Last night was a pretty good night for organized labor. Their candidate (in the AR-SEN primary) didn’t win, but they turned a blowout into a toss-up and pushed a moderate Senator to the left on at least one major issue. Taking on Democratic incumbents like this is largely unchartered territory for labor, and I’m not naive enough to believe that if you only almost win on a first run, then you’re finished with a stake through your heart. Unfortunately, much of the media is that naïve.

Politico’s Martin Kady says that Senator Lincoln “drove a stake through organized labor last night with her surprise victory over surging Lt. Gov. Bill Halter… Lincoln's victory means that at least for the time being, other moderates in the Senate can breathe easy and keep playing the middle on big ticket legislative items.” A CBS headline asks, "Did labor waste $10 million in Arkansas?" Even First Read says, “Simply put, Lincoln's narrow victory was a crushing blow to organized labor and the internet left, which had rallied around Halter.”

Excuse me, but Lincoln went from 18 points up to 4 points up, from a lock to a dead heat. What if she had started 14 points up? What if the next moderate starts just 10 points up? Organized labor showed they can make up those differences. Since when does that count as “breathing easy?” I’d call that a new and huge headache for Blue Dogs.  

Furthermore, labor started at a severe disadvantage – at just 4.2%, Arkansas has the second-lowest union membership in the country. All of the moderates Politico says can breathe easy are in states with higher union membership than that. Ben Nelson’s Nebraska – 9.2%. Bill Nelson’s Florida – 5.8%. What if labor chose to get involved in primaries in states like Alaska, with 22.3% membership, or Washington, at 20.2%?

A blow-out race in a state unfriendly to unions, and yet labor’s money came very, very close to toppling Lincoln. She was running scared, so stepped it up on derivatives and Wall Street reform – a pretty sweet worst-case scenario for progressives.

There's more...

Last night was a pretty good night for organized labor. Their candidate (in the AR-SEN primary) didn’t win, but they turned a blowout into a toss-up and pushed a moderate Senator to the left on at least one major issue. Taking on Democratic incumbents like this is largely unchartered territory for labor, and I’m not naive enough to believe that if you only almost win on a first run, then you’re finished with a stake through your heart. Unfortunately, much of the media is that naïve.

Politico’s Martin Kady says that Senator Lincoln “drove a stake through organized labor last night with her surprise victory over surging Lt. Gov. Bill Halter… Lincoln's victory means that at least for the time being, other moderates in the Senate can breathe easy and keep playing the middle on big ticket legislative items.” A CBS headline asks, "Did labor waste $10 million in Arkansas?" Even First Read says, “Simply put, Lincoln's narrow victory was a crushing blow to organized labor and the internet left, which had rallied around Halter.”

Excuse me, but Lincoln went from 18 points up to 4 points up, from a lock to a dead heat. What if she had started 14 points up? What if the next moderate starts just 10 points up? Organized labor showed they can make up those differences. Since when does that count as “breathing easy?” I’d call that a new and huge headache for Blue Dogs.  

Furthermore, labor started at a severe disadvantage – at just 4.2%, Arkansas has the second-lowest union membership in the country. All of the moderates Politico says can breathe easy are in states with higher union membership than that. Ben Nelson’s Nebraska – 9.2%. Bill Nelson’s Florida – 5.8%. What if labor chose to get involved in primaries in states like Alaska, with 22.3% membership, or Washington, at 20.2%?

A blow-out race in a state unfriendly to unions, and yet labor’s money came very, very close to toppling Lincoln. She was running scared, so stepped it up on derivatives and Wall Street reform – a pretty sweet worst-case scenario for progressives.

There's more...

Last night was a pretty good night for organized labor. Their candidate (in the AR-SEN primary) didn’t win, but they turned a blowout into a toss-up and pushed a moderate Senator to the left on at least one major issue. Taking on Democratic incumbents like this is largely unchartered territory for labor, and I’m not naive enough to believe that if you only almost win on a first run, then you’re finished with a stake through your heart. Unfortunately, much of the media is that naïve.

Politico’s Martin Kady says that Senator Lincoln “drove a stake through organized labor last night with her surprise victory over surging Lt. Gov. Bill Halter… Lincoln's victory means that at least for the time being, other moderates in the Senate can breathe easy and keep playing the middle on big ticket legislative items.” A CBS headline asks, "Did labor waste $10 million in Arkansas?" Even First Read says, “Simply put, Lincoln's narrow victory was a crushing blow to organized labor and the internet left, which had rallied around Halter.”

Excuse me, but Lincoln went from 18 points up to 4 points up, from a lock to a dead heat. What if she had started 14 points up? What if the next moderate starts just 10 points up? Organized labor showed they can make up those differences. Since when does that count as “breathing easy?” I’d call that a new and huge headache for Blue Dogs.  

Furthermore, labor started at a severe disadvantage – at just 4.2%, Arkansas has the second-lowest union membership in the country. All of the moderates Politico says can breathe easy are in states with higher union membership than that. Ben Nelson’s Nebraska – 9.2%. Bill Nelson’s Florida – 5.8%. What if labor chose to get involved in primaries in states like Alaska, with 22.3% membership, or Washington, at 20.2%?

A blow-out race in a state unfriendly to unions, and yet labor’s money came very, very close to toppling Lincoln. She was running scared, so stepped it up on derivatives and Wall Street reform – a pretty sweet worst-case scenario for progressives.

There's more...

Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter has momentum going into tomorrow's runoff election against U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln, but only two polling places will be open in the most populous county Halter carried in the Democratic primary election. The Blue Arkansas blog has been all over this disturbing story. Garland County has about 80,000 residents, of whom about 12,000 voted at 42 polling places in the Democratic primary on May 18. The Chairman of the Garland County Election Commission, Charles Tapp, is not budging from the decision to open only two polling places in the county for the runoff. That will create obstacles for many voters, especially minorities and people in rural areas. On June 4 Tapp promised to open polling stations on the weekend to make it easier for people to vote, but the stations were closed on Saturday. ARDem explains why you should care:

Remember how rural voters broke so heavily for Halter in the primary? Well now those same rural voters have to travel miles across a mountain range to get to town on a weekday to cast their vote [....] While Halter was going down to Hot Springs to stand up for the right to vote and stuck up for the people trying to do their sacred civic duty, Lincoln couldn’t even bother to talk to us with that condescending double speak of hers:

A spokesperson with Senator Blanche Lincoln’s campaign said they do not have any comment at this time.

Couldn’t even say they were troubled by it.

Pulaski County, which Lincoln carried easily on May 18, has about six times the population of Garland but will have about 50 times as many voting locations open on June 8. Blue Arkansas is urging disenfranchised voters to call Lincoln's campaign, the Garland County Elections Commission, the Arkansas Elections Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. The White House and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which are backing Lincoln, should also denounce any attempt to suppress the vote in Arkansas and should demand that a sufficient number of polling stations be open statewide tomorrow.

Meanwhile, Lincoln is trying to portray herself as one of the people while Halter (backed by several labor unions and progressive organizations) is supposedly "letting other people fund his campaign and do his dirty work." Think Progress posted a partial list of the corporate PAC money flowing to Lincoln's campaign. It's not the first time we've seen signs of Lincoln's dishonesty, and it won't be the last if she manages to defeat Halter.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees will spend $1.4 million in Arkansas before the June 8 runoff Democratic primary election between Senator Blanche Lincoln and Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter.

The union is sending about 50 staffers to Arkansas for the race's last three weeks, with a particular focus on rallying African-American voters behind Halter, the president, Gerald McEntee, said, describing an independent expenditure campaign on a scale likely to dominate the state's airwaves.

McEntee also told Ben Smith that AFSCME wants to send "a shot across the bow of other Democrats" who may be considering voting against labor interests the way Lincoln has. (To cite one example, Lincoln is among several Senate Democrats who voted for the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007 but backed away from it under a Democratic president.)

Lincoln's biggest weapon in the runoff campaign is President Bill Clinton, who plans to return to Arkansas to campaign for her on May 28. She will also tout the strong language on regulating derivatives that she pushed as part of the financial reform bill just approved in the Senate.

Halter finished only slightly behind Lincoln in the May 18 primary, with 43 percent of the vote to Lincoln's 45 percent. Conservative Democrat D.C. Morrison won about 13 percent and has said he won't endorse a candidate in the runoff. Halter gained rapidly on Lincoln in the past month:

Momentum is with Halter, and even with Bill Clinton behind her, it won't be easy for Lincoln to turn things around. That said, I wouldn't get too excited about the overnight survey Democracy for America commissioned from Research 2000, which showed Halter ahead of Lincoln among likely runoff voters. Over at Pollster.com, Mark Blumenthal argues that the question wording and order in that poll may have "primed" respondents to support Halter. Markos Moulitsas says Daily Kos will commission another Research 2000 poll of the Arkansas race next week, presumably asking the vote preference question before any issue questions.

Any thoughts on the Arkansas race are welcome in this thread. I'm supporting Halter not only because he is a better Democrat, but also because he polls better against Republican John Boozman. Even with Halter as the nominee, Boozman would be favored to win this seat, though.