Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

AR: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 3/1)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
3/1/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Arkansas

2010 Senate (trends)
43% Hendren, 38% Lincoln (chart)
43% Coleman, 41% Lincoln (chart)
45% Baker, 40% Lincoln (chart)
45% Holt, 38% Lincoln
48% Boozman, 39% Lincoln
42% Hendren, 35% Halter
44% Baker, 37% Halter
38% Coleman, 35% Halter
42% Holt, 38% Halter
52% Boozman, 33% Halter

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

All I can say is I feel like this state has gone backwards. It is sad that poorer people and uninsured people aren't standing up more to these politicians. After Clinton left, and Wallmart's greed, gained influence I think AR regressed backwards instead of forwards. I can't change how these people think, but I do think it is pathetic. It costs such little money for big conservative groups to run anti-reform ads in states like AR where costs of running ads are cheap.

Don't get me wrong though, I am under the influence of Wallmart. Why spend more money in other places that cost a 1/3 more. Of course they have cheap labor and sweat shops but that has sort of become the status quo in 21st century society.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

What matters for now, pollster is how does Halter poll against Lincoln?

Halter needs to win the Democratic primary and use populism and getting soft campaign money as the cornerstone of his campaign. In my opinion Lincoln is as guilty of being an agent of big corporations as many Republicans are.

If Halter loses in the general, that is okay. Democrats need more people who will set the stage for the future and to bring back honesty in government.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Yes, i would like to see the primary polls since the general election polling seems to be meaningless. The real election is between the republican candidates in the primary. The Dems are toast in this state.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

The AFL CIO is throwing money at Halter. I am not sure if he should get too involved with them. Soft contributions are better.I heard that only 1 percent of people in Arkansas belong to Unions? In Michigan or Indiana this could work but not AR.

It is a sign of the times though that the workers have been thrown to the wolves while factories close, and these workers join the service sector where they don't have unions.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think Blanche Lincoln made this mistake of really moving to the right after Obama became president and the worst team player I can remember from the Democrats. She was a blue dog previously, but I think she is the true example of selling her soul for a mess of pottage. Democrats who are bought by the wealthy special interests, they lose in the end. Give me a good honest Republican like Richard Lugar, Voinavich in Ohio or Judd Gregg than I would someone like Lincoln, Lieberman and Nelson.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Its amazing to me that union workers do not revolt against their union enslavers. Unions are outdated and completely unnecessary in todays times.

____________________

Williame123:

Lincoln is gone but Democrats are far from done in Arkansas. The last I checked they have a super popular Democratic governor and Mark Pryor is still a popular Senator.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I hope so. I don't think the right wing wing nuts are going to do a heck of a lot in AR or anywhere.

____________________

Bigmike:

At least according to this poll, and I believe I have seen others with similar numbers, Lincoln has better numbers vs any of the GOP candidates than Halter does. But in a Dem primary I will go out on a limb and guess it is a very close race. Halter is more liberal than Lincoln. Probably helps in the primary but hurts in the general election.

Frankly I am surprised that Halter is running for Senate now. Even tho I am sure I disagree with everything he believes in and don't even want to share air with the guy, he has the makings of a very successful politician. My own opinion is that he is jumping too big too soon. Especially in a year when the Dems don't stand much of a chance in AR. All he is going to get, if he wins the primary, is an L next to his name. For a lot of politicians, that is the kiss of death. I suppose it is not as much a mark against him if he loses the primary to an incumbent Senator. But to lose a statewide election to someone who has never won a statewide election will be hard to overcome in the future.

He also has the problem, expecially this year, that he has never had a real job. I think people are tired of career politicians who have no idea about the problems real people face every day.

Get used to saying "Senator Boozman."

____________________

LordMike:

"Its amazing to me that union workers do not revolt against their union enslavers. Unions are outdated and completely unnecessary in todays times."

Enslavers? Please! Workers are no more "enslaved" by a union than by any corporation they work for. As for being outdated, the real earnings of the middle class has gone down significantly in the past 30 years... it's no coincidence that union membership has dropped in the same time period thanks to massive union busting aided by republicans in the federal government.

Hardly an anachronism, American workers need unions now more than ever!

I've never understood the hated people have towards unions. I understand the resentment over union worker's better pay, etc., but that should only inspire workers to organize, not drage everyone else down with them.

____________________

LordMike:

BigMike,

You assume that he will lose. The MA Democrats assumed that Scott Brown would lose, too. Good. I'm glad that the goopers are getting complacent.

Don't underestimate this guy. He's a true outsider. The AR Democrats hate him. The DC Democrats hate him. He's as anti-establishment and anti-washington as they come.

He has a great shot at winning the primary, and a better than expected shot at winning the general election.

____________________

Field Marshal:

LM,

They are enslaved. They are perpetually taught by their union leaders to hate their employer. They have a completely antagonistic relationship with the very entity and management that provides them with a paycheck and a job. Why would you do that?

If you look at the line workers at GM, Ford or Chrysler plants in MI or OH you see them wearing hats and shirts, not with their company logo, but with their union logo. If you owned a business, would you want your trusted employees wearing the logo for some group whose very mission is to extract as much from you as possible and to instill a hostile work environment in your plant?

However, we can thank the unions for one thing. They have helped to outsource more of the low-end manufacturing overseas saving the consumer millions in lower cost products in addition to increasing productivity exponentially in this country to use less labor. In fact, last year, a recession year, we produced more in manufacturing than in any other year and we did it with less labor thanks to productivity. Unions will continue to drive work overseas and towards more automation thanks to their greed and hostility.

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

wow really fm most of the problems with the economy over the last 30 years are due to the loss of jobs in the manufacturing area. People that used to earn maybe 13-14/ hr are now working at walmart for minimum wage. You throw in all of the losses of jobs in the construction area which I think it will be years that it will ever recover. You can't employ a nation of 260 million ( 2010 census estimate) and over 130 million in the workforce (estimate) without having have some of them employed in the manufacturing area. if the jobs don't come back, we will never recover from this recession. Greed caused these companies to ship jobs overseas. Well it's coming back to haunt these comapanies because Americans don't have the jobs or as high paying jobs as they did to buy any of their products.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Wow, Chris... you hit the dem talking point to a T. Greed caused them to ship jobs overseas or the need to turn a profit? There is a big difference. If the American company cannot compete with a foreign one because of labor costs, isn't it better that the factory jobs move overseas rather than the entire company fold?

People need to grow up and learn economics. Democrats said the same thing at the turn of the century with manufacturing jobs; that they would put the farms out of business. Well, fact is that we produced more food last year than in any other year. In addition, last year we produced more manufactured goods than in any other year. We just did it with far fewer people because of technology.

Those jobs aren't coming back because they are outdated. Why can't we employ this country without any manufacturing jobs? First off, there will always be manufacturing jobs. However, because of automation and productivity gains, less jobs will be needed to make a widget. Should we bar companies from investing new operations and go back to the assembly line line in the 1920's? Would that be very "progressive"?

The fact is that the unions helped shipped these outdated jobs overseas because of free trade. Of course, we could build a wall and prevent foreign goods from entering this country in the name of preserving low end jobs. Of course, foreign countries will then refuse to buy our goods and we would lose millions of higher paying jobs. But as long as we protect those crappy $13/hr jobs, this country will prosper! Of course, we will be in the worst depression we have ever seen but we will prosper, we will prosper.

Economics is not many people around here's strong suit, let me tell you.

____________________

Wong:

FM,

Your understanding of economics is no more enlightened than your understanding of history.

Were it not for organized labor and unions, corporations would still have children crawling into coal seams to pick out their profits while paying them subsistence wages. There would be no forty hour work week, no weekends, no social security, no minimum wage and most importantly, no middle class in America.

The very same middle class which saw it's largest expansion when unions were the strongest, in the 50's and 60's.

Secondly, all the other industrialized nation in the world practice domestic industry and worker protectionism to a much greater degree than we do because their democratic institutions are more sensative to their citizens needs than ours. Consequently, their respective standards of living are surpassing ours. Most have stronger unions, universal health care, work less hours, have greater access to better educational systems(usually government run) and still they manage to have less national debt than we do, as a general rule.

Of course, you guys rabid right tend to use anectodal evidence, rather than statistical to refute these facts, or you ignore them. A lesson from the Karl Rove handbook of misinformation.

Certainly not a technique one would expect from a "master of economics" if such a thing exists.

Your myopic and ideologically simplistic vision of the world would put us is right back in the last decades of the ninteenth century, when child labor was common, people worked 7 days a week twelve hours a day for subsistence wages, union organizers were killed by corporatists with impugnity and the economy was rocked by recession after depression and recession because the middle class was too small to consume the capacities of industrial outputs.

So when it comes to economic enlightenment, I gotta say, with all due respect, you need to retake an entry level macro course. Of course, you might have to take your blinders off to get a passing grade.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Wong,

Don't know where you get your info but it is completely incorrect.

1) Yes, unions served a purpose 100 years ago in increasing the standard working conditions. That purpose has been extinct for over 50 years with OSHA. I have no objection to that.

However, today their only purpose is to enrich the union at the expense of the workers. What they do is allow less people to be employed at higher wages. Thus, the person in the union job may get paid more for his menial job, there is then someone out of a job because of that.

Its funny that you say that my warped thinking would put us back in the nineteenth century when its your (and liberal) thinking that is doing EXACTLY that. I said previously, it was the Dems who were against the mfg base expanding because it would hurt our farms. Well, we know that wasnt true. And we know its also not true that our nation doesn't produce anything. FACTS are that we produced more mfg goods last year than in any other year. How does your misguided ideological bent interpret that?

The expansion of the middle class in the 50's and 60's was due to the lack of any serious competitor (germany and japan and much of the world were in ruins from WWII). In addition, we were already moving away from a manufacturing based economy to a service one by the late 1940's.

2) Yes, western europe practices much more domestic protectionism than we do. Thus, the costs of their goods are MUCH higher than ours and their standards of livings by just about every measure are much LOWER than ours. In addition, their education systems may be better on the parochial level but we have significantly better higher educational institutions.

They also tend to have much higher structural unemployment than we do and also are on a trajectory for unsustainable public debt level, much more than the US (other than Germany and Switzerland).

3)I would study economics like i did and learn the truth instead of relying on classic misinformation put out there by the mainstream media.

My econ professor was the typical liberal. He agreed with everything the Dems did except when it came to economics. He thought they were way off base there. Similarly, my former doctor agreed with everything the Dems spouted except for on health care. It seems to me that people agree with Dems only in things they know little about. Wong, you fit that mold perfectly!

So before you spout the "go back to macro class" childish banter, you should really study the subject yourself, firsthand instead of relying on information that you hand picked from ideologues with the same warped thinking as yourself.

____________________

Field Marshal:

P.S. You obviously haven't spent anytime in Europe if you think they live better than we do. I will admit they work less hours but they live, on average, in 950 sq ft less living space than we do and can afford significantly less consumer goods, something Americans seem to cherish for good or bad.

____________________

Thaddeus:

Economics and truth in the same sentence, is the same as using Greenspan and brilliant. The only fact about economics is that it's all theory. The global economy is too large and complex to even fully comprehend, let alone boil down into some simplistic Lower taxes = Utopian Economy! I know FM your a master econ person, but please forgive me if I trust someone like El-Arian from PIMCO who manages a Trillion dollars in assets, who recalled in a recent interview that before the "bailout" which is now in vogue to hate, he called his wife to tell her to go to the bank and take cash out, and when asked why, he told her he didn't know if any of them we're going to open the next day.

And I suppose you're masters in econ also tells you that letting the "failed" states of California and NY go under would actually boost the GDP of the US?

____________________

Field Marshal:

"And I suppose you're masters in econ also tells you that letting the "failed" states of California and NY go under would actually boost the GDP of the US?"

Nope, but like Greece, its the only way they will learn. Its called Moral Hazard. Same for the banks.

And i never posted that lower taxes would equal utopian economy. But it would be the same if i said libs believe that 100% tax rate = utopian economy.

And i met El-Erian twice before. Very nice person. While the not knowing about the cash at the bank might have been a bit of a stretch, there may in fact have been some runs on some banks if the economy collapsed completely.

____________________

MightmakesrightformerlyknownasTim:

The looney left cracks me up. They touted their 60 senators and big majority in the house as a sea change but totally ignore the fact that at least 15 senators are moderates. Then you get mad when they act and vote like "well moderates.". The only way Lincoln, Warner, Baucus, Dorgan, Ben Nelson, Webb, Pryor, Evan B., Conrad, etc can get elected is to present themselves as moderates or mod. Conservatives. And lefties get angry when these senators won't support far left policies. Are any of you liberals delusional enough to think Russ Fiengold gets elected in Arkansas or Virginia or South Dakota, "child please." looney lefties like to talk about a "big tent" but their idea is to have politicians in the tent that range from Bernie Sanders (crazy crazy left) to Barney Frank (just plain crazy left). Lol if you just want liberals and looney liberals in the senate, then be satisfied with a max of 40, otherwise be patient as the Republicans purge mod. Democrats from the senatethis yr and especially in 2012. (when Dems have to defend 23 seats in the senate and Republicans only have to defend an easy 10 seats. Can uou say 55 seats for the Republicans after Nov 2012)

____________________

Wong:

Fm

In my career, I have both negotiated for unions as a rep and with unions as a business owner. The blanket assertion that unions exist only to enrich themselves is a false narrative that you corporatists throw around to enrich yourselves at the expense of workers and their families. But then, blanket false assertions are the currency of the GOP.

In Europe the costs of goods are higher, as well as much of Asia, but those societies understand that is the price they pay to avoid an Americanized Wal-Mart economy,where without unions, workers are quickly becoming the footstools of Corporate bosses.

In fact, almost all students in industrialized nations score higher than their American counterparts on similar achievement tests, and those systems are primarily government run.

OF course, we produced more manufactured goods last year than any other year. The fact that unions have been weakened means that net manufacturing wages have declined during the same period. Your corporate masters get richer and the American middle class continues to decline.

You can't take Switzerland and Germany out of the equation and for debt and expect it to mean anything. You are, not surprisingly, cherrypicking data to correspond to your preconcieved ideology.

The 950 square foot argument fails to take into account the mansions in gated communities in America that are occupied by one or two people and these stats skew the data. I have spent a lot of time in Europe, particularly France, and I can tell you they live happier, fuller lives than their American counterparts. Through a mutually beneficial partnership with government and industry, they have managed to reduce imported carbon fuels to almost nothing through the use of nuclear power. They enjoy an affordable, modern high speed rail and transport system and a health care system that is really unbelievably good. Most importantly, they believe, as a societal prerogative, in spending time with their families, and that makes all the difference.

The truth is that if you had spent any time there, you would know this, and you may have. Perhaps your ideological blindness would never allow you to admit the truth.

But your economic arguments are quaint and overly simplistic. You conveniently leave out oligopoly and monopoly economic theory in your stuccato, repetitive arguments. Your notion of the multiplier effect of publicly mandated funds would not survive even the most cursory analysis. and is voodoo economics at it's worst.

As for the Democrats being against industrialization, that was true to an extent. But you conveniently fail to mention that was the same Democratic party that was pro-slavery and pro Jim Crow. That party has been gone a long time.

Finally, I believe if you had the ideological capacity to view the gilded age objectively, what you would see is a small government, no unions, no regulations corporatist state in action. It was a dismal period of time in American history and it is the very place your ideology would return us. How long do you think OSHA would last in that corporatist state, or child labor laws, or any of the human safety nets this society has struggled long and hard to attain. The very same system you would have us return to would not hesitate to engage your services 12 hours a day seven days a week, and pay subsistence wages for just a fraction of a percentage increase in profit.

Master of economics? MS or MA?

____________________

Field Marshal:

"The truth is that if you had spent any time there, you would know this, and you may have. Perhaps your ideological blindness would never allow you to admit the truth."

As both of my parents were born there and have a house there and i spent every summer of my childhood there, i know about Europe.

"In Europe the costs of goods are higher, as well as much of Asia, but those societies understand that is the price they pay to avoid an Americanized Wal-Mart economy,where without unions, workers are quickly becoming the footstools of Corporate bosses."

No idea what this could possibly mean. There is nothing keeping a person in the US at their job. They are free to move to a better paying job. Its called the free market system.

"I have spent a lot of time in Europe, particularly France, and I can tell you they live happier, fuller lives than their American counterparts. "

Not going to argue with you there but that has nothing to do with economics or standard of living but culture.

"You can't take Switzerland and Germany out of the equation and for debt and expect it to mean anything. You are, not surprisingly, cherrypicking data to correspond to your preconcieved ideology."

I'm not cherrypicking if i included them into my post. There are 15 countries in the European Union with 2 that are in good shape. Hence, my point.

"They enjoy an affordable, modern high speed rail and transport system and a health care system that is really unbelievably good. Most importantly, they believe, as a societal prerogative, in spending time with their families, and that makes all the difference."

Have you rode their rail system? It is ridiculously expensive. I took the TGV from paris to Nice for a cheap cheap price of $450. Its cheaper to fly on Southwest airlines in this country than the rails in France. Secondly, their health care, while generally good, is poor for serious issues.

"Finally, I believe if you had the ideological capacity to view the gilded age objectively, what you would see is a small government, no unions, no regulations corporatist state in action."

Uh, only 9% of the workforce in this country are covered by unions and they seem to be doing just fine, all things considered. Actually, it seems as those IN the unions are having the biggest issues right now. Coincidence??

You are assuming a lot in YOUR simplistic assertions that people would go to working 12 hours a day for minimum wage. In fact, our hours worked in this country has been in decline since 1990. In addition, our incomes including benefits continue to rise faster than inflation. But more importantly, our income mobility continues to increase. The treasury dept recently noted that people in the bottom decile of wage earners were on average, two deciles above it 10 years later. I GUARANTEE you that is not the case anywhere else in the developed world. America continues to be a place of opportunity not handouts as much as the democratic party has tried to change that.

MA.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Uh, only 9% of the workforce in this country are covered by unions and they seem to be doing just fine, all things considered.

I should say only 9% are in unions while 91% are not. So your assertion that everybody will be working in terrible conditions for $1 day for 12 hours a day 7 days a week simply is patently false.

You take the simplistic view that if everyone was paid a "working wage" (which seems to be the liberal talking point nowadays) everything would be just peachy! People who know about economics know that thinking like this is not only dangerous but self defeating.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR