Those of you who've followed my work over a period of time know that I'm usually the one suggesting moderation and keeping everyone in the big tent, and, even in this most difficult year, I'm the one telling folks that sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote for the candidate that sucks less.
And even though the last thing I'd ever want is a Speaker Boehner or a Leader McConnell (or even worse yet, DeMint), the fact remains that there are two Democratic Senators I would actually vote against, even if the candidate that sucks more does win...and those two are Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln and Nebraska's Ben Nelson.
One of those two is up for re-election this year, and thanks to a particularly ridiculous vote by Senator Lincoln, we found ourselves in a bit of an email exchange, which is what we'll be talking about today.
Even as labor is being scolded by the White House for spending $10 million on the Arkansas Senate primary, it has gone relatively unnoticed that the primary could end up costing Wall Street one thousand times as much money (literally).
Goldman Sachs could lose up to 41 percent of its earnings if Congress approves tighter regulation of the derivatives market, according to an analysis by Bernstein Research. That's equivalent to wiping away $3.9 billion in Goldman's earnings this year if the stricter regulations were in effect for the entire 12 months, according to a subsequent analysis of the numbers by DealBook using Bernstein's 2010 earnings-per-share estimates.
Other major banks, including Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, would also withstand cuts of billions of dollars in their earnings if the derivatives rules currently being considered by the Senate are put in place.
Those estimates are only over the course of one year, too. Over the course of a decade, Lincoln's language could end up costing Wall Street over ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS (insert Dr. Evil laugh here). That would make this primary challenge one of the most successful attacks on corporate power in the United States ever conducted.
But those who believe the provision will be removed still think Democrats will find other ways to keep portions of it alive-possibly by tightening language in the Volcker rule in the bill, which places some restrictions on banks' proprietary trading.
"It is definitely going to be changed and in effect it is going to be dropped, but they will want to do it in a way that will preserve it as much as possible," said Joseph Engelhard, a senior vice president at Capital Alpha Partners LLC. "We are expecting Barney Frank to recommend changes to the Volcker rule language which would make the prohibition on proprietary trading more specific."
Even that will still cost banks a lot of profits--way more than $10 million.
Further, this entire effort to strengthen bank regulations could also end up saving the country a lot of money, in the form of avoiding, or significantly lessening the effects of, a future recession.
No, we didn't win in Arkansas last night. That is an undeniable fact. However, the $10 million could still prove to have a tremendous ROI, even apart from the real progressive power it built. If $10 million in arkansas ends up costing $100 billion in profits, and thus loosening their stranglehold over our democracy, then I say good deal.
First, let me just say that we lost, and there is no covering that up. Even though it was close, a win would have been almost 100% better than a loss.
Now, with that said
Anti-Wall Street messaging works: Blanche Lincoln produced strong language on the derivatives portion of the all Street reform bill. She went to the left of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate leadership in her language. Further, it ended up in the bill that passed the Senate because of her primary challenge, and then she proceeded to campaign on it:
[corrected: had the wrong video up overnight]
Even if the Chamber of Commerce went to bat for Lincoln, that is a strong, anti-Wall Street message.--and it is the message that voters heard Democrats should follow suit, keep Lincoln's language in the Wall Street reform bill, and run on it themselves. Honestly, it might be the only thing to save them in 2010, as it saved Lincoln.
Very few incumbents are challenged this hard: Primary challenges rarely come tthis close. For all the blather about the anti-incumbent mood, as Larry Sabato noted over Twitter:
So that's 4 incumbents down, 200 renominated. Um, how's that "anti-incumbent wave" going, my dear headline writers?
Incumbents almost never lose in primaries. Even the losses that have occurred this year all come with asteriks. Arlen Specter and Parker Griffith switched parties. Alan Mollohan had ethics problems. Bob Bennett faced a caucus, not a primary. A Halter win would have been the ultra-rare, straight-up defeat of a Senator largely because that Senator angered her base and progressive organizations. Those defeats happen less than once every two years. Getting challenged this hard is almost as rare.
Low union, netroots denisty: Arkansas is one of the weakest states for the labor and netroots organizations backing Halter. As Eddie Vale points out, Arkansas is 49th out of 50 in terms of union density. It probably isn't too much higher in terms of netroots density. If we can come close in this state, then Senators in almost every other state better take notice.
It is a tough night, but there are good reasons to be proud. We might get some good legislation from this campaign, primary challenges very rarely come this close, and it was this close despite Arkansas being a terrible state for labor and the netroots. Winning would have been a helluva a lot better, but that ain't nothing.
And, most importantly, we are going to keep running these primary challenges, no matter what, bad Dems don't get a break because of what happened here.
The media narrative around the Arkansas Democratic Senate primary is that labor and the netroots opposed Lincoln because she wasn't progressive enough. However, that is not exactly correct. Labor and netroots groups are largely piling on against Lincoln because she broke public promises on key issues that had previously earned her the support of various progressive groups. To put it more bluntly, she won the support of many groups by lying, and now it is payback time.
But the spotlight will shine brightest on Lincoln, who earned union scorn for opposing a public option in the healthcare bill and refusing to back card- check legislation championed by the labor movement.
The campaign dynamic present here is a simple left-right spectrum: Lincoln is being opposed because she is not sufficiently left-wing. This is actually a narrative that Lincoln is pushing in her own ads. In a recent TV spot, Lincoln says to the camera:
The labor unions are spending millions of dollars against me because I won't vote with them 100% of the time.
However, Lincoln did not simply oppose card check and a public option. She made public commitments of support for both policies, before flipping when it was crunch time.
On November 21st, 2009, Blanche Lincoln stood on the floor of the Senate and declared that she would filibuster any health reform bill that included a public option. However, earlier in the year she signed a document stating that she supported the public option. Further, even as she spoke, her Senate website said that she still supported a public option, she is still cool with the public option:
Health care reform must build upon what works and improve inefficiencies. Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality health insurance plans. Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals of a public plan.
In the Ozark Mountain town of Rogers, Ark., more than 250 business owners gathered for lunch at a construction company last month to focus on what they saw as a major threat -- a proposal in Congress to make it easier to form labor unions.
At each place setting, attendees found pre-stamped postcards and pre-written letters to be sent to Arkansas' U.S. senators, Democrats Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, who had supported the labor bill in the past. After lunch, the business owners were ushered to computers to send e-mail messages as well.
Five days later came the good news: Two Senate votes had been stripped from the pro-union bill. Lincoln said she would oppose it outright, while Pryor declared the current version "dead" and said he would look for compromises.
It isn't just the public option and card check, either. EMILY's List had also previously supported Blanche Lincoln, but did not do so in 2010 because Lincoln lied to them. From Ellen Malcolm, EMILY's List chair
In 1998, EMILY's List helped elect Lincoln to the U.S. Senate. We believed her when she told us that that, if and when the Senate took up right-wing Senator Rick Santorum's bill to ban what he called "partial birth" abortion, she would insist on a health exception that protects women.
Our members gave generously to her campaign, believing that she would steadfastly stand by the pledge she made to us to protect women's reproductive freedom.
She took our members' hard-earned money to get elected. Unfortunately, when the Santorum bill came up for a vote, Lincoln voted for it even though it provided no exception to protect women's health.(...)
Since she wasn't there for us, we won't be there for her.
Sure, there is an ideological element to this campaign. Sure, there is an anti-incumbent mood. Sure, it is unusual to get a primary challenger as strong as Bill Halter. However, to ignore Blanche Lincoln's repeated betrayals on key issues to progressive groups who had once supported her ignores a central dynamic of this campaign.
Blanche Lincoln brought this primary challenge on herself by going back on several important public commitments she had made in order to win organizational support for her previous campaigns. She simply would not be in this sort of primary trouble if she hadn't lied and if groups like EMILY's List and labor unions were still supported her.
Research 2000 has a new poll in Arkansas showing Bill Halter leading Blanche Lincoln, 49%-45%. This is still a very close campaign, given not only the margin but also the poor record of public opinion polling in primaries.
However, the trendline from Research 2000 suggests that Halter is still in a very good position to win on Tuesday. In the eight polls Research 2000 has conducted of the primary, Blanche Lincoln's share of the vote has remained static, while Halter has consistently gained:
Lincoln's support is almost entirely unchanged over the past six months. She has hovered in the mid-40s the entire time, with no upward movement whatsoever.
There are only six days left in the critical primary between corporate Democrat Blanche Lincoln and netroots challenger Bill Halter. Bill Halter has the momentum leading up to next Tuesday's vote. This race is a tremendous opportunity to deliver a knockout blow to corporate Democrats like Blanche Lincoln all across the country.
Yesterday, Bill Halter rolled out his closing ad from Arkansas retiree Pauline Wildman. Pauline depends upon social security for her livelihood. In the ad, she calls out Blanche's proposal to cut social security. True to her sellout ways, Blanche wants to cut taxes for millionaires, but isn't as concerned about preserving social security.
It's the final week before the runoff election between corporate Democrat Blanche Lincoln and netroots challenger Bill Halter - time for closing arguments. Bill Halter's campaign just came out with a powerful new ad that features the story of Arkansas resident Pauline Wildman fighting back against Blanche Lincoln's proposal to cut social security.
New polling shows that the June 8thh primaries could shake up the 2010 elections as much as Tuesday's primaries already did.
California Senate, Republican primary and general election Two new primary polls in California show former Representative Tom Campbell's lead over Carly Fiorina shrinking in the Republican Senate primary. M4 shows Campbell up 33%--28% (with 15% for Chuck DeVore), while PPIC shows Fiorina ahead 25%--23% (with DeVore at 16%). This puts the 15-day average at 30.3% for Campbell, 25.7% for Fiorina, and 15.3% for DeVore.
A Fionia win--or, for that matter, a shock DeVore win--would certainly be good news for incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer. In the general election, Boxer now leads Campbell by 3.5% (87% current win %), Fiorina by 8% (98% current win %), and Devore by 8.5% (again, 98% current win %). Given Boxer's 72% current win % in yesterday's Senate forecast update, this improve the overall Democratic seante position by 0.13 seats (adjusting for slight error I made in Connecticut-should have been 98% win % for Blumenthal, not 100%). Democrats are now forecast at 52.20 seats, their best total since Evan Bayh's retirement announcement.
California 36th Congressional district, Democratic primary Another interesting poll on a June 8th primary comes from the Marcy Winograd campaign. The poll, which was not released in full (not a good sign), shows incumbent Blue Dog Jane Harman at only 43% support. This conflicts significantly with an internal Harman poll released earlier in the week, showing her at 58%.
My takeways from these polls are that Harman is strongly favored in the campaign, but Winograd can score over 40%, improving on her 2010 performance. To win, she is going to need a huge improvement in name ID and favorables over the final three weeks, combined with very low Democratic turnout on June 8th. Given the relative lack of major statewide Democratic primaries in California compared to Republicans, this isn't impossible. But it is a huge longshot.
Nevada Senate, Republican primary Another big primary to watch on June 8th int eh Republican Senate primary in Nevada. In the wake of her Chickens for Checkups fiasco, one-time Republican frontrunner Sue Lowden has crashed in the polls. The 18% lead she enjoyed from late February through early April has been cut to only 5% by wingnut fave Sharron Angle. Harry Reid is competitive with Sharron Angle in the general election, trailing by only 5.5%. If Angle were to win the Republican primary, Reid might be able to hang onto his seat.
Arkansas Senate, Democratic primary runoff Finally, to toot our own horn for a bit, the first poll on the runoff for the Democratic nomination in Arkansas Senate was first released here on Open Left yesterday by Democracy for America. It showed Bill Halter leading incumbent Blanche Lincoln 48%--46%. With Lincoln receiving less than 45% of the vote in the primary on Tuesday, there its a good bet that a a wave of anti-incumbent incumbent sentiment will lead to her defeat on June 8th.
****
Overall, while perhaps not quite as exciting as the May 18th primaries, June 8th seems ready to keep the anti-incumbent, anti-establishment buzz going strong.
While David Brooks and David Broder will undoubtedly deliver stern lectures to the country tomorrow for its refusal to be all centrist, really there is no reason to sweat the national media narrative tonight at all.
We don't run primaries to win a few news cycles. We don't win them to persuade pundits, or get the same level of media play as the teabaggers. We run primaries to send a message to Democratic elected officials.
Tonight, for the first time ever, two incumbent Democratic Senators failed to win primaries in a single day. That has never happened before, and is greater than the number of incumbent Democratic Senators who lost primaries over the past decade combined. Further, both challengers had little to no establishment support (especially Sestak), and one was in a red state (Halter). Most importantly, both challengers took on the incumbents from the left.
The bottom line from all of this it that Democrats have to answer to the grassroots everywhere now.
That is the message tonight, and we were delivering it to Senate Democrats, not to the media. Both in the short term as fights Wall Street reform unfold, and in the longer term as the party reconsiders its modus operandi, it is a message we are going to keep delivering, over and over again, until they finally frakking hear it.
Primaries matter--that's damn right. Click on the banner below to check out Open Left's sponsor, Democracy for America, and join the ongoing fight to reform the Democratic Party.
It is raining today here in Philadelphia. Doubtful Specter will get the turnout he needs. The 15-day average is used in this election because of dramatic recent trends, and the high volume of polling on the campaign.
If no candidate reaches 50%, there will be a June 8th run-off. That's the goal today. On the Republican side, John Boozman could well reach the 50% threshold. He is polling at 46%, with 15% undecided.
While I don't feel quite as good about using the snarky blue-red coloring on this campaign, there it is anyway. On the Republican side, Rand Paul leads by 16.3%.
****
Polls in Kentucky start closing at 6 pm, and completely close at 7 pm. In Pennsylvania, polls close at 8 pm. In Arkansas, polls close at 8:30 pm. All times listed here are eastern.
Got any last minute predictions? The polls suggest Sestak, Critz, Lincoln (just over 50%, that is) and Mongiardo all win squeakers. However, primary polling and House polling really does not have a very good track record, so it's all up in the air.
(Note: While Lincoln leads, if neither no candidate reach 50%+1, there will be a June 8th runoff. With a third candidate close to 10%, that is very possible)
Between now and June 22nd, progressive pose a real threat to House Blue Dogs and Senate ConservaDems in at least six primary campaigns. Five of these primary campaigns feature incumbents, and in all six campaigns the Democratic Party machinery is backing the more conservative candidate. Sometimes, as is the case in the Pennsylvania Senate primary, this support means several hundred thousand dollars of paid advertisements.
There is no better way to get Democratic members of Congress to listen to you, than by defeating, or even by coming close to defeating, incumbent Democrats in primary elections. If you can beat the party, or at least make them sweat, then they have no choice but to take you, and your concerns, seriously. These are six campaigns where the party machinery is already sweating.
So, today I a asking you to join up with all six of these primary campaigns. Follow the links below, and sign up to their email lists. If you want abetter Democratic Party, this is the best possible way to make that happen:
Primaries on May 18th
Join Joe Sestak, running for Pennsylvania Senate against ConservaDem Arlen Specter
Join Bill Halter, running for Arkansas Senate against ConservaDem Blanche Lincoln
Join Shelia Dow Ford, running for Pennsylvania's 17th Congressional district against Blue Dog Tim Holden.
Primaries on June 8th
Join Marcy Winograd, running for California's 36th Congressional district against Blue Dog Jane Harman
Primaries on June 22nd
Join Elaine Marshall, running for Senate in North Carolina, and facing a run-off with future ConservaDem Cal Cunningham
Join Claudia Wright, running for Utah's 2nd Congressional district against Jim Matheson.
There will be more primaries over the summer, and lots of general elections to focus on as well, but right now these are the campaigns we need to support. So, sign up and get your primary on! The Democratic Party won't represent you just to be nice,or if you just stamp your feet--this is something we have to fight for.
Two new polls this morning show Joe Sestak within striking distance of Arlen Specter in the May 18th Pennsylvania primary. Quinnipiac puts Specter up 8%, down from 21% last month. Also, the Muhlenberg daily tracker of the campaign puts Specter up 4%, down from 9% yesterday.
The 15-day simple mean on the campaign now puts Specter up by 7.0%, while the 30-day pegs it at 8.5%. Specter's lead was in the high teens for most of the campaign, soo Sestak is surging. I always thought this campaign would be decided by 6% one way or the other, and it looks like that will happen.
The trend in Pennsylvania fits in with the main narrative of the 2010 primary season: the unusually large number of incumbent Senators who are in serious danger of being defeated for renomination. No less than five Senators face this threat, with I equivalent to the number of incumbent Senators who were defeated for re-nomination over the past 20 years combined (see here and here). Here are those five campaigns, in chronological order (using 30-day, simple means):
May 8th: Utah (two polls)
Lee: 34.0%
Bennett (i): 19.0%
Bridgewater: 18.5%
(Primary is on June 22nd, but caucus convention this Saturday will determine two Republicans who make ballot. A minimum of 40% is needed to make primary ballot)
May 18th: Arkansas (three polls)
Lincoln (i): 42.0%
Halter: 33.0%
Other: 7.7%
May 18th: Pennsylvania (four polls)
Specter (i): 45.3%
Sestak: 36.8%
August 10th: Colorado (one poll)
Bennet (i): 40.0%
Romanoff: 34.0%
August 24th: Arizona (three polls)
McCain (i):49.0%
Hayworth: 35.0%
McCain is actually the safest of the five incumbents at this point, but his primary is also the furthest away. This will give Hayworth ample time to make up ground.
Also, as multiple commenters on Open Left have noted, Specter has already lost a primary. His party switch last year handed the Republican nomination to Pat Toomey.
Finally, cue the wailing and gnashing of teeth over "extremism." Village pundits galore will complain about how these primary challenges are destroying our glorious moderates, which in turn will keep the Senate from ratifying the deficit commission and handing out more Wall Street bailouts. Cutting Social Security while propping up stock-based retirement portfolios seems, in the end, to really be what bi-partisanship is supposed to accomplish in Washington, D.C. Senators would do it, to, if only they didn't have to answer to those dirty people who actually believed in stuff.
It seemed like it was easier when health care was pretty much the only political news. Now, news on so many issues gushing up so quickly, we need a round-up thread to cover it all:
Correction: no decision on amendments today Contrary to my earlier report that the Democratic caucus will make a decision today on whether amendments to Wall Street reform will require 51 or 60 votes to pass, I have heard from Harry Reid's office that no decision will be made today. That was an error on my part.
Economic Crisis: Greenspan kept Fed worries about housing bubble secret:New transcripts from 2004 show that many senior officials at the Federal Reserve feared that there was a speculative housing bubble that could lead to economic catastrophe. However, their fears were deliberately hid from the public by then-Fed chair Alan Greenspan, because he figured the Fed knew best and didn't want to alarm the stupid public:
As top Federal Reserve officials debated whether there was a housing bubble and what to do about it, then-Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that the dissent should be kept secret so that the Fed wouldn't lose control of the debate to people less well-informed than themselves.
"We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand," Greenspan said, according to the transcripts of a March 2004 meeting.
Apparently, it was best to keep the public in the dark about fears of a possible economic collapse, and then do nothing to avert the possible collapse. Because, you know, the Fed knows best.
Oil Spill: Attach this amendment to anything you want passed: Senator Bob Menendez, chair of the DSCC, has introduced a bill raising the liability of oil companies from $75,000,000 to $10,000,000,000 (update: originally I left off three zeroes) in the event of a spill. Even though some Senators undoubtedly will still vote against this, it is still hard to believe that a bill like this would not comfortably have 60 votes to pass right now. Aas such, it seems like it would be a good idea to turn this bill into an amendment, and quickly attach it to something that is difficult to pass.
PA-Sen: Sestak closing on SpecterA new poll from Muhlenberg in Pennsylvania shows Joe Sestak only 6% behind Arlen Specter in the May 18th Democratic primary. This is actually going to be a daily tracking poll, so it will be easy to keep tabs on the state of the campaign. Two weeks ago, Rasmussen showed Sestak closing to within 2%, although that was hard to believe given that Sestak had not yet gone on the air. A new Quinnipiac poll comes out tomorrow morning.
AR-Sen: Racist anti-Halter ad to keep running through the election. In an ad that could become known as the Willie Horton ad of Democratic primaries, an offensive anti-Halter ad will continue running in Arkansas through the May 18th primary:
The president of a group airing an advertisement using Indian actors and images to raise claims Senate candidate Lt. Gov. Bill Halter outsourced jobs says he doesn't think the spot is offensive.
Americans for Job Security president Stephen DeMaura said he has no plans to pull the spot that begain airing Monday on Arkansas' airwaves. He says the ad will continue for two weeks.
Halter and Sen. Blanche Lincoln have both condemned it as offensive.
Immigration debate moves to the right. Right wing forces on immigration have gained a lot of ground since 2006, and not just because of what happened in Arizona. As Ron Brownstein explains, a bill that passed the Senate in 2006, when Republicans were in the majority, was further to the left then the bill currently lacking support in the Senate. The main shift has been among Republicans, who have turned hard-right on the issue.
Political news is back, big time. The post-health care slump is over.
STATE BLOGS
