Pollster.com

See ya Blanche. When you kick your own constituants i nthe face....they don't really like it.

Lincoln will lose and do so by 10+.

Rasmussen, still polling for relevance I see

She was damned if she did and damned if she didn't. I knew she'd vote for healthcare though.

No way to realy know how this will turn out at this point and would like to see a poll from a pollster we can trust. But Lincoln does have an uphill fight.
It is a combination of facors in Arkansas intesified by those who see Obama as stealing the crown from Clinton.

I smell yet another retirement.

X - since she fell on the sword for Obama do you think she will be ambassador to the bahamas or jamaica?

Blanche Lincoln should do what Dodd has done and step down. I think someone more popular should run for the seat. Lincoln would have other options for her career. Besides she doesn't deserve to govern a state where there is so much poverty, yet there is such resistance to leaders who try to help. She is too good for that. There is just so much you can do to try to help your state get access to healthcare and better services. When the people reward you with approval like that, who needs the job? I guess Arkansas is the final southern state other than WV to go behind the GOP Red iron curtain.

Beebe for Senate!!!

Its laughable. Rasmussen has consistently had Lincoln behind in Arkansas while everyone else has consistently had her up by short margins over Baker and high teens against everyone else. Rasmussen's outlier polls fool no one

Lincoln will get some cush job for sure, they always do no matter who you are when you stop being a senator. Its all about connections. Most senators end up as Health Care executives (surprise).

Stillow is right. Lincoln keeps stabbing her Democratic base voters in the back, while trying to appease teabaggers who will never like her. Obama's is doing the same thing only on a lesser scale. You'd think that the Democrats would have figured out by now that the DLC "Republican lite" strategy is a losing one. Obama's won by NOT being a DLC'er, and he's running away from what got him into office and validating a thoroughly discredited right.

LordMike

You really beleive that or are you just razzing today? There are not enough libs in the country or in Congress to pass an uber left agenda like Obama wants. He won on the economy as the opponenet always does when there is a recession. You libs who think his victory was some sweeping mandate for liberal agenda items......well.......I'll stop before I say something insensitive.

I turned cspan on this morning....hmmmm,no HCR debate....ahhh well ,lets just add that to the number of lies Obama told to get elected.

This seems about right. Glad we got it from a reliable pollster.

Farleftandproud:

"Besides she doesn't deserve to govern a state where there is so much poverty, yet there is such resistance to leaders who try to help. She is too good for that."

That is wrong on so many levels.

Blanche, as a US Senator, doesn't govern anyone. She REPRESENTS the state of AR.

Because she is offering aid that the people of AR are not asking for means she is TOO GOOD to represent us? And you libs don't understand why you have so much trouble with elections in the south after you slap us in the face like that.

It is obvious that Blanche was toast no matter which way she voted on health care. It is equally obvious she went the Ben Nelson route, the only difference is that we won't be reading about whatever payolla she got. At least Nelson had the guts to take the bribe in public.

Another blather from Ras. The most important number for Lincoln will be the unemployment rate in La.in October. Health reform will be a distant memory unless the Democrats fumble on the one yard line.

Big Mike,

Arkansas is one of the poorest States. It is tied for 8-10th lowest life expectancy. Except for DC all of the 10 States with the lowest life expectancy voted Republican for President in 2008. And furthermore, Arkansas gets far more back in welfare and Medicaid from the Federal Government than it contributes. The State NEVER declines to take any of that money. But you're right--Blanche Lincoln is too good for Arkansas.

I stand by my remarks in analyzing southern voters. From a human standpoint it boggles the mind that many Democratic US Reps from conservative districts have been intimidated by people like the teabaggers and religious conservative into thinking that health reform that reduces costs for families is in some way wrong and should be stopped. The previous commenter was right that Ar is one of the poorest states in the US. Big mike is right It is tied for 8-10th lowest life expectancy. It is very pathetic that when someone like Lincoln tries to help and bent over backwards to not buy into what liberals want, and she is getting stabbed in the back.

Obama was elected because of failed Reganesque policies like tax-cuts ontop of deficit spending and lack of regulation on an industry that put us in this recession. Naturally this called for a Democrat to impose more government regulation and a movement from war spending to social spending.

Obama ran on Health Care, it was the pinicle of his election as was it for Hillary Clinton. The mandate was set despite putting in a light version of the HC plan. I don't know how much more clear you have to be.

The best thing Lincoln can do now is be a true Democrat and fight for health care being a human right. Whether she wins or loses in 2010, it doesn't matter; she will be vindicated when she is on the right side of history and a few years from now, health care reform will make costs more affordable and more people will be eligable for medicaid. She should realize that negotiating with religious conservatives on health care reform fails every time. Unfortunately the two politicians who had guts to not be afraid to have a progressive vision, Bill Clinton and John Edwards couldn't keep their pants up.

I wouldn't exactly say Obama ran on health care. He didn't really bring it up that much because if he had, he probably wouldn't have won. For some reason a majority of americans want other reforms like financial, environmental, tax reform and others but when it comes to healthcare, too many people will except nothing at all. Lets forget about single payer or the public option, not one Republican in the house or senate has any alternative plans to universal coverage or reduced costs. I wish the Democrats and msnbc, cnn and the other media groups would stop focusing on the 2010 elections and focus back on the 50 million uninsured and denying people for pre-existing conditions. More Democrats need to have faith in passing health care reform rather, than worrying they might lose voters if they pass it. Many Americans are feeling uncertainty now and things change very fast in American politics.

X - Don't you ever get tired of being so wrong? Whenever there is a recession, the other guy wins....just how it is. Failed Reagan policies, heheheh...you guys never quit.

Really... i mean the last 30 years, even counting 2008, was the best financial expansion for the United States and for the world. More people were lifted out of poverty in the last 30 years than in all years prior combined. To say the Reagonimcs was a failure is not only naive, its ignorant.

Actually when I see people talking about "failed reagan policies" they actually look quite good in comparison to GOP polcicies today. I didn't ever see Reagan attracting teabagger types and angry racist slogans and all the hate mongers the party has now. I think Reagan would personally be ashamed of some of the personalities like Limbaugh who simply want to divide and infuriate a majority of people.

I think we could look back at Kennedy and Truman would be equally as disgusted at the current crop of Dems that spew their racist, anti-American, and vitriolic rhetoric. Similarly looking at libs like Olbermann and Maher who simply want to infuriate the majority of people.

But i agree with you on the GOP policies of today which is way i abstained from voting in 2006. Luckily, we have a new crop of Reps in congressmen like Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor.

I am telling you guys that Blanche is not too good to represent AR and you wanna keep saying she is. What better proof that libs believe you are better than everyone else.

No one is too good to represent us. There are plenty who are not good enough. Blanche falls in that category.

She can't win reelection. If she voted against the Reid bill the party would have turned on her. When she voted for it the people turned on her. You would think if the people were for her she would not need the party, a la Joe Lieberman. But she didn't have the people to begin with, as poll after poll has shown.

Even the lib MSM paper in Little Rock called her career uneventfull and that was before the HCR vote. Outside of being the 60th vote name one accomplishment she can claim. You can't because there aren't any. She does not deserve reelection.

Truthseeker, your argument is hollow. No state turns down money from the Feds. But at least AR is not so low that the state has to pay its bills with IOUs.

I was not trying to say AR does not have more than its share of poverty. But since you brought it up, I will say the blame for that is the state govt that has long been dominated by Dems. Taxes are too high. I know lots of folks who live a little closer to the state line than I do and they do their shopping in MO because the sales tax is substantially lower.

At least Nelson got something for the people of NE as his bribe, even if the courts will throw it out for violating the constitution. Apparently Blanche only got something for Blanche in her deal. Another reason to vote her out.

Big Mike is right. Blanche's problems are Blanche's alone. Her counterpart in the Senate, Mr. Pryor, still has very high approval ratings despite being a Democrat. The Democratic governor of the state has very high approval ratings according to this poll. It's not a party issue. It's that Blanche stinks as a senator and a candidate. She really is lousy. There will be no love lost on the left side of the aisle when she loses, but it would have been nice to have a better candidate instead. Ditto in Nevada.

As for Nelson's "deal", if that this is unconstitutional, then pretty much every spending bill every passed is unconstitutional as well.

And sales taxes are inherently regressive... But, it seems almost impossible to tax the people who actually have money nowadays. The poor people line up at the million dollar mansions to defend the billionaires who could care less about the rabble at the gates. It's an amazing phenomenon, really,

IMO, many of you are missing hte point of all this. There is a fundamental trend starting in the country, mostly in red states. There are several conservative states wich consistantly vote for Dems. Those Dems run as fiscal conservatives. Kind of like your JFK democrat...very conservative fiscal democrats, low taxes, small g'ment, etc.

But HCR has uncovered the lie. Then combined with other very liberal items like the stimulus, etc....these so called conservative democrats are nothing more than liberal democrats.

There is going to be a purge in red states to get rid of these democrats who say one thing and do the total oppositte. Lincoln and Dorgan are just the first step. Dorgan retired because he knew he was exposed and he would have lost. Lincoln will lose. I'll go on record right now saying Bayh is going to be upset and lose in November.

You cannot claim to represent conservative values and expect conservative voters to vote you back into office when all you do is go along with every out of control big spending, big g'ment idea coming from Obama. 2010 - 2014 is going to see a major shift from liars who lcaim they are conservative to actual conservatives.

Look at all the states which have a majoirty population that is conservative. AK, MT, ND, SD, LA, AR, MO, NE, etc. The Dems holding senate seats in those states ran as fiscal conservatives....but vote in total contradiction to that claim.

'If" the GOP is competent enough to run REAL conservatives against Dems in these states, then there will be a major shift in the Senate....a long lasting one. This Congress and this president are racking up record amount sof debt, eroding freedom faster than many thought possible and are spitting in the face of hard working americans. The people will stand up and say enough is enough and they will vote for people who actually represent there values.

Dorgan, baucus, Lincoln, Bayh, webb, tester, Begich, etc, etc, etc.......are all liars for claiming to be fiscal conservatives when they ran for office. HCR has served to expose each and every one of them. Nelson too in NE is finished in 2012. He will lose.

You cannot punch your voters i nthe face with one hand and then ask for there vote in the other.

How are they "lying"? The CBO estimates that HCR will reduce the deficit by $2 TRILLION. How many fiscal conservatives worried about the cost of the Iraqi war?

Field Marshal:
Really... i mean the last 30 years, even counting 2008, was the best financial expansion for the United States and for the world. More people were lifted out of poverty in the last 30 years than in all years prior combined. To say the Reagonimcs was a failure is not only naive, its ignorant.

how do u prove that reaganomics is responsible for the prosperity of the last 30 years? After all clinton significantly reversed reaganomics .

How did Clinton do that? All he did was to increase one tax bracket two percentage points. Most of the rest of Reaganomics stayed intact.

Reaganomics greatly increased the amount of money spent on research and development in this country and around the world. The excess capital was unlocked by the government and spent on new endeavors throughout the globe. Couple that with the opening of many new markets around the world and you had an economic bonanza.

Before that, you had a huge amount of capital being stored offshore because of the ridiculously high top rate that existed. Once lowered, it unlocked that capital to be put to use. In addition, the lower top rate also made creating a small business much easier (because most pay the top rate of personal income tax) which led to a large amount of new business and new jobs.

The recession of 2009 was to be expected. recessions are normal and healthy. However it was made much more severe because of to much g'ment invovlement, to much federal spending (debt) and public and private sector corruption. We have an entire congress full of crooks who are only out for personal gain....combined with some top wall street crooks,they did a lot of damage.

Lack of regulation stillow. We allowed Mortgages to be bundled with your grandma's savings account because of lack of regulation. We allowed any ex-con to be a mortage broker, ect. ect. Running a war budget (or lack thereof) and giving out money we don't have to businesses in the form of tax cuts. Old Regan ideas that really don't apply to this day and age.

To Field Marshal:

You have no way of establishing that reagan's supply-side policies lead to the 30 year economic expansion. Correlation is NOT synonymous with causation. The top marginal tax rate was between 70% and 90% in the '50s and '60s and yet economic growth was more robust in those decades than it has been in the post reagan years.

Also if you are right that Clinton didn't do much damage to reaganomics, why were conservatives so distressed by his '93 budget? They must have been nervous about something. Clinton increased the top rate to 39%. It was 28% at the end of the reagan years. Despite the significant tax increases on income, the economy boomed.

X - to much regulation.....we allowed g'ment to get into the lending business and set new standards and create g'ment entities to buy bundles securities.....also g'ment putting pressure on banks to lend to borrowers who ar enot qualified....to much g'ment X, not to little.

Williame123

In 94 Clinton became a huge fan of small g'ment....as was Reagan. Clinton could not spend a dime without getting it approved by a conservative congress. Clinton's economy was almost entirely driven by the tech boom which was the result of massive private infusions of investment capital which was possible due to Reagan's tax cuts.

Econ 101 - cut taxes and people spend that money....wheather it be investing it or purchasing the new darth vader cookie jar.

Stillow its called the Glass-Steagall Act. It was repealed in 1999. Too little regulation for bundled securities started here.

Econ 201 - cut taxes and people spend that money in other countries in a globalized economy. Death of Reganomics. Death of the tax cut multiplier effect from businesses.

X - all tha tis happening is the circle is continuing. To much g'ment will lead to smaller g'ment demands by ht epeople. To little will lead to more....and the circle keeps going round and round.

To much g'ment...no good!

That makes no sense.

To much parker lewis today?

FDR started a major expansion of g'ment which claimxed in the 1970's....Reagan came in at the demand of people running on smaller g'ment, now obama is in....back and forth....

Stillow

If we follow your argument, then Clinton's tax increases should have discouraged investment but it didn't, why? Also, why was economic growth more robust after Clinton's tax increases than Bush's tax cuts?

Also, the biggest growth in gov since LBJ was under Nixon, Reagan and Bush 43. Talk of "small gov" by Clinton was nothing more than political posturing.

Instead of focussing on "econ 101," read about monetary policy and how it interacts with fiscal policy to affect the economy.

FL&P,
You cannot really connect the fact that Arkansas is a poor state with the fact that it trends republican in presidential elections. In fact, the two richest metros of the state are predominantly republican. Meanwhile the poorest metro is overwhelmingly democratic.
Also as to the life expectancy, all rural states are going to have a lower rate for a number of reasons. Many accidental deaths are not related to HC at all. Once again, it appears that you are the one confusing cause and effect.