be unfortunate, regardless of how it turns out. The results will be what they will be, which is in some way a reflection of the choice of the majority of the people eligible to decide rather than a reflection of your wishes. I like it better that way. Call me old fashioned.

by QTG 2010-05-18 05:11PM | 0 recs
RE: Please clarify what you mean

At blogging school they told me it was ok for me to express an opinion. My opinion of Blanche Lincoln differs from the Chamber of Commerce's opinion, and the president's opinion. I think it would be unfortunate for her to win easily, just as I think it was unfortunate that Joe Lieberman was re-elected in 2006 when a much better Democrat was on the ballot.

by desmoinesdem 2010-05-18 05:49PM | 0 recs
RE: Please clarify what you mean

 If I hear you correctly, you use the word unfortunate to describe electoral outcomes which displease you. I think that is a silly use of the word, but appreciate you pointing out that your opinion of Blanche Lincoln differs from the President's. The President has expressed his opinion, I guess, but he does have a real job that requires it (and some standing). 

The real point is that Blanche may win elections, and if she does so fairly, then there is nothing whatsoever unfortunate in that, even if it makes you sad (and the President Happy) because it is the fact of a fair election that is fortunate, after all, not a single individual's pleasure in the outcome.

For too many Americans, an outcome that they don't like is not considered an alternative outcome, but something much worse - usually characterized as an epic failure on the part of their fellow citizens that will jeopardize the entire future of the human race.

Unfortunately....

by QTG 2010-05-18 09:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Please clarify what you mean

Talk about criticizing just for the sake of criticizing.  Gosh, I think the word "unfortunately" is somewhat less dramatic than "an epic failure that will jeopardize the entire future of the human race."

I assume you weren't happy at all that Obama defeated McCain, because after all, the only really important part is that either way there was an election and the will of the majority prevailed.

It's a shame you weren't around here in 2004 to slap the wrists of all those people silly enough to say it was unfortunate that Bush defeated Kerry.

by Steve M 2010-05-18 10:32PM | 1 recs
RE: Please clarify what you mean

 You seem to have missed the point entirely. I specifically said that an individual's happiness with the outcome does not make the outcome fortunate. The misfortune of GW's stolen elections was the cheating, first in FL/SCOTUS and then in OH. Most unfortunate. 

You need to pay attention, if you hope to keep up. This was relatively simple mental exercise, and well, you booted it.

by QTG 2010-05-18 11:08PM | 0 recs
RE: Please clarify what you mean

You're obviously arguing just to argue.  It seems clear from your first comment that what really displeases you is that someone likes a candidate other than the one President Obama has endorsed, which seems like a silly thing to care about, really.  Halter would be a more consistent vote for Obama's agenda than Lincoln so I really doubt the President would be tremendously displeased either way.

The truly unfortunate part of a Lincoln victory would be that she seems to be a dead duck in the general election, whereas a fresh face would at least stand a chance.  I guess we'll see.  By the way, after you said in your first comment that "citizens of Ohio" are the ones who have a say in this Arkansas primary, maybe you should ease up a little on the Internet cheap shots about how well I perform mental exercises.

by Steve M 2010-05-18 11:33PM | 1 recs
RE: Please clarify what you mean

Fair enough. Everybody takes cheap shots, and everybody deserves them. You accurately predict, imho, that if Halter makes it to the Senate Obama will be pleased, almost certainly (imo) more pleased than if Blanche came back. So would I. If Halter wins the runoff and loses the general, we'll be down a Senator. If Blanche does it, ditto. I hope we'll all be unhappy if a Republican replaces her. 

But unfortunately I don't have a say in the matter. I just want the vote to be fair. And I want a large turnout everywhere, unlike the diarist.

by QTG 2010-05-18 11:59PM | 0 recs
RE: Please clarify what you mean

It is entirely possible that the seat is going Republican no matter what.  My view is that Lincoln, as a known quantity, has no chance to overcome a Santorum-like 20-point deficit in the polls.  Halter, without the drag of incumbency in an anti-incumbent year, at least has a shot.  My guess is it's not a great shot.  In a state like Arkansas I am far more interested in holding a Democratic seat than in electing the most progressive individual possible, although Halter seems to be superior on both counts anyway.

I don't really believe in the one-dimensional theory which holds that the better general election candidate is always the person closest to the center.  While I certainly wouldn't recommend running a flaming liberal in Arkansas, I'm pretty sure Halter isn't too progressive to win statewide considering he currently holds a statewide office.  Either way, we'll find out what happens at the same time as everybody else.

by Steve M 2010-05-19 12:18AM | 0 recs
RE: Please clarify what you mean

Can't argue with that. 

by QTG 2010-05-19 12:27AM | 0 recs
RE: Please clarify what you mean

you lost me with Halter being a more consistant vote for Obama's aggenda.  Do you honestly still think the guy is anything close to being liberal? 

 

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-05-23 10:57AM | 0 recs
It's a freudian slip

He just get his head wrapped around the fact that rank and file Democrats have gone their way in two different states against the diktats of the White House. Until this last weekend David Plouffe was sending emails in support of Specter, while the President was cutting ads for him.

by tarheel74 2010-05-19 12:00AM | 0 recs
RE: It's a freudian slip

Easy with the rhetoric there, buddy.  An endorsement is not a diktat unless you want to sound like Glenn Beck.  I would hope we all understand the reason why the White House had no choice but to endorse these two incumbents even if we aren't necessarily thrilled about it.  In my opinion, it was well worth all those promises of love and support to get Specter as the 60th Democratic vote.


I don't think there are exit polls for primaries, but I'm betting Obama's popularity rating was quite high among Sestak voters.  I think it would be silly to cast that result as some kind of repudiation of the President.

by Steve M 2010-05-19 12:13AM | 0 recs
When you're a PUMA...

...it's ALWAYS about Obama.

1. Those were the most leukwarm Presidential endorsements I had ever heard.

2. The President always endorses the incumbent. You have to go back to FDR in 1938 to find a single instance where one did not.

3. For the President not to give just the weakest endorsement to the incumbent of his party is political stupidity.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-05-19 09:31AM | 0 recs
RE: It's a freudian slip

Maybe the word "diktat" was over the top, but the President had no business allowing the political wing of the WH getting involved so much and so early in a Democratic primary. Sestak had alleged that he was offered an administrative position if he did not run in the primary. Sestak won not because of the President, he won in spite of the President. It's a political fig leaf to say that the President always supports the incumbent. I ask which incumbent? Because Specter was not a Democratic incumbent a year ago. I am sorry the people of the Democratic party just showed in PA and AR that they are willing to go their own way against the advices of Washington.

Some daft people might call the Presidential endorsement a weak one (incidentally I don't consider recording a political ad a weak endorsement), but if he came an actually campaigned for Specter he would have alienated Sestak and a huge chunk of Democratic activists forever. Most people I know here in PA were quite upset that the Democratic and WH political machinery was backing an opportunist rather than a proven rank and file Democrat whose only "sins" were he decided to run in a primary and he decided to run left of the Washington establishment.

by tarheel74 2010-05-19 09:54AM | 1 recs
RE: It's a freudian slip

You're not looking at the WH's options the right way.  The support they gave Specter was a quid pro quo for getting him to switch parties in the first place.  It's not as though Specter switched out of a clear blue sky and then the WH had to think about who to endorse.

by Steve M 2010-05-19 05:23PM | 0 recs
RE: It's a freudian slip

yup... you are correct.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-05-23 11:04AM | 0 recs
I remmeber tarheel from her PUMA days

some things never change.

Sestak's key to victory was winning over rural and conservative Dems and his own base in the Philly suburbs, Specter was still able to win the cities outright; Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Scranton and Erie...Sestak was able to beat him in the suburbs and take the Lehigh Valley.

Sestak's win had nothing to do with the White House, who cut Specter lose as soon as his situation became dire and the President happily and cordially spoke to Sestak this morning and endorsed him. 

Could it be that the White House couldn't care less which Democrats gets the nomination and endorsed Specter as part of his party switch? You would think if Specter was that important to them, Obama or Biden would head to Pennsylvania to campaign BEFORE Specter lost his lead last week, as they tried to do with Coakley in Mass.

No, not for the dying breed of PUMA...it has to be something sinister. 

by DTOzone 2010-05-19 12:01PM | 0 recs
RE: I remmeber tarheel from her PUMA days

OH NO... not PUMA... oh dear let me get my smelling salts and locate my fainting couch!

 

Obama also endorsed and worked for Lieberman.  Yes he made a deal to help specter because of the party switch.  but you have to ask youself "what the hell did having a majority do for democrats"?  Obama still compromised with republican politicians and corporations when even REPUBLICAN voters didn't want him to.

Frankly I think the WH will be releaved to lose the majority in November.  Then they will have a valid excuise for passing republican and corporate friendly legislation.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-05-23 11:10AM | 0 recs
Oh God

let it go, really.

by DTOzone 2010-05-23 12:47PM | 0 recs
RE: It's a freudian slip

and I think you would be proven wrong.  I can tell you, as an actual voter in Pa, that people were turned off at the president trying to help defeat an actual democrat.  I think Obama hurt Specter when he was cutting those adds for him.  People got annoyed at the poltical old buddies insider bullshit and forgot that Specter had some redeaming qualities.

 

For me, I could never forget his vicious arrogant behavior towards Anita Hill.  I have talked to other women who voted against him for the same reason.  But most people just got sick of the picture of one insider sticking up for another.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-05-23 11:02AM | 0 recs
RE: Please clarify what you mean

wow, what drama, what hyperbole.  I have to give you a 10 for style, but UNFORTUNATELY, only a 3 for substance. 

Would you be this pissy if Lincoln were not the choice of President Obama?

 

They guy is just giving his opinion.  Get over it.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-05-23 10:53AM | 0 recs
Hawaii

...the special election is Saturday.  I think Djou will get close to 50%, and will be difficult to knock off in November, as this ugly split in the local party isn't going away soon.

This is a bad midterm election, but the Dems have really sabotaged themselves.

by esconded 2010-05-18 05:42PM | 0 recs
PA-12

Critz is up by about 10% with a quarter of the precincts left to be counted.  Overall, a good night for Democrats, though I think Blanche Lincoln will avoid a runoff.  Her populist tack on derivatives and financial reform saved her for now.  And in Arkansas, there just aren't enough progressives in its Democratic electorate.

by esconded 2010-05-18 10:38PM | 0 recs
Keeping up the charade just a little bit longer

It looks like she won't get 50%. I'll settle for a do-over on this race. In the mean time, she has to keep playing democrat in the Senate until that runoff. If she comes in second place, even better.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-05-18 11:04PM | 0 recs
RE: Keeping up the charade just a little bit longer

I don't know if TPM has been right to suggest that the Senate Democrats have been playing Kabuki with Lincoln's derivative reform amendment in order to boost her chances in the primary (their contention was that Dems are letting her put forward this really tough amendment to look anti-Wall Street, and they're going to wait until the day after the primary to kill it), but if they're right, I guess the game is up.

by Steve M 2010-05-18 11:35PM | 0 recs
Hmmm....

I always thought it was Lincoln playing progressive on this issue to boost her chances. I don't know if I buy the TPM point that it was the Senate doing it for her. Regardless, as you note, the game is up :)

by NoFortunateSon 2010-05-19 09:17AM | 0 recs
RE: Careful what you hope for

 I'm not a fan of Blanche, but I am a fan of Democrats, even if they come from Arkansas and end up in the Senate. I don't subscribe to the theory that it is better to unseat a "right wing" "moderate" Democrat in the Primary and subsequently lose in the General Election. If Halter wins a runoff, he better win the General. If he doesn't as a result of being too Progressive for the Arkansan electorate, then working to get him on the ballot will have had the same effect as helping to elect a Republican Senator. In other words, it would prove to be unfortunate, ultimately, for Democrats to have won a victory in the Primary. I don't know what the voters in Arkansas will decide in November, but I've actually been to Arkansas and I didn't like it at all. 

I think Halter makes it harder to hold the seat in November, but whatever happens, I just hope the process is fair and let the chips fall where they may.

by QTG 2010-05-18 11:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Careful what you hope for

Lincoln would have had NO CHANCE in the general.. none!  Her approval rating is in the thirties....  There is nothing to lose here by getting a real democrat in office.

by LordMike 2010-05-19 12:59AM | 0 recs
You never know.

I'm not defending her.

I think she's pretty lousy.

But this far out, anyone can still win. Look at how Harry Reid has turned around his chances. It was a long shot, but I think she still had a better chance than Halter.

It is going to be tough for Halter... Not surprisingly, Arkansas is one of the places where Obama is the least popular.

I agree with your overall premise, though, that if there is a slightly smaller chance for victory for Halter, this effort is worth it because hse is one of our lousiest incumbants, and the increased risk is offset by the potential reward of a real democrat.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-05-19 09:23AM | 0 recs
I'm not sure what "a real democrat" is

but I'm reasonably sure it isn't Bill Halter. The only thing he's taking a more left view on is the public option, other than that, he's indecisive on EFCA, silent on gay rights, and taking a right wing view on climate change. If this is a real Democrat, then we need to apologize to Evan Bayh.

This is another example of idealistic movement liberals looking for that utopian candidate through the guise of the issue de jure...in this case the public option (in the case of the Presidential race, Iraq), and will only elect someone whom they were declare a sell out once that first vote on something controversial is taken.

by DTOzone 2010-05-23 12:53PM | 0 recs
RE: Careful what you hope for

How in the world does Halter make it harder to hold the seat? Lincoln has not merely been down in the polls so far; she has been getting blown out. Halter polls better, has less baggage, and doesn't have local Democratic activists annoyed at him for pulling the crap that Lincoln has pulled over the last year. If Blanche Lincoln wins the primary, Democrats in Arkansas suddenly (and yes, unfortunately) have to deal with the top of the ticket dragging everything else down, impacting all the other races on the ballot negatively. With Halter, even if he loses by as much as high single digits, he still does better than Lincoln looks to be doing, and is thus a net gain for the other races on the ticket.

by realnrh 2010-05-19 02:55AM | 0 recs
RE: Careful what you hope for

why didn't you like Arkansas?  What part of the state did you spend time in?

Arkansas is a very beautiful state in many places. Of course if you are mix people up with their politics then I can see why you wouldn't' like it.  It is also a very populist place.  So democrats who have become very elitist over the years wouldn't like it either.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-05-23 02:25PM | 0 recs
RE: Careful what you hope for

 I'm not a fan of Blanche, but I am a fan of Democrats, even if they come from Arkansas and end up in the Senate. I don't subscribe to the theory that it is better to unseat a "right wing" "moderate" Democrat in the Primary and subsequently lose in the General Election. If Halter wins a runoff, he better win the General. If he doesn't as a result of being too Progressive for the Arkansan electorate, then working to get him on the ballot will have had the same effect as helping to elect a Republican Senator. In other words, it would prove to be unfortunate, ultimately, for Democrats to have won a victory in the Primary. I don't know what the voters in Arkansas will decide in November, but I've actually been to Arkansas and I didn't like it at all. 

I think Halter makes it harder to hold the seat in November, but whatever happens, I just hope the process is fair and let the chips fall where they may.

by QTG 2010-05-18 11:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Careful what you hope for

 I'm not a fan of Blanche, but I am a fan of Democrats, even if they come from Arkansas and end up in the Senate. I don't subscribe to the theory that it is better to unseat a "right wing" "moderate" Democrat in the Primary and subsequently lose in the General Election. If Halter wins a runoff, he better win the General. If he doesn't as a result of being too Progressive for the Arkansan electorate, then working to get him on the ballot will have had the same effect as helping to elect a Republican Senator. In other words, it would prove to be unfortunate, ultimately, for Democrats to have won a victory in the Primary. I don't know what the voters in Arkansas will decide in November, but I've actually been to Arkansas and I didn't like it at all. 

I think Halter makes it harder to hold the seat in November, but whatever happens, I just hope the process is fair and let the chips fall where they may.

by QTG 2010-05-18 11:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Careful what you hope for

 I'm not a fan of Blanche, but I am a fan of Democrats, even if they come from Arkansas and end up in the Senate. I don't subscribe to the theory that it is better to unseat a "right wing" "moderate" Democrat in the Primary and subsequently lose in the General Election. If Halter wins a runoff, he better win the General. If he doesn't as a result of being too Progressive for the Arkansan electorate, then working to get him on the ballot will have had the same effect as helping to elect a Republican Senator. In other words, it would prove to be unfortunate, ultimately, for Democrats to have won a victory in the Primary. I don't know what the voters in Arkansas will decide in November, but I've actually been to Arkansas and I didn't like it at all. 

I think Halter makes it harder to hold the seat in November, but whatever happens, I just hope the process is fair and let the chips fall where they may.

by QTG 2010-05-18 11:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Careful what you hope for

 I'm not a fan of Blanche, but I am a fan of Democrats, even if they come from Arkansas and end up in the Senate. I don't subscribe to the theory that it is better to unseat a "right wing" "moderate" Democrat in the Primary and subsequently lose in the General Election. If Halter wins a runoff, he better win the General. If he doesn't as a result of being too Progressive for the Arkansan electorate, then working to get him on the ballot will have had the same effect as helping to elect a Republican Senator. In other words, it would prove to be unfortunate, ultimately, for Democrats to have won a victory in the Primary. I don't know what the voters in Arkansas will decide in November, but I've actually been to Arkansas and I didn't like it at all. 

I think Halter makes it harder to hold the seat in November, but whatever happens, I just hope the process is fair and let the chips fall where they may.

by QTG 2010-05-18 11:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Careful what you hope for

 I'm not a fan of Blanche, but I am a fan of Democrats, even if they come from Arkansas and end up in the Senate. I don't subscribe to the theory that it is better to unseat a "right wing" "moderate" Democrat in the Primary and subsequently lose in the General Election. If Halter wins a runoff, he better win the General. If he doesn't as a result of being too Progressive for the Arkansan electorate, then working to get him on the ballot will have had the same effect as helping to elect a Republican Senator. In other words, it would prove to be unfortunate, ultimately, for Democrats to have won a victory in the Primary. I don't know what the voters in Arkansas will decide in November, but I've actually been to Arkansas and I didn't like it at all. 

I think Halter makes it harder to hold the seat in November, but whatever happens, I just hope the process is fair and let the chips fall where they may.

by QTG 2010-05-18 11:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Careful what you hope for

 I'm not a fan of Blanche, but I am a fan of Democrats, even if they come from Arkansas and end up in the Senate. I don't subscribe to the theory that it is better to unseat a "right wing" "moderate" Democrat in the Primary and subsequently lose in the General Election. If Halter wins a runoff, he better win the General. If he doesn't as a result of being too Progressive for the Arkansan electorate, then working to get him on the ballot will have had the same effect as helping to elect a Republican Senator. In other words, it would prove to be unfortunate, ultimately, for Democrats to have won a victory in the Primary. I don't know what the voters in Arkansas will decide in November, but I've actually been to Arkansas and I didn't like it at all. 

I think Halter makes it harder to hold the seat in November, but whatever happens, I just hope the process is fair and let the chips fall where they may.

by QTG 2010-05-18 11:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Careful what you hope for

 I'm not a fan of Blanche, but I am a fan of Democrats, even if they come from Arkansas and end up in the Senate. I don't subscribe to the theory that it is better to unseat a "right wing" "moderate" Democrat in the Primary and subsequently lose in the General Election. If Halter wins a runoff, he better win the General. If he doesn't as a result of being too Progressive for the Arkansan electorate, then working to get him on the ballot will have had the same effect as helping to elect a Republican Senator. In other words, it would prove to be unfortunate, ultimately, for Democrats to have won a victory in the Primary. I don't know what the voters in Arkansas will decide in November, but I've actually been to Arkansas and I didn't like it at all. 

I think Halter makes it harder to hold the seat in November, but whatever happens, I just hope the process is fair and let the chips fall where they may.

by QTG 2010-05-18 11:44PM | 0 recs
A whoo hoo from Brazil

Halter looks awesome in the numbers tonight; he's gonna win this run-off with a slam dunk. Morrison numbers do not all go to Lincoln, more like a 30-30 split and the rest won't vote.

Howabout that AFL-CIO turnout machine!

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-18 11:37PM | 0 recs
I did not click that many times!

Really

by QTG 2010-05-19 12:03AM | 0 recs
RE: Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Arkansas, Hawaii election day thread

The Dems will keep Murtha's House seat, eh?

Oh Kent! Where are you Kent? We need you and your own special brand of Democratic gloom and doom.

Let's hear it?

by spirowasright 2010-05-19 01:51AM | 0 recs
Poor Kent

Kent seems to always run away and hide any time there's good news that shoots down his irrational pessimism.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-05-19 09:34AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads