Primary night results thread

Lots of states are holding primaries today. Swing State Project has early returns in many House district primaries. We'll update this thread later with more results. For now, it looks like Senator Blanche Lincoln is going to hold on to win the Arkansas runoff election. Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter is polling a few points below where he was on May 18 and not hitting the numbers he needs to win.

In South Carolina, there will be a runoff to determine the Republican nominee for governor. Nikki Haley leads by a substantial margin but will probably finish just below the 50 percent mark she needs to avoid a runoff. She will face off against Rep. Gresham Barrett on June 22.

Chat away.

UPDATE: Lincoln appears to have defeated Halter 52-48. Very disappointing.

Bad night to be named Jim Gibbons. Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons lost the GOP primary to Brian Sandoval, who has led all the polls against Democratic candidate Rory Reid. Meanwhile, the NRCC's candidate in the IA-03 Republican primary, Jim Gibbons, lost badly; State Senator Brad Zaun won the seven-man field and will face Democratic incumbent Leonard Boswell in November. The NRCC favored candidate in IA-02, Rob Gettemy, also seems to have lost to 2008 nominee Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

Roxanne Conlin easily won the Democratic primary in the Iowa Senate race and will face Senator Chuck Grassley in the general election. Terry Branstad leads Bob Vander Plaats in the Republican primary for Iowa governor, but not by as big a margin as recent polls suggested.

UPDATE: Meg Whitman appears to have won the Republican primary for California governor and will face former Governor Jerry Brown. Carly Fiorina is way ahead of Tom Campbell in the CA-Sen primary. I think that's good news for incumbent Barbara Boxer, though polls have been mixed on whether Campbell or Fiorina would do best in the general election.

I haven't been following the Maine governor's race at all, but Libby Mitchell won the Democratic primary and Paul LePage the GOP primary.

UPDATE: How lucky is Senate Majority leader Harry Reid? He will face Club for Growth favorite Sharon Angle in the Nevada Senate race. If the Club for Growth had invested serious money in Bob Vander Plaats, Iowa Governor Chet Culver might be facing an equally weak opponent.

FINAL UPDATE: Calitics has more detailed results from the California races, including several ballot initiatives. It looks like Props 16 and 17, both brought to you by and for big corporations, were narrowly defeated, but sadly, so was an initiative on public financing of campaigns. The queen of the "birthers," Orly Taitz, got crushed in the Republican primary for California secretary of state. Swing State Project has results from U.S. House primaries in various states.

Tags: 2010 elections, Primaries (all tags)




I hope Lincoln can hang on .....

by lori 2010-06-08 10:18PM | 0 recs
RE: Primary night results thread

Well, I certainly don't.  Hopefully, my $50 to Halter will prove to be money well spent.  It's also noteworthy, perhaps, that his campaign has called me each of the last four days.  Haven't left messages, though.

by CF2K 2010-06-08 10:41PM | 0 recs
Looks like Lincoln is going to win

I'm quite surprised. I was expecting Halter to eke out a narrow victory, but that may have just been wishful thinking. 

And he lost Garland county this time! So despite the ugliness of voter disenfranchisement, there likely wouldn't have been enough votes present to overcome his shortfall tonight.

Lincoln won it today: 3666 to 3620
Lincoln lost it previously: 4810 to 5282

Based on the number of people who turned out to vote and his margin last time, while grave and prosecutable crimes appear to have taken place, it looks like the shenanigans didn't have any impact in the end.

I'm beginning to worry about the progressive community and our ability to elect politicians. I'm beginning to worry about the resonance of our message beyond our own echo chamber.

What does rewarding Blanche Lincoln have to say? Can we all be that wrong?

by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-08 10:46PM | 0 recs
RE: Looks like Lincoln is going to win

It is not wise to attach too much significance to a swing of a few thousand votes either way.  It's not like if Halter wins with 51% the netroots are all-powerful and if Lincoln wins with 51% the netroots are utterly impotent.  At the end of the day I think Halter's candidacy was a lot more about the unions than it was about the awesome power of the progressive community.

The result of this particular primary is less important than most because the GOP is very likely to win the seat either way.  I personally think Halter had the better shot in the general election, I could be wrong, but either way our candidate rated to be a big underdog.

So the real takeaway is the message that gets sent, and I don't think the message is much different regardless of which candidate ends up wtih 51%.  Let's say you're a conservative Democrat, thinking about voting against select items of the Obama agenda to gain cred, maybe thinking about opposing card check.  Are you going to think "well, Lincoln won her primary, so I guess I can get away with all that?"  I think it's more likely you'll think "Lincoln was a maverick and ended up fighting a really really tough primary, so maybe I should think twice about alienating my base."  The important part is showing incumbents that votes have consequences, and I think that's been accomplished either way.

by Steve M 2010-06-08 11:09PM | 0 recs

appears to me to have it.  The biggest counties are still out: Pulaski, which accounts for 14% of the total votes has really gone for Lincoln in a much bigger way than before.  

I think tonight you might be able to score one for Bill Clinton, who campaigned with Lincoln down the stretch.  

by fladem 2010-06-08 10:58PM | 0 recs
RE: Lincoln

Yes, this campaign demonstrates that Clinton does have some real political capital--too bad he chose to spend it on getting a dishonest corporate hack re-elected.

She'll lose badly in November, even if Clinton comes back to campaign for her.

by desmoinesdem 2010-06-09 06:34AM | 0 recs
breaking blue....

Wonder what Jerome is thinking...that tweet in the upper-right hand corner....

It may be the netroots just ins't there in Arkansas.  Also, I think there's some of that Clinton effect.  Looks like late deciders went with the incumbent, long live the incumbent rule.  Seriously why was Halter on MSNBC on primary day?  That doesn't go over too well, especially in states like Arkansas.

by esconded 2010-06-08 11:09PM | 0 recs
RE: breaking blue....

I highly doubt being on MSNBC changed more than 5 votes, stop being silly.


However, I will say his campaign certainly lost focus post-Primary day.  It's almost like they disapeared.

by Socks The Cat 2010-06-08 11:25PM | 0 recs
Go Lincoln and go Clinton

Anti-Incumbent fever no more. It is all about the better candidate. I will have to agree with Steve M and yes it was about the unions.

As for Halter, he just wanted some camera time. He can run for Governor now...that is all he wanted anyways.

She proved everyone wrong and Clinton proved he still has the swagger in his step. HOT DAMN.

by mtg44234 2010-06-08 11:22PM | 0 recs
White house mocking a wing of the party? THis is maturity?

For all the whining by establishment about how immature netroots and unions can be, why is it that the White HOuse insiders get away with mocking people? What is the political wisdom in rubbing their noses in it? They did it with Lieberman alienating an entire wing who will show up in less numbers to the polls because they are disaffected by repeated disappointments with incumbent power. (specter was an exception because he was not a long term Democrat).


An unnamed official told Politico, "Organized labour just flushed $10m of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise. If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November." Eddie Vale, an AFL-CIO spokesman, responded, "Labour isn't an arm of the Democratic Party."




Considering Blanche needed a lot of establishment support, does she really think she is vindicated by such a narrow win? BTW, she still hasnt wont the election. So if she loses to the Republican, can we gloat that they wasted time supporting Blanche? You know, if your side wins, win with class when you are the establishment because an incumbent losing an election in the US is not the norm. Americans are too generous to incumbents in primaries. No other democracy is this safe for incumbents.  If Clinton and the White House shunned her, she would have been toast. if obama is really interested in change, he could have killed her candidacy behind the scenes by just abandoning her. It is puzzling why the White House feels the need to support someone who let down the President when he needed her. They did this with Lieberman  too who has proceeded to keep dumping on the Democrats since then.



by Pravin 2010-06-09 05:44AM | 0 recs
RE: White house mocking a wing of the party? THis is maturity?

Yeah, that is ridiculous. Why shouldn't organized labor try to hold someone like Lincoln accountable? She lied to them about supporting EFCA and other things (like a public health insurance option), when in reality she only supported them when they had no chance of becoming law.

by desmoinesdem 2010-06-09 06:36AM | 0 recs
RE: White house mocking a wing of the party? THis is maturity?

It wasn't said in the right way, but I think the White House has a point.

I can think of at least 8 Senate races where money would have been better spent"





New Hampshire

North Carolina



Every one of those races either has a good liberal in some trouble or represents a chance to take a seat from the GOP.   Halter was only marginally more likely to win in Arkansas than Lincoln was.

by fladem 2010-06-09 10:27AM | 0 recs

can't you think of better places the White House and former president could have spent time and energy than on Lincoln? It works both ways, you know.


by jeopardy 2010-06-09 11:05AM | 0 recs
RE: White house mocking a wing of the party? THis is maturity?

Well, assuming that the "multiple unnamed sources" are accurately cited by drudgeico, isn't the WH logically correct here?

Considering neither Halter nor Lincoln stand a reasonable chance come November, wouldn't the money have been better spent elsewhere, where it could have made a difference?

This isn't mocking, but an admission of fact. Bill Halter's candidacy was fueled by emotion; an emotion which I feel.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-09 11:05AM | 0 recs
RE: White house mocking a wing of the party? THis is maturity?

When you are the big fish in the pond, you win with class. Or shut up. Otherwise, they shouldnt be surprised if there is ever a repeat of Nader 2000 moment and ask themselves "What??? We thought they were trapped into voting for us instead of the crazy alternative. How did this happen?"

When the whole Lieberman thing happened, one constant refrain we kept hearing was one should put personal feelings aside to go for the practical. Well, it looks like the establishment does not follow their own advice. They delighted in spiting Howard Dean on more than one occasion despite the lack of political payoff in doing so. This is smart politics? it's one thing to try to court conservatives. It is another to spite your base.

by Pravin 2010-06-09 02:38PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads