home

Sunday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:44:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn.

< Poll: 52% of Illinoisans Oppose Seating Burris | Will Obama Provide Clintonism Redux? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | 63 comments (63 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Sen. Voinovich (none / 0) (#1)
    by WS on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:50:36 PM EST
    plans to retire!!!  Can we get a filibuster proof majority in 2010?

    That assumes (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:54:42 PM EST
    Harry Reid can hold onto his seat

    Parent
    How does it depend on Reid holding his seat? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:07:44 PM EST
    That will be one more election among many.

    You could argue it depends an 6 other seats too. Indeed, you should.

    Parent

    Reid (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:23:05 PM EST
    is seen by many as the weakest of the Dems up for re-election.

    Link

    Also, seeing as how Congress as a whole has a lower approval rating than Bush, and depending on how this economic stimulus plan works out, among other things, Reid is definitely vulnerable.  Things like the Burris affair don't help him.

    Parent

    Nonresponsive (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:26:51 PM EST
    Unless you are arguing that no other Dem can lose BUT Reid.

    Even then, you have to consider whether Dems can pick up more than just Voinovich's seat.

    In short, clearly it does not depend solely on the Reid result.

    Parent

    In a neutral political environment (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:30:11 PM EST
    Dems would be favored for OH, Reps favored for FL, and no one for MO. And Sebelius, who is term-limited, could conceivably win KS (Open).

    Parent
    Neutral meaning what? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:32:05 PM EST
    At this point, Nevada looks like a good Dem state. Unless Obama tanks, I think Reid looks pretty solid. The DKos/R2000 poll had him up 6 I think and Reid has a lot of money.

    Parent
    Ok, Neutral doesn't mean much (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:34:12 PM EST
    Rather, assuming the "new normal" of '06 and '08.

    What these retirements tell me is that the Republicans don't think Obama is going to tank.

    Parent

    That's because the Republicans (none / 0) (#46)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:36:16 PM EST
    have cannibalized their stars. There is no credible Republican leader. Mitch McConnell?

    Parent
    Oh, they'll go back (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:38:08 PM EST
    to the Newt Gingrich model. If they can differentiate between Obama and Democrats in the Congress, they'll be in good shape.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:37:59 PM EST
    I ask the following question -- who is the Republican in Nevada who is going to beat Reid?

    Parent
    Maybe Porter (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:09 PM EST
    but he's not so strong himself (after all, he just lost his House seat). Otherwise, no one.

    Honestly, I hope someone primaries Reid. I think a generic Democrat would be stronger than him.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:42:28 PM EST
    Reid has been raising money like crazy for the last few years. He's been very open about the fact that he doesn't intend to let himself be Daschled.

    Parent
    Let's see, so the Senate Majority Leader (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    is the weakest Dem of those up for re-election?


    Parent
    Not so unusual (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 08:52:15 PM EST
    They tend to like having Blue State Dems in leadership in the Senate, unfortunately.  Remember Daschle?


    Parent
    I would add (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:30:23 PM EST
    from your link -

    Sen. Reid, perhaps the most-vulnerable Democrat who will face re-election in a midterm race that is likely to favor his party once again, began interviewing campaign managers last week. The Senate majority leader also recently stepped up fund-raising.

    Contradicting the idea that there are only 2 races at play here - Voinovich and Reid's. The article also discusses the gains Dems have made in Nevada.

    Parent

    Yup, it's really too early to tell (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:09:46 PM EST
    We'll have some idea of the score in a year+.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:54:15 PM EST
    There are now R open seats in OH, FL, MO, and KS. All are winnable.

    Question is: can we really sustain "no losses" again?

    Boxer (CA), Reid (NV), Dorgan (ND), Feingold (WI), and Bennet (CO) could potentially be vulnerable on our side. (Probably really only Reid, Dorgan, and Bennet).


    Parent

    Add to their vulnerable list Specter (PA), (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:56:27 PM EST
    but probably only if Pat Toomey knocks him off in the primary.

    Parent
    And to our liste OPEN (NY) (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:59:31 PM EST
    if we have a really disastrous year.

    Parent
    Why Open? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:08:44 PM EST
    There will be a Dem Senator from NY running for election in 2010.

    Parent
    Well, you could quibble about what to call it (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:11:25 PM EST
    Charlie Cook calls it "NY-B (Clinton)." I'm fine with that. Of course, he also says that Judd Gregg is safe. I'm not so sure of that, myself.  

    Parent
    But it won't be "Open" (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    in 2010. Cook gets it right.

    Parent
    It is open (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:18:08 PM EST
    in the sense that the current incumbent will not be running. Indeed, that's the very reason why there will be a race for this seat at all in '10 (the current term doesn't end until '12).

    However, I don't disagree that at the time of the election there will be a sitting senator running for the seat.

    Parent

    Technically true (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:21:36 PM EST
    politically, I think not.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:22:20 PM EST
    Obama - IL "solid?" Not anymore.

    Parent
    Indeed. Bleh. (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:24:53 PM EST
    You know, I could conceive of a scenario where the Republicans take back the Senate.

    If Obama has an agenda, he'd better get it through while he can.

    Parent

    Ye of little faith! Squeaky? (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:26:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Difference (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:47:04 PM EST
    It is a different thing all together to guarantee that this admin is going to be different than the last 8 years of GOP misrule, than taking anything for granted regarding the Dems maintaining a majority in COngress.

    Obviously everyone is waiting for the Dems to perform, 2010 is not so far away.

    Parent

    Unless, of course, that's what (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:29:34 PM EST
    he's "waiting for"*  ;)

    *humor Squeaky, humor!

    Parent

    Sort of Funny... (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:52:37 PM EST
    But, that joke notwithstanding, I am far from humorless, and do not take myself too seriously, except here or there, occasionally, or once in a while...  lol

    Parent
    Send Obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by WS on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 07:47:17 PM EST
    to do defense in Illinois.  A Republican taking over his former seat would be an absolute disgrace and the people of Illinois will heed President Obama's plea.  

    Parent
    Boxer is solid. (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:59:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Probably (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:01:43 PM EST
    She's been raising money since '06 to scare off any serious challengers. Probably her best protection is the Republican primary, which is pretty much guaranteed to produce a nutcase. Arnold could probably make a race of it, but I doubt he wants to go to Washington.

    Parent
    Arnold is a deep doo-doo in CA at (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:03:30 PM EST
    present.  Borrow and spend didn't work.

    Parent
    So I see (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    But he can raise big bucks, and you can never ignore that.

    If real estate is "location, location, location" politics is "money, money, money."


    Parent

    Who will run against Boxer?? (none / 0) (#37)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:30:05 PM EST
    Is she really at risk of losing her seat?  That would be a shame.

    Parent
    Only the Governator (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    could make a race out of it IMO. If he doesn't run, she's safe.

    Parent
    Will Percy be a Fightin Gator (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    next season?  (Not looking good for Michigan.)

    Saw a headline that said Tebow is back (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:04:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, so Coral Gables tells us. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    Hope he is truly a man of his word.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:06:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh Mercy! We May Also Have Percy! (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:12:13 PM EST

    Of all the Gators' underclassmen, Percy Harvin was widely considered the one most likely to leave Gainesville after this season and enter this year's NFL Draft.

    But Harvin told Sun Sports after Sunday's championship celebration that he might be joining Tim Tebow for a third championship run in four seasons.

    "I'm leaning towards coming back, but I haven't made the final decision yet, so I'll sit down with coach tomorrow and he'll help me make that decision," Harvin said

    If I was Percy, (and somewhat susceptible to injury) I believe I would take the NFL bonus  money and laugh my way to the bank.

    Parent

    He would be nuts not to go (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:13:12 PM EST
    imo. If he has people that care about him. they have to tell him to go pro.

    Parent
    Both Lou Holtz sd. any player considering (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:19:25 PM EST
    going pro should sit down and talk to his parents and coach.  And Harvin says he'll talk to his coach.  Tough for a coach to encourage such a player to leave.  

    Parent
    I would have to agree (none / 0) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 06:20:04 PM EST
    While difficult to encourage a student to leave college, Percy looks to be a first round draft pick and the lowest  guaranteed money for a 1st rounder last year was $6 million.

    If indeed he is projected to go in the first round, I'm not sure anyone (Urban Meyer included) could justify suggesting he stay for his senior season.

    Parent

    Percy is a pretty good faker. I saw (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    him pre-game skipping and drum major steps.   High ankle injury indeed.  

    Parent
    Paul Krugman (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:08:25 PM EST
    responds to WKJM.

    Did PEBO really say, if Krugman has (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    a good idea, I'll listen?  

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:22:36 PM EST
    But he also said that if you or I have a good idea he will listen too.

    Parent
    He was clear (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 06:36:35 PM EST
    in saying the ego side in pride of authorship has to take a backseat to good ideas when it comes to fixing the economy and where best to spend the money for productive job creation...the ideas can come from the Dem majority, Krugman, a Republican, or oculus and squeaky...if it will work, it will be included.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 06:50:09 PM EST
    And of course Krugman rebuts by saying all he can provide are principals because he has no access staff or time to gather all the specifics.

    Parent
    If true (none / 0) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 09:47:36 PM EST
    and those are the words of Krugman, then I would have to say Krugman has shown himself "in this case" to be more interested in puffery than substance.

    Criticism without alternative specific ideas, is little more than contrarian flame throwing.

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 09:52:09 PM EST
    He doesn't have to provide specific projects to spend money on in order to be right about the economics.

    Parent
    True he doesn't (none / 0) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:39:16 PM EST
    He can continue to sit in the ivory tower and tell everyone working on the problem they are wrong, while never taking a definitive stand on a cure to show whether he is right.

    This isn't an illness confined to Krugman in this case. It's rampant. And again, I have no idea if those were Krugman's words, but if they were, they are essentially valueless. If you're going to knock an idea, come back with a better one of your own.

    Parent

    I think you're showing too much deference (none / 0) (#63)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:43:33 PM EST
    to those with resources and power. So Paul Krugman doesn't have a whole think tank and/or transition team at his disposal. He should shut up if he can't offer a specific alternative? I can't agree with that.

    Parent
    I read similar comments in 2001 (none / 0) (#23)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:17:50 PM EST
    defending Bush.

    Parent
    Donna Smith of Sicko live blogging single payer (none / 0) (#32)
    by lambert on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:25:28 PM EST
    transcript.

    Only connect!

    If Ted Kennedy leaves his seat (none / 0) (#42)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:32:14 PM EST
    I think Mitt Romney may run.  

    After the stuff he said last year (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:34:59 PM EST
    Romney would get blown out in MA. I HOPE he runs. (OTOH, no Republican could possibly win a Senate seat in MA).

    Parent
    Naw (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:33:22 PM EST
    He's running for President.

    Parent
    Running for President must (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 06:50:43 PM EST
    really get in the bloodstream.  I finally finished all 36 CDs of Team of Rivals. Epilogue consists of:  so whatever happened to them?  As to Chase, even after Lincoln nominated him to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and after Lincoln was assassinated, Chase was still striving to be President, but the times had passed him by.  

    Parent
    He's not THAT stupid (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 08:53:56 PM EST
    OTOH, a Barney-Romney race sure would be a lotta fun.

    Parent
    Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | 63 comments (63 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment