BP, I need my memory refreshed, if you don't mind - Reid was re-elected recently (2010), and I seem to recall that the opposition to that was half-hearted, plus Sharon Angle was not the best candidate to run against him (Angle lost by about 42K votes out of 685K cast).
I seem to remember some right-side opposition to defeating him; sources near (but not in) the NRA mentioned that he had been friendly to gun rights, and many Nevadans were happy with the level of pork he delivered. There was also some concern about who would replaces him as Senate Majority Leader (Schumer's name came up at the time, but I don't know if that was a real possibility).
I don't think Reid has undergone a personality transformation in the past month or so; he's always been a snide little political hack.
So, why was there not a concerted effort to not move 21K votes from Reid to someone else? Part of Reid's win, I'm sure, was running against a rather weak opponent (Angle), part of it was the value of incumbency, and part of it was the media as the PR arm of the democrat party. Still, it seems that when pre-election polls were reasonably predicting a Reid loss (according to a Bing search), a move of about 3% of the votes from one column to the other would have put Reid in the ranks of the unemployed, and no matter who would replace him, that would seem like a net benefit. Of course, he's also lately become "the gift that keeps on giving" with his 3-year history of no budgets and his latest gambit which is sure to galvanize Republicans and conservatives toward making Senate democrats the minority party.
4 comments:
Hmmmm. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, using HR's reasoning.
Except SIN (Senator-idiot from Nevada) has the protections from libel and slander for whatever he says in his capacity as SIN.
BP, I need my memory refreshed, if you don't mind - Reid was re-elected recently (2010), and I seem to recall that the opposition to that was half-hearted, plus Sharon Angle was not the best candidate to run against him (Angle lost by about 42K votes out of 685K cast).
I seem to remember some right-side opposition to defeating him; sources near (but not in) the NRA mentioned that he had been friendly to gun rights, and many Nevadans were happy with the level of pork he delivered. There was also some concern about who would replaces him as Senate Majority Leader (Schumer's name came up at the time, but I don't know if that was a real possibility).
I don't think Reid has undergone a personality transformation in the past month or so; he's always been a snide little political hack.
So, why was there not a concerted effort to not move 21K votes from Reid to someone else? Part of Reid's win, I'm sure, was running against a rather weak opponent (Angle), part of it was the value of incumbency, and part of it was the media as the PR arm of the democrat party. Still, it seems that when pre-election polls were reasonably predicting a Reid loss (according to a Bing search), a move of about 3% of the votes from one column to the other would have put Reid in the ranks of the unemployed, and no matter who would replace him, that would seem like a net benefit. Of course, he's also lately become "the gift that keeps on giving" with his 3-year history of no budgets and his latest gambit which is sure to galvanize Republicans and conservatives toward making Senate democrats the minority party.
So, what am I missing here?
Those camps are going to be awfully crowded, I'll save you and The People's Cube seats.
Post a Comment