Big primary challenge news: Blanche Lincoln, John Barrow and… Donna Edwards?

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 15:07


Today brings big news about primary challenges to incumbent Democrats in at least three campaigns:

  1. Arkansas Senate, Blanche Lincoln. A new Daily Kos / Research 2000 poll shows incumbent Conservadem Blanche Lincoln is highly vulnerable to a primary challenge from Lt. Governor Bill Halter.  Lincoln leads Halter, 42%-26%, even though Halter has not even entered the campaign (yet) and has a name ID 28% lower than Lincoln.  That makes this a very winnable campaign for Halter.

    Now, Halter is not a hardcore left-winger.  As such, even if he enters the campaign, I imagine that many in the netroots won't care to support him.  However, I think that would be a real mistake.  If we are ever going to get power, we have to demonstrate real consequences for Democrats who lie to us.  If Halter runs, it would be an excellent opportunity to deliver that payback.

    Blanche Lincoln has lied to Democrats both about supporting card-check and about the public option.  She voted for EFCA with card-check in 2007, and flipped on in 2009 when it had a chance to pass (which, I might add, Arlen Specter also lied to us about).  Further, she signed a document supporting the public option earlier in the year, and indicating that she was fine with a public option on her website.  She has since reversed her position, putting passage of a public option in real jeopardy.

    If we take a pass on delivering payback to Lincoln over her lies because Halter isn't progressive enough, then really no one will give a shit what we think.  However, if we deliver that payback, it puts everyone on notice.  We have to produce consequence when someone stabs us in the back.

  2. Maryland 4th, Donna Edwards. Speaking of demonstrating consequences, Rahm Emanuel knows how to do that.  Back in June, Representative Lynn Woolsey claimed that the White House threatened freshman Democrats who voted against Afghanistan war funding.  Given his demeanor and reputation, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Emanuel was likely doing the threatening.

    Donna Edwards was one of the freshman who ended up voting against Afghan war funding.  And now, she has a primary challenger from her right:

    Prince George's County State's Attorney Glenn F. Ivey said Wednesday that he has decided not to run for county executive and is forming an exploratory committee to look at challenging Rep. Donna F. Edwards in the Democratic primary next year.(...)

    "They represent different wings of the party. Edwards is much more liberal, and Ivey is much more moderate," Herrnson said.

    Rumors are that Emanuel is encouraging this challenge.  Certainly, rumors are far from proof, but it wouldn't be the first time the Emanuel has stepped into a primary, or threatened a progressive.

  3. Georgia 12th, John Barrow.  State Senator Regina Thomas is once again challenging Blue Dog John Barrow in this slightly lean-Democratic district.  Thomas is looking to make an issue out of Barrow voting for the Stupak amendment, but against the health care reform package.  Barrow laughably claims that, despite those votes, he is actually still pro-Obama, pro-choice, and pro-health care reform:

    "Why won't he level with the people?" she asked. "The people in the 12th District deserve better."

    Barrow spokeswoman Jane Brodsky rejected Thomas' contentions.

    "(He) didn't vote against President Obama's health care plan," Brodsky said. "He voted against (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi's. ..

    "Just because he doesn't agree with a particular legislative package doesn't mean he's opposed to reform. He believes we need all the reform we can get, but he's ... for solutions that are actually going to work."

    She said he voted for the abortion measure because it applies only to public funds.

    "Private plans can still cover elective abortions," she said, "and women can still use their own money to buy such coverage if they choose to do so."

    The district is 45% African-American, and the primary electorate is nearly 75% African-American.  Barrow won the primary in 2008 due to a combination of Obama cutting an ad for him (the Obama ad was Barrow's entire campaign), and Thomas running a lackluster campaign.

    Much will depend on whether Obama is willing to cut an ad for Barrow again.  If he is not, then Thomas could unseat Barrow.

Primaries remain one of the few leverage points we have with Congress.  I say we lean on the lever as often, and as hard, as possible.
Chris Bowers :: Big primary challenge news: Blanche Lincoln, John Barrow and… Donna Edwards?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
ha ha ha (4.00 / 2)
Challenge Edwards. That's a good one. Let's see, how Democratic is Maryland-4?

Obama 85
McCain 14

Ha ha ha. Yeah, she's in trouble.


Ivey is a Serious Challanger to Donna Edwards (4.00 / 6)
First, I'm a huge Donna Edwards supporter and did my part in her campaign (I live near but outside her district).  

Her possible challanger, States Attorney Glenn Ivey os a proven local vote getter and an ambitious, well-liked politician who was almost elected Prince Georges County Executive -- he will be a better candidate than Al Wynn.  I think Donna can beat him but he should not be underestimated.  Of course, both are Democrats.  Republicans are barely a factor in MD-4.  The Democratic primary is the election.   There is no advantage in underestimating the opposition.  Donna Edwards will need our help to prevail over Glenn Ivey.


[ Parent ]
how can he win? (0.00 / 0)
You know the terrain there. Has she made voters unhappy there?

Because as I see it:

1. You almost never see a Democratic primary in a district overwhelmingly Democratic where a candidate positions themselves to the right of the incumbent and somehow wins. "She's too liberal. I'm moderate. Vote for me!" How's that going to work in a primary?

2. She has the power of incumbency.

3. She has base support, netwroots enhtusiasm. I guess they could try to beat her from the top down. Is Obama going to campaign for Ivey?

I don't see it.


[ Parent ]
Take it Seriously but Edwards is the Favorite (4.00 / 2)
I think Donna Edwards is the favorite over Ivey but his base as States Attorney is the major leagues in PG County.  The Washington Post will be a factor, hopefully for Donna.  Public employee unions are huge in MD-4.  Also, there are ways that senior White House officials can make thier influence felt short of actual Presidential campaigning.  All I'm saying is, take this seriously.  

[ Parent ]
maybe that's all they (Rahm) want is for her take it seriously (0.00 / 0)
Here's a quote from the post story:

"At this point, we're focusing on the run for Congress," Ivey said, adding that his decision to challenge Edwards (D-Md.) is not final.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

What I hear in that is a bluff. As is "Hey Edwards, think twice before crossing us on the next vote because look, you've got a credible challenger."

I still say bring it on. I hope Edwards doesn't take it too seriously and start making more cowardly votes.


[ Parent ]
Rahm has maqde a stand against cahllenging incumbents... (0.00 / 0)
...time and again. I think he should be called to task if he now changes this position just because a Dem is too progressive for his horribly centrist taste!

Btw, is Ivey aware this is only a bluff? Why should be play along in such a kabuki theatre, that wouldn't be helpful for him?


[ Parent ]
why not help Rahm? (0.00 / 0)
it's probably good for some kind of administration job for him or a judicial appointment.

[ Parent ]
There are a lot of factors (0.00 / 0)
For example, one thing that gets overlooked is that incumbents are more vulnerable to primary challenges if they have a bad reputation for constituent services.  That's something that helped sink Wynn.  I believe it's part of why Dennis Kucinich barely got more than 50% in his last primary.  I don't know if Edwards has been in there long enough for a reputation of good or bad to take hold on that front.

Obama's base, I'd argue, is non-whites.  If Edwards is seen as positioning herself as too critical of Obama from the left, will she face a backlash from non-white voters who like both Obama and Edwards, but like Obama more?

Without looking deeply into it, Donna Edwards seems like she should win so long as she doesn't make too many mistakes, but mistakes do happen.  This could either be potentially very interesting or really, really boring.  I lean towards boring, but the spectator in me wants to see it get interesting.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Since you live from around there (0.00 / 0)
If Al Wynn had declined to run for re-election and 2008 had featured a primary race between Edwards and Glenn Ivey, would you have felt torn?  Would others?

Is he the kind of politician who wouldn't run if he didn't have a legitimate chance of winning (or if he had promises of an administration job as a fallback or clearing the field for him to run for something like state attorney general or lieutenant governor if those jobs open up and if he fails in his primary challenge)?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Glenn Ivey should be taken seriously (0.00 / 0)
I haven't been following politics much post-2008, but I agree entirely with Howard Park upthread.  Glenn Ivey should be taken seriously.  He might take a hit in the civil liberties community for deciding not to pursue the Ronnie White prison murder case, but probably not among conservative PG County African-American Democrats, who have been complaining about crime for many years.  Also - and I'm not sure how much of a factor this would be - Glenn Ivey was a college and law school classmate of Michelle Obama (Princeton and Harvard, respectively), so ties to the White House go beyond politics alone.

I live in PG County and Donna Edward's district, and am an enthusiastic supporter of hers.  Other than her pro-bankster vote on the first bank bailout bill* (under the Bush Admin.), she's taken a number of courageous votes that won't win her any friends among well known powerful lobbies.  For example, she went with the minority in the shameful vote to condemn the Goldstone Report, as noted in the Howie Klein post Chris Bowers linked.

I hope Howard Park's optimism is borne out by future developments, if Ivins jumps into the race.  It would certainly be a serious challenge to Edwards.

*a somewhat understandable if regrettable thing, especially for a rookie rep., given the steamrolling the bankster lobbyists subjected Congress to, including via panicked middle-class constituents who were subjected to hysterical media end-of-the-world predictions.  Even the veteran Congressman Elijah Cummings in MD-7 got steamrolled into voting for the stinking thing.

Keep your mind free and clear, Donna Edwards, and don't sell your soul.


[ Parent ]
MoneyBomb? (4.00 / 3)
What does Donna Edwards' campaign coffers look like.  A solid money-bomb from us right now, might discourage a follow through on the primary threat.

In other words a little money now, might save us a bunch later.

Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget


We did this for Darcy Burner to scare off her primary challenger Rodney Tom. (4.00 / 3)
And it worked.  

I assume something similar is in the works already?  There's no reason it shouldn't be.

It would be nice to get MoveOn in the game too.  Then we could really land a punch to this new guy.


[ Parent ]
Good luck (0.00 / 0)
Isn't MoveOn pretty deep in the Veal Pen?

[ Parent ]
The moneybomb is a good idea (0.00 / 0)
An additional option would be to try to mobilize progressives from her district and surrounding areas to do some more volunteer, boots to the ground work.  That's the sort of resource that, if we can develop it, cannot be matched by the Rahm wing of the party, and its had great success in the places where it has been used.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter if Halter is a better Democrat or not. (4.00 / 8)
Club for Growth figured this out a long time ago.

If you have ten Senators who are inclined to fuck you over on key legislation, then destroying one of them for the offense is valuable irrespective of who claims the seat in the aftermath.  You can lose the seat outright, but if you teach the other nine senators to never fuck with you, you've gone from ten unreliable votes to nine reliable ones.  Unless you happen to sit right on a major legislative fault-line (51 votes, 60 votes) that's a great deal.

And if you can replace the destroyed senator with one who's not even worse than she is, so much the better.  Obviously, the best case is replacing her with a senator who is actively better, like the Wynn-Edwards contest, but that's not necessary.  If you get an ideologically equal senator, like say Sen Halter, but you've shown the whole caucus that you were able to destroy Sen Lincoln, then you've made great gains in the other senators' voting patterns, irrespective of how Sen Halter votes.

I'm all for it.  I've been online long enough to remember that Lincoln was the good Senator five years ago, and Pryor was the constant traitor.  I'm not personally eager to see Lincoln destroyed.  But she's fucking us over on the biggest legislation the Democratic Party has attempted in a generation, which means pretty much anything good she's ever done is worthless now.  This is the clutch; if you're against us now, there can be no forgiveness.

(And no, destroying a negotiated-rates, opt-out public option and then voting for health care reform cannot be painted over as just a different opinion.  Medicare+5 had a real argument against it, but negotiated opt-out does not.  She's not acting in good faith anymore.)  


Payback and supporting (0.00 / 0)
are two different things.   One can be done without the other.  

toolbox (0.00 / 0)
Primaries remain one of the few leverage points we have with Congress.  I say we lean on the lever as often, and as hard, as possible.

I see you're singing a different tune on primaries, Chris. That's not a criticism. I just notice you're a lot more into the primary thing than you were a few weeks ago.


YES, thank you! (4.00 / 2)
This is exactly what we need at Open Left: discussions on actual specific races where we can replace bad Democrats with better ones.

I don't know if Bill Halter will run; he hasn't given much indication that he intends to.  In general I value Senate primaries more than House ones, in large part because Senate seats only come up every six years whereas with House seats we can run primaries every two.  If he runs I really hope he wins along with Sestak in PA (and Tasini in NY? one can only hope).


does anyone know what kind of democrat is the david hoffman that's running in the illinois us senate election? (0.00 / 0)
he has an 'issues' section (0.00 / 0)
http://www.hoffmanforillinois....

I see some good things, some not so good, some empty rhetoric...


[ Parent ]
On health care, at least (4.00 / 1)
all three Democratic candidates support what's in the current bill and a public option.  Jackson throws in the word "robust" without clarification as to what that means; she also mentions Stupak where the other two don't.

Sadly, none of the three mention single-payer/Medicare for All.

Health care is usually a very good, if not the best, barometer to judge a candidate's liberalism and commitment to active government for ordinary people, and based solely off of what's on their health care web pages, while the three candidates are all decent, I don't think any of these three candidates are particularly liberal (i.e. they're not in the CPC/Dennis Kucinich/Bernie Sanders range of liberalism).

David Hoffman
Cheryle Robinson Jackson
Alexi Giannoulias


[ Parent ]
To add to that (0.00 / 0)
Roland Burris has cosponsored Bernie Sanders's single-payer amendment.  That means that, at least on this issue, Burris is an improvement over whoever succeeds him.

[ Parent ]
if roland burris could win the election (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't I don't think I'd have any problem with him (I haven't seen bad things so far, who else said he won't vote for a no-po bill? I wish we had a dozen such stands)

[ Parent ]
Halter is a great Democrat (0.00 / 0)
He's the most progressive major politician we have in Arkansas, and what's more he's proven incredibly effective.  He may not be Dennis Kucinich, but he's still great and I'm sure a vast majority of the netroots would be happy to support him over Lincoln.

For example, when was the last time you heard an Arkansas Democrat defend gay rights?  Much less frame it as the profamily position?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox