Should Blanche Lincoln Worry About the Left?

Photo by flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/studio08denver/2802260992/">studio08denver</a> used under a <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a> license.

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), a liberal pressure group, is continuing its efforts to change the conventional wisdom about the health care public option through polling. PCCC’s latest poll (co-sponsored by Democracy for America, another liberal group) is of Arkansas, and is obviously targeted towards Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who is up for reelection in 2010 and is wavering on the public option. Here’s the key finding:

If Lincoln joined Republicans in filibustering a public option, 49% of Democrats would be less likely to vote for her, 7% more likely (7 to 1). Among Independents, 35% to 10% (3 to 1)

Arkansas’ voter registration is still heavily Democratic, so Lincoln definitely needs to do well among Democrats if she hopes to get reelected. But because PCCC is an ideological organization, the mainstream media has been slow to pick up on the implications of their results, even though their contractor, Research 2000, is by all accounts a reliable pollster. So what PCCC really needs is a way to get the media to pay more attention to their results. That could mean some polling of the same states by other polling organizations or simply a Nate Silver analysis of the PCCC/Research 2000 polls’ accuracy. Even an attack on their polls’ credibility might help if it drew more attention to the numbers themselves. The idea that Democrats only have to worry about their right flank is pretty set-in-stone conventional wisdom in Washington and in the national media. If PCCC’s hoping to change that, they’re in for a tough fight.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest