In an otherwise thoughtful post on whether labor wasted its money in the Arkansas Senate Democratic primary, Ezra Klein tosses out something that I hear and read, unsupported, all the time.
It's conventional wisdom by now that the Arkansas seat is likely to flip to the Republicans no matter who is holding the flag for the Democrats. This is a bad year for Democrats and that's a bad state for Democrats.
Arkansas is a bad state for true progressives, but on what level is it a bad state for the Democratic party? Both Senators and three of four representatives are Democrats. The governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general are Democrats. In the state Senate, only 8 of the 35 members currently serving are Republicans; in the General Assembly, 76 of 100 members are Democrats. Just to drive that point home, Democrats make up more than 75 percent of the state legislature.
These Democrats are obviously not the same kind who come from another blue state like, say, Connecticut. But one doesn't have to think hard to realize that a centrist Democrat who comes from Arkansas is better for progressives than a Republican. People who toss out the "Arkansas is a bad state for Democrats" idea only really have three things to point to: the Republicanization of the rest of the South, recent presidential elections, and Mike Huckabee. Arkansas is different from the rest of the former Confederacy for a number of reasons, and the fact is it's remained truly, deeply blue.
None of this means that Blanche Lincoln's politics are particularly great for liberals, nor that her chances for re-election are rock solid. But if Lincoln loses in November, it will be because Arkansas is a bad state for her, not for Democrats.
-- Monica Potts
