Tweet
Conventional wisdomaire Charlie Cook’s political outfit has downgraded Harry Reid’s 2010 re-election to a toss-up despite not knowing who his GOP opponent will be in the general next year (my emph).
Key point: "If we were skeptical of Reid’s vulnerability at the start of the cycle, we have become increasingly convinced over the last two months or so that he is as endangered as any Democratic incumbent seeking re-election in 2010. Reid’s inability to improve his standing in the polls, coupled with the deteriorating political environment for Democrats nationally and Lowden’s impending entry into the race, are clear indications that his political problems are deep and will be difficult (though not impossible) to fix."
When will Senate Democrats set Harry Reid free to tend his homefires without having to defend the Democratic brand in just-purple Nevada? Will the Senate caucus risk having to choose another leader after seeing theirs go down to defeat? Why not pick a new leader now rather than seeing theirs lose at home to a GOP?
Wasn’t losing Tom Daschle enough of a lesson for them?
14 Comments
Wasn’t losing Tom Daschle enough of a lesson for them?
Obviously not since they picked another milquetoast type to replace him. For whatever reason, the Democrats in the Senate seem to like that.
And they seem to give all credit for their expanded majority to the Leader, at least in public statements. Although there have hardly been any missed opportunities for turnover the last two elections, they are coming up in 2010. Connecticut and Nevada rank highest, I think. Not sure if there are other endangered Democrats.
If Reid had any sense or concern for his party he would step down as leader now and campaign hard in Nevada – not that I really want him to be re-elected.
Yes, I share your conflict. I don’t want our Senate Democrats to lose ANY seats, but if there are two I’ll shed no tears over, they are Blanche and Harry.
I, of course, don’t want us to lose seats either but he is so useless that it’s like having a Republic as leader. I take that back – he isn’t useless, he’s harmful.
After all his pleading for us to work so hard — and many, many people worked really really hard! — for him to say after this election that Sixty wasn’t all that. He is the very model of a very minor man.
Well, they aren’t my Senate Democrats. Their primary goal along with Obama’s is to enact a solidly Republican agenda. I don’t understand this masochistic attachment to a party that takes progressive support to get its candidates elected and then backstabs us at every opportunity. We should find a good progressive in Nevada and primary Reid. Have them run on a populist platform. Las Vegas had one of the biggest collapses in its real estate market in the country. And last I saw Reid had done jack about it. I find it difficult to describe Reid without using profanity. So I’ll just ask why would any of us want to help re-elect the best Majority Leader the Republicans ever had?
So well said. And great obvious point, but you are so right. Not only did Obama exploit progressive help to win, but these Dirty Blue Dogs, who gave us a Pyrrhic majority.
Hugh and Libby, Reid is really terrible and is one of the primary reasons why we have to tolerate the Baucus Caucus. If we had a stronger majority leader he could have given all Senate Committees working on health care a deadline of July 1 to produce their bills. Then there would have been plenty of time to pass reform before August.
We badly need to beat Reid with a progressive in Nevada, and we badly need to get someone more progressive in there. But who? There’s Dick Durbin, but he’s probably too close to Obama and Rahm. I’d sure like to see Sheldon Whitehouse or Sherrod Brown as majority leader, but I think both are too Junior. Kerry’s too weak and a sell-out. Schumer’s a sell-out. Pat Leahy’s probably too unpopular and not charismatic enough. Maybe Tom Harkin? He has a few principles. It’s pretty slim pickings, I think.
I think the most likely choice would be Dick Durbin. He’d be a bit of an improvement over Reid.
yellow journalism … constructing the sub-text ..
the democrats’ fade in the polls could well be because the lib’rul progs .. the left-handed indys ..and the moderate.. and the centrist indys as well are throughly pissed and disillusioned at a party apparatus on which we bestowed bulletproof bicameral majorities .. and threw in the kitchen sink at the white house too .. can’t pass legislation delivering the goods which got them the votes …
the disaffection has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing with .. or supporting the slightest mote of the republican/conservative agenda-of-no .. and certainly doesn’t add those of us so disaffected to the ranks of republican forces ..
we’re pissed and disaffected .. not mentally ill
if the current crop of ineffective do-nothing-good sum-biches don’t get their act together .. quick ..and if mr. bipartisan smartest-futhermucker-in-the-world.. doesn’t start swingin’ and fighting for those what brung him to the dance .. i’ll punish them in ways other than voting red ..
the false meme being spread by the press is that disaffection for the dems translates into votes for team red ..
i don’t think so … it costs them in perhaps even more damaging ways …
“Why not pick a new leader now rather than seeing theirs lose at home to a GOP?”
Good question.
Harry got his job for one reason only: He talked Jim Jeffords into switching parties back in 2001.
He’s going to lose his gavel soon — it’s just a question of when and how. Might as well give it to Chuck Schumer, who remembers at least 50% of the time that he’s supposed to be a Democrat.
Yikes–Schumer of Mukasey and triggered public option fame? Well, the Dems wouldn’t be short on airtime. They guy never met a camera that he didn’t like.
My brother and his wife attended a pro-public option meeting in Nevada. Reid talked and answered some questions. Then begin to wrap up without having ever directly mentioned the public option. My brother yelled out, “The Public Option!!!!”. Reid finally stammered out some mumbled support and left. Outside were protesters.