Nevada voting machines going for Reid

[SCRawl]

Okay, I'll bet you a Coke that Angle won't get in. I don't care how unpopular Harry Reid is, there's no way a majority of Nevada voters can't see how awful she would be if she were to represent her state in the Senate.

Well...that's nice. Personal incredulity doesn't count for much when the 538 projections @ the New York Times have an 81.3% chance of Angle winning with a +2.5 adjusted polling margin over Reid. He's tooooaaaast.

Good thing you didn't take my bet -- you can instead use that tasty carbonated beverage to wash down that helping of crow .

Seriously, this is what I was talking about: while some of the Tea party candidates have won, the totally batshit nutbar loons are still on the outside looking in. Exactly where one draws that line between "completely objectionable" and "batshit crazy" is open to debate -- I'm looking at you, Marco Rubio, and to a lesser extent, Rand Paul -- but in general I believe that the American voters were able to filter out the complete whackjobs.

[Simon_Jester]

What I'd like to see is Reid in Congress but not in charge. He's had his chance, and he's probably done more than we know, but it has NOT been enough, and I'm not seeing any evidence of masterstrokes or anything.

In other words: "Mr. Reid, you just came dangerously close to losing your Senate seat to a raving loon. We've got nothing against you, we like you and we wish you nothing but good, but I think that proves you're the wrong man for this job."

[SCRawl]

What I'd like to see is Reid in Congress but not in charge. He's had his chance, and he's probably done more than we know, but it has NOT been enough, and I'm not seeing any evidence of masterstrokes or anything.

In other words: "Mr. Reid, you just came dangerously close to losing your Senate seat to a raving loon. We've got nothing against you, we like you and we wish you nothing but good, but I think that proves you're the wrong man for this job."

Okay, but he was in danger of losing mostly because he was unpopular, as opposed to a bad politician, right? I'm really not sure why he was unpopular, aside from the usual -- leader of the Senate majority while most a huge portion of Nevadans are unemployed. Is there another reason? As for running the Senate well, I don't know that I'd have any obvious complaints, aside from maybe a little timidity, and in a body such as deliberative (read: glacial) as the U.S. Senate I doubt that a firebrand is called for. Do you have a suggestion for who might be the better Senate majority leader, if not Reid? (For the moment I'm neglecting the political implications of switching leaders.)

Keep in mind that I'm not so much a supporter of Reid as I am a staunch opponent of the whackjob contingent.

[Thanas]

He is a bad politician. His choice of negotiating seems to be to figure out what the Republicans want and then model his position accordingly. He is pretty spineless.

[Simon_Jester]

Okay, but he was in danger of losing mostly because he was unpopular, as opposed to a bad politician, right? I'm really not sure why he was unpopular, aside from the usual -- leader of the Senate majority while most a huge portion of Nevadans are unemployed. Is there another reason?

The problem is that his unpopularity left him getting nine votes against for every ten votes for against someone manifestly unfit for public office.

The kind of person we need for Senate Majority Leader at the moment should have been able to take Sharron Angle apart politically, because that's pretty much the new job description of the Senate Majority Leader. They must consistently demonstrate the bankruptcy and uselessness of far-right policies as a solution to America's problems, and they must be willing to fight to limit the extent to which those policies are enacted.

After Reid's performance on the health care issue, where he basically let himself be bargained down to nothing by Republicans who held only one card, while making precious few overt moves to counter them or fight back... well, in parliamentary terms I think it's time for a vote of no confidence in Senator Reid.

As for running the Senate well, I don't know that I'd have any obvious complaints, aside from maybe a little timidity, and in a body such as deliberative (read: glacial) as the U.S. Senate I doubt that a firebrand is called for. Do you have a suggestion for who might be the better Senate majority leader, if not Reid? (For the moment I'm neglecting the political implications of switching leaders.)

Keep in mind that I'm not so much a supporter of Reid as I am a staunch opponent of the whackjob contingent.

I don't know. Personally I'd choose a fighter, someone with a track record of getting bills through. Because at this point the Senate Majority Leader is pretty much the sole leader of the Democrats in the legislative branch, and they're going to have to be the one who keeps the Republicans from pushing too much through, in the face of a surviving Blue Dog caucus that may well hold the swing vote between Dems and Republicans on many issues.

I would have to sit down and sort through a lot of records to find the person I'm looking for.

[Broomstick]

I hope they're being rigged. A woman who thinks eliminating health insurance and having everyone barter with their doctors using chickens is a good idea should not be in the US Senate.

No, it is NEVER a good thing to rig an election. Not for ANY reason. "My side is better" is NOT a valid justification. Seriously, I really do wonder about you sometimes.

[LMSx]

Okay, I'll bet you a Coke that Angle won't get in. I don't care how unpopular Harry Reid is, there's no way a majority of Nevada voters can't see how awful she would be if she were to represent her state in the Senate.

Well...that's nice. Personal incredulity doesn't count for much when the 538 projections @ the New York Times have an 81.3% chance of Angle winning with a +2.5 adjusted polling margin over Reid. He's tooooaaaast.

Good thing you didn't take my bet -- you can instead use that tasty carbonated beverage to wash down that helping of crow .

Oooh it tastes so good.

Good on Reid for conniving his way into a general election with Sharron Angle rather than Sue Lowden.

[Alphawolf55]

What I'd like to see is Reid in Congress but not in charge. He's had his chance, and he's probably done more than we know, but it has NOT been enough, and I'm not seeing any evidence of masterstrokes or anything.

In other words: "Mr. Reid, you just came dangerously close to losing your Senate seat to a raving loon. We've got nothing against you, we like you and we wish you nothing but good, but I think that proves you're the wrong man for this job."

I honestly wish Feingold had kept his seat and Reid lost his. Granted, the political message that the Senate Majority Leader losing his seat would send is most likely a bad one.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not so sure; I'd honestly like to see the Dems get it through their heads that they cannot survive against a popular movement as active as the Tea Party, combined with leaders as politically savvy and well funded as the Republican Party is, by carrying on business as usual.

To function, to hold any kind of power in this country in the foreseeable future, they must actually present some kind of direct, tangible opposition, presenting themselves as a competitor to the Republican Way and not just something that is kind of vaguely opposed to it. That is the only way for them to find a support base powerful enough to cancel out the Tea Party.

They must take the initiative, or they will be battered down into helplessness.

Of course, it seems that no number of shocks will convince the current generation of party leaders of this, so I don't know.

[Bakustra]

I'm not so sure; I'd honestly like to see the Dems get it through their heads that they cannot survive against a popular movement as active as the Tea Party, combined with leaders as politically savvy and well funded as the Republican Party is, by carrying on business as usual.

To function, to hold any kind of power in this country in the foreseeable future, they must actually present some kind of direct, tangible opposition, presenting themselves as a competitor to the Republican Way and not just something that is kind of vaguely opposed to it. That is the only way for them to find a support base powerful enough to cancel out the Tea Party.

They must take the initiative, or they will be battered down into helplessness.

Of course, it seems that no number of shocks will convince the current generation of party leaders of this, so I don't know.

What about the people who voted for Tea Party candidates because of their dissatisfaction with partisanship? Yes, that's a bad decision for them to make, but at the same time, they're the only viable alternative for people. But making politics even more partisan will alienate those people. Similarly, earlier this year, Americans felt that the Republicans were being uncooperative and too partisan. So exacerbating the plague of partisan behavior will only increase dissatisfaction, and frankly drive people into the arms of the Tea Party. What's needed? Honestly, I don't know. I think that the only hope is for the Tea Party to act like a third party and be so batshit as to bring the Republicans and Democrats together in recognition of their relative sanity. But that's not all that likely.

[Simon_Jester]

The fundamental problem with that is that the Republicans have adopted a "no enemies to the right" policy, more or less: they don't have a toolkit for denouncing anything except outright political terrorism as too far to the right to govern.

It seems to me that any kind of compromise has to start with two clearly defined positions to compromise between, not one amorphous blob and one clearly defined position. Otherwise, it's too easy for the side who knows what they want to trade very small concessions for very large ones from their opposition. At the moment, the Democrats do not have a clearly defined platform, a list of things that they will fight for, even to the extent of annoying somebody who'd rather they not do those things. They looked like they were developing one, the potential was there... but it hasn't come together yet.

The Republicans have things to fight for and the coherence to do so. The Democrats don't. That's not a recipe for parity, which helps to explain why the Republicans have consistently held the initiative, regardless of whether they were losing or winning at the moment, for most of the past three decades.