Has anyone else noticed how crazy things are getting in the Connecticut Senate race? To be honest, I wasn't following it that closely, but it seemed like every time I turned my head there was a new story coming out of the Nutmeg State. Let me summarize some of what's going on in this race, which as you can see to the left Nate currently ranks as the fifth most competitive Senate race and second most competitive non-open seat race.
We should start with the Democratic incumbent Chris Dodd. His poll numbers continue to confirm serious vulnerability for the longtime incumbent. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Dodd trailing all three remaining GOP contenders: Rob Simmons, Linda McMahon and Peter Schiff.
I say "remaining three" because last week former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley suddenly dropped out of the race so he could instead enter the GOP primary for the state's open-seat governor's contest.
Oh, but it gets better. Just when I thought I would never again have to conjure the blast-from-the-past name or image of Bruno Sammartino, Politico runs a story this week about the growing number of wrestling industry detractors speaking up in opposition to Linda McMahon's GOP candidacy. McMahon is wife of WWE entrepreneur Vince McMahon and former WWE CEO, but apparently she is far from beloved by many familiar with her and her business practices. Politico's Erika Lovley quotes Sammartino and several other former WWE stars poor-mouthing Mrs. McMahon's leadership. This twist comes a month after Connecticut Democrats filed what seems like a frivolous, but headline-grabbing FEC complaint against McMahon and the WWE for removing some offensive videos from YouTube.
Best I can tell, Quinnipiac conducted the most recent poll of likely Republican primary voters, and the results showed Simmons leading. Given Simmons' wider margins over Dodd, and the fact that he is the kind of virtually-extinct Republican that can actually win statewide in New England, Connecticut Republicans would be wise to nominate him--and Dodd should be worried if they do.
12.10.2009
Craziness With a Touch of Nutmeg
@ 3:18 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
105 comments
TEA PARTY ALERT!
None of these CT Republicans is going to be right wing enough!
Get in there and challenge them from the right before the election!
It's time for Chris Dodd to step aside and let Ned Lamont run.
Chris is 65 and has been in congress for 35 years. It's time to give someone else a chance.
What are the teabaggers gonna do, all these guy probably favor gay marriage and abortion?
I totally agree. Dodd needs to step down for the good of the party. Now who is going to say that over at DKos? =D
I love the hysterics the left goes into when things go badly for them.
can anyone on this site post a non-partisan comment? Can anyone on the left complete a sentence without using the words 'teabagger', 'rightwing nut' or without mentioning Sarah Palin? Can anyone on the right complete a sentence without the word 'Obamessiah'? 80% of the posters on this site are complete partisan hacks. Get a grip.
Here's an objective observation: Dodd is in trouble and he really doesn't have anyone but himself to blame-he's not facing a GOP candidate with high approval ratings or even name ID. He's damaged goods in the same way Corzine was last month. There must be something in the water in Connecticut with the voters not liking their Senators running for President
I'd like to see more comprehensive study on the Republican primary. There is a pretty big difference between Simmons and Schiff in my view. Is there much chance Simmons loses that primary?
MN said...
I totally agree. Dodd needs to step down for the good of the party. Now who is going to say that over at DKos? =D
=========================
Yeah, DKos is full of shit.
I mean Dodd voted for the war. Dodd is head of the banking committee and didn't conduct oversight.
Oh, how they would be bashing obama if he did that.
BigInJapan08 -- go fuck yourself.
Jenny said...
What are the teabaggers gonna do...
Given the WWE connection I was throughly disappointed with the rest of this post, considering where it could have gone. :/
Dwight--
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooh!
Jenny -
You made me cry. Boo hoo. Hack.
BigJapan,
My Video Response
youtube.com/user/thoalekos#p/a/u/0/5iId9uMleec
Has anyone polled this race based on the possibility Schiff would run as a Libertarian and Nader as a Green?
Chris Dodd (D)
Rob Simmons (R)
Peter Schiff (Libertarian)
Ralph Nader (Green)
Could be an interesting race.
Hey Carl, how are ya doing?
How digya get banned from dkos?
BigInJapan08,
Were your comments designed to push partisans to find common ground? To get attention for yourself?
What were you trying to achieve?
Jenny,
I'm fine. Thanks for asking.
Sigh,
Site comment quality has gone down...
I do like the "Wife of a Pro Wrestler" angle though.
Off Topic, Massachusetts special election for Senate.
Joe Kennedy's running!
Well, not the Kennedy, Kennedy...
Just another guy who happens to share the same last name as the late Teddy Kennedy.
And he's running as a...libertarian.
I kinda hope he wins. I mean, low voter turnout for the special election "name" recognition...
Where is the latest Senate update?!
Repubs are leading in all major races it seems. Saw poll today with Toomey and Portman with good leads. Dodd and Reid seem finished.
I'm starting to beleive 8 seats are possible.
Just a simple off-topic observation --
Even the teabaggers know Sarah Palin is a rightwing nut.
(I hadn't seen anyone use those terms in a few minutes, I had to be sure to remind people of their importance.)
@Shots,
You are of course correct. If by chance you give a balanced argument, many will just pick out the points of your argument that favor their side, and ignore the rest of it. The "looking at the argument from the other guy's perspective" really doesn't exist for many of them.
For example, Insurance companies and rescission. Many argue "Rescission is wrong, insurance companies are evil, ban it." This of course fails to encompass the truth of the matter.
Rescission in an insurance policy exists when the consumer commits fraud (intentionally or unintentionally)and allows the insurance company to cancel the policy in such an event.
Now the most publicized examples are the extreme examples. Someone didn't disclose their acne when they were 14, so they're insurance as a 40 year old is cancelled when they have breast cancer. Should this be allowed? Of course not. A certain amount of government regulation is necessary.
But if one was to ban rescession, you could have the other extreme. I could claim to be a 25 year old in perfect shape with no disease, when I'm actually a 50 year old, who smokes 2 packs a day, is morbidly obese, addicted to drugs, and has a history of heart disease. I'd of course do the former to get lower premiums. And if recession was banned, when my triple bypass came up...well, you can't drop me...it's banned.
If recession went through, it would be in EVERYONE'S best interest to just lie on their insurance form to get lower premiums. Because the company couldn't drop you for fraud. So, the company would end up just jacking up premiums for everyone...
@Pat --
A better way to handle the recession issue is a) ban recession, and b) don't allow anyone to be declined for "pre-existing conditions". This gets rid of a lot of the incentive for lying. If you also c) charge everyone the same amount for insurance, this gets rid of the rest of the incentive. Since the whole idea of insurance is to spread the risk around, this is the perfect solution.
The only reason this kind of "fraud" exists is that the insurance companies have provided a reason for it.
but this has nothing to do with the race in CT. There are other threads available for discussing health care.
Joe Kennedy's running!
Well, not the Kennedy, Kennedy...
Just another guy who happens to share the same last name as the late Teddy Kennedy.
And he's running as a...libertarian.
I kinda hope he wins. I mean, low voter turnout for the special election "name" recognition...
Heh, that reminds me of an election in 1996 in my home solidly Democratic TX-10 district where Teresa Doggett (R) ran against the incumbent Lloyd Doggett (D). She lost, but I always wondered whether they nominated her solely in the hopes that enough people would accidentally vote for her. :P
But if one was to ban rescession, you could have the other extreme.
Sure, but if you ban rescission, presumably insurance companies would do due diligence to find out whether or not you were actually a 25 year old virile health nut or an 80-year-old chain smoker. I don't think anyone's saying, "Insurance companies should have to take you at your word." Any rule has the potential to be abused, and rescission is currently abused by insurance companies, typically. It hardly seems reasonable to suggest that we can't stop that abuse because someone else might abuse the new rule.
@Persuter,
But, you'll notice I didn't suggest we couldn't stop that abuse. I suggested that reasonable regulation was necessary, rather than outright banning rescission.
shots said: flame wars, vulgar comments, insults, sarcastic and dismissive behavior, and puerile taunts.
Ah yes... my favorite Olympic event. The heptathalon!
As a CT. resident who watches these political situations, these appear to be the most realistic possibilities. First --- if Dodd's poll numbers begin to improve, the race comes down to Dodd vs. Simmons. Both parties pour a ton of money into the race. Obama comes to CT. a couple of times. It becomes a close race late and anyone's game.
Second --- Dodd's poll numbers do not improve and the party quietly urges he withdraws and he does. The AG - Blumenthal (Dem) runs --- game over, Blumenthal wins. He has huge support in CT and very high name recognition.
Persuter is currently favored for the gold in Dismissive Behavior. And (small "b") brian is world record-holder in Puerile Taunts.
@Paul
Those sound like reasonable possibilities. For the second one, when health care reform passes, Dodd can even use that as a plausible reason -- "The life's work of myself and my good friend Ted Kennedy has been given a giant leap forward. I'm ready for retirement. The dream shall never die." That sort of thing.
To your first possibility, particularly if the race is close, I can see a teabagger candidate getting into the race -- challenging Simmons who is not nearly nutbat enough for the wingers. (I can say that without knowing anything substantial about Simmons -- no one is really nutbat enough for them.) This scenario leads to a number of possible NY-23 endgames, and Dodd retains his seat.
"filistro said...
shots said: flame wars, vulgar comments, insults, sarcastic and dismissive behavior, and puerile taunts.
Ah yes... my favorite Olympic event. The heptathalon!
"
I believe it's the Dickathalon, filistro.
....the Dickathalon
LOL! In that case, my money's on Bart DP. I see he's already suiting up and doing stretches.
filistro, now I've got that picture in my head.
@Persuter
That sort of things happen a lot. In the special election in CA-32 last year, the Republicans nominated a woman named Betty Tom Chu to run against Judy Chu.
When Dick Durbin ran for reelection in IL, the GOP nominated a guy named Durkin.
(To all the partisan hacks out there, I'm sure Dems have done this too in deep red districts, these are just examples)
"If recession went through, it would be in EVERYONE'S best interest to just lie on their insurance form to get lower premiums."
Pat, If RESCISSION were banned outright in this bill, I think insurance companies could still charge different rates based on lifestyle (though not as disparate as now), so there would still be an incentive to be honest. And if insurance companies are banned from denying coverage for "preexisting" conditions, people with chronic conditions would most likely be less likely to lie about them.
Though it's worth pointing out that there's an incentive to lie NOW in order to get cheaper rates and to have your actual problems covered.
I agree it could get messy though (just not as messy as the current situation). How much simpler it would be if we just had a single payer system!
But I think we can all agree that if there was a way we could ban RECESSIONS as well, most of us would be all for that.
@Jacob,
If Rescission was banned, what incentive would people have to be honest? What disincentive would they have to lying?
Right now, there's an incentive to lie... you get lower premiums, based on lifestyle choices..or what you state they are. There's a quite large disincentive as well...if the insurance company finds out, they cancel your policy.
If you remove that disincentive...well, there's just the incentive to lie.
If rescission was banned and insurance companies could still charge different rates based on lifestyle, then people could still face a rate hike if they're caught lying. Basically it's the same incentive structure as now, except the consequences aren't as drastic.
If they couldn't charge people different rates, what's the point of lying...it won't affect your coverage.
I'm all for insurance cos giving rate reductions for healthy lifestyles, but here's an idea...a bad faith rate clause.
If you are caught lying (and I mean ACTUALLY lying as determined by say a non-industry regulatory commission), companies could increase your premiums.
Pat,
The point is, if insurance companies simply covered medical expenses, there would be no reason to lie about your condition. But as long as insurance companies give bonuses to their employees who find ways to cancel coverage, people are going to resent being screwed, and will feel okay about trying get the coiverage they are actually paying for.
You're right, Jacob, a universal single-payer system solves all these issues. There's a reason people don't want to let gummint get involved in their Medicare.
@ Pat
Rescission in an insurance policy exists when the consumer commits fraud (intentionally or unintentionally)
No! You can't commit fraud unintentionally.It must be intentional or it's not fraud.
@Opus132
I think Pat meant "rescission exists when the consumer commits fraud (or the insurance company decides to claim fraud because the client has become too expensive)."
Dodd won't step down, even if President Obama and ever Democrat on Capitol Hill ask him to not run for re-election. The reason is vanity. Just two years ago, Dodd thought he could become President, even when polls showed he would get about 1% of the primary vote at best. Yet he kept on running and even moved his family to Iowa.
His eventual result in the Iowa caucus was a disaster. He got 0%.
This guy is seriously conceited and thinks he's extremely important and invaluable to the state of Connecticut. He isn't and he should be replaced by a some other Democrat on the ballot. Unfortunately, he won't be replaced by someone else.
I suspect the "fraud" complaint is a cover anyway. Insurance companies are far more willing to simply cancel policies rather than make legal accusations of fraud. If there really was provable fraud, insurance companies could get punitive damages, and they seldom make any effort to do that. This may be because they're aware a court contest would leave the insurance "contracts" open for examination by judges who might well rule that the whole concept of recission and its connection to pre-existing conditions is unreasonably restrictive, and far too open to abuse by the insurance companies (duh).
But what has this got to do with the contest in Connecticut? Or has this thread been hijacked?
The reason people don't want govt invloved in Medicare is cause they were compelled to pay into the scam for there whole life---so they rightly have an expection of a promise being kept. They didn't expect having services reduced to pay for more bankrupt promises to another group.
I doubt the Tea Partiers introduce another candidate into CT. Peter Schiff is about as conservative as you'll get in that state. He'll suffer though cause of his Wall Street backround. The guy is brilliant economically though. Like to see him debate Dodd on financial issues.
Schiff is more libertarian than conservative, IMO.
You might be right, brian. In which case, if Simmons wons the Republican nomination for the seat, I wouldn't be surprised if Schiff runs as a third-party candidate under pressure from the far right, thus handing the election to Dodd.
shrinkers said...
But what has this got to do with the contest in Connecticut? Or has this thread been hijacked?
Hijacked by a Conservatard TROLL would be my vote.
Why?
Look at whose comment diverted the discussion from comments on Dodd's electoral chances to some other topic. Then whose comments continued the discussion, not on Dodd, but on some other subject.
Conservatard TROLLs have no purpose in life except to try to hijack intelligent discussions.
This is not to say that all conservatives are TROLLs, and thus incapable of engaging in an intelligent discussion, it's just to point out that all Conservatards seem to be TROLLs.
My (admittedly anecdotal) observation is that there are many more Conservatard TROLLs these days than there were in the past.
Mike in Maryland
Peter Schiff even believes in the gold standard nonsense held dear by Ron Paul and many of his supporters.
Chris Dodd is as dirty as his father was. Thank god the poeple of Connecticut are finally wising up.
Peter Schiff supports legalizing drugs.
That's right, Schiff thinks government has no right to ban heroin and meth.
That should go over really well with soccer moms and suburban swing voters.
I thnk legalizing marijuana (at least for medical use) would be a pretty good idea. Legalizing heroin and meth would be awful.
Off topic, but pretty interesting --
Both Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich loved Obama's speech in Oslo. in acceptance of the Nobel Prize. Something historic is happening here. We may all want to take the time to be certain to hear the speech.
Shots, I can't speak for Jenny, but --
I don't think she was poking fun at Schiff. I think she was lamenting that the current Republican party is unlikely to allow someone like that to get elected.
@Jacob and Opus
On "Fraud"
Jacob's mostly right. Actually PROVING fraud is quite difficult, as it's all too easy for a person to claim they "made a mistake." On the other hand, some companies are going too aggressively over little minor things (like a note in a doctors chart the patient never saw) to cancel coverage.
a number of states already have protections in place that require the insurance company to show fraud on the part of the consumer before rescinding a policy.
Laws like this are a perfectly reasonable regulation that works much better than simply "banning" rescission would.
http://attorneypages.com/hot/trigger-health-insurance-rescission.htm
http://attorneypages.com/hot/trigger-health-insurance-rescission.htm
"a number of states already have protections in place that require the insurance company to show fraud on the part of the consumer before rescinding a policy."
Just curious: who do they have to show it to? A judge? A state official? Or someone else?
BigInJapan08 [h] said...
can anyone on this site post a non-partisan comment?
----------------------------
Shots [h] said...
@Pat,
I think BiginJapan nailed the problem on the head. This site, and the commentary in particular, is overrun with partisan hacks. It's hard to have a good discussion when those kind of people have a ruling supermajority.
--------------------------------
Shrinkers said...
But what has this got to do with the contest in Connecticut? Or has this thread been hijacked?
-------------------------------
Douchebag in MD said...
Hijacked by a Conservatard TROLL would be my vote.
-------------------------------
I think Mike in MD might have a point. I'm an old timer on this site and I don't recognize a lot of the recent posters. Is something going on elsewhere that has led to a spate of superfluous posts here at 538? Are we under an attack of the arcane?
Although there isn't much room to talk amongst the regulars. Half you guys got sucked into a useless argument over the merits of tele-conferencing as a solution to global warming the other night. How dumb was that?
And I'm surprised we haven't driven Bart insane cause we've really been pounding him harder than usual the past few days. I hope he hasn't hurt himself.
And Jenny. OMFG! Burt was right! ur a 16 yr old. maybe an immature 20 something. Yo, girlfriend. u da bomb! ROTFLMAO! [/sarcasm]
Seriously, sister. I know we're on the same team and all but could you tone down the childish stuff? I understand Pete Kent has a Twitter account. Feel free to do that to him.
Kinda like Chris Dodd. What's he done to lose popularity so much?
Mr U... I have a theory about Jenny.
I think "Jenny" is a computer in somebody's dorm room, and has multiple users. Sometimes "Jenny" is genuinely appealing and makes a lot of sense, and sometimes she's incohereht/annoying/combative and/or juvenile.
Regardless, we need all the Jenny's to get involved, and especially to come out and vote. They're an important part of the base... and in past years they've been too often MIA when elections roll around.
Bad-mouthing, not poor-mouthing. Poor-mouthing is claiming poverty (like when you ask for a raise and your boss tells you business is bad).
BigInJapan08 said...
can anyone on this site post a non-partisan comment?
Can anyone on the left complete a sentence without using the words 'teabagger', 'rightwing nut' or without mentioning Sarah Palin?
Can anyone on the right complete a sentence without the word 'Obamessiah'?
80% of the posters on this site are complete partisan hacks. Get a grip.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, yes, yes and 80% ? did Rasmussen conduct a poll.
Shots/Pat, if you are upset w/the discourse, one can always relocate, but as BDP will tell you, 538 can be an addiction for some.
and if you're here a couple mos. from now still complaining about the discourse ...
Again, this is a progressive blog w/a heavy liberal slant, shocking! and trolls/malcontents patrol every political blog on the net, but more so liberal blogs, because they are just more interesting, eh.
Get a grip, indeed!
btw, political blogging can be a contact sport and again, ignoring various posters is easy.
"It's time for Chris Dodd to step aside and let Ned Lamont run"
"I totally agree. Dodd needs to step down for the good of the party."
Because if anyone's done good for the Democratic Party's fortunes in
Connecticut by running for the Senate, its Ned Lamont?
Tobias said...
I thnk legalizing marijuana (at least for medical use) would be a pretty good idea. Legalizing heroin and meth would be awful.
The craziest part of the whole marijuana thing is that "meth" is effectively available by prescription (minus the household cleaner contaminents), and there is a long history of medical use of the opioid family.
No wait, the really craziest part is that the DEA has it's knickers in such a knot over cannabis, and is supported in this by Congress etal, that hemp production of plants with trace or less THC is effectively banned in the US. o_O I have to buy hemp milk from back in Canada.
Guess I can't be too surprised about this
Humans are an endangered species. Why? Because we're stoopid.
Most broadly, to accumulate and analyze polling and political data in way that is informed, accurate and attractive. Most narrowly, to give you the best possible objective assessment of the likely outcome of upcoming elections.
Shots, y'see, objectivity and truth, stuff like facts and data -- they all have a liberal bias.
Mr. Universe,
I think it's telling that Republicans are willing to crash an international conference in order to advance their domestic partisan political goals. You're right, it's hardly surprising.
shrinkers...
Remember when Bush was President and they used to say you aren't allowed to criticize him on foreign soil?
Shots said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Coming from a 538 newbie who posted last night:
Well, I can see that the commenters who remain are a rather incurious bunch who aren't really interested in creative or open dialogue on this topic and are looking at an easy target to hurl insults at whilst repeating their talking points over and over to reinforce their groupthink in this echo-chamber. I'll try again another day when a more curious, intelligent, and polite group is having a conversation.
and then as evidence of no self-control foolishly kept posting and posting and posting ...
And as one is a newbie this 538 political blog perspective has been discussed before and yes 538 has a liberal perspective, although adhering to scientific/analytical formulas.
ie
What is your political affiliation? My state has non-partisan registration, so I am not registered as anything. I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time (though by no means always). This year, I have been a supporter of Barack Obama. The other contributor to this website, Sean Quinn, has also been a supporter of Barack Obama.
In 2007 Silver began to publish analyses and predictions relating to the United States presidential election, 2008, initially under the pseudonym "Poblano." At first this work appeared on the political blog Daily Kos, but in March 2008 Silver established his own website, 538.com.
Winger conservative trolls like yourself, BDP, Jeff complain all the time, Nate isn't posting enough anti Dem articles and positive Rep articles, sooo it is what it is as 538's regular progressive posters are in the majority.
And again, Or do you have a bridge you need to crawl back under? after you made a fool of yourself last nite, showing one had no self-control, saying you were done posting for the night and kept on posting like a fool, it's surprising you aren't still under that bridge.
but as you are a compulsive winger troll, not surprising at all, eh.
take care
Speaking of stooopid...
Look what the Freepers are gumming over> tonight.
44%. My God.
Beam me up, Scotty. It's not safe down here.
@shma
Remember when Bush was President and they used to say you aren't allowed to criticize him on foreign soil?
Wait, are you actually implying that there might be some disconnect -- or even, dare we say it, hypocrisy -- in the words and deeds of some members of the Republican Party?
@shots
Not everybody gets my sense of irony but I should've been more succinct.
Humanity is an endangered species.
My current evidence is BDP and Jeff 3996 trying to change the subject in threads by continually posting anti-Obama/Dem deflecting articles as evidenced by the past 3/4 days and you can do the research and prove me wrong.
And as I don't want to get in a battle of wits w/an an unarmed, disingenuous, sore loser troll like yourself, g'day.
btw, your frothing-at-the-mouth hyperbole was disappointing, surely one can do better ...
Can you back this up with evidence?
The Blog Archive to the right.
can anyone on this site post a non-partisan comment?
Nate joined the modeling churn last year. Results were mixed. The thing is though that Nate is doing something else that is far more important than the models and the statistics. He's asking questions and challenging assumptions and, with the exception of a few days here and there, he's providing a forum where others (who generally don't have blogs of their own) can do the same. More power to him.
Hear them laying down the law: the first stupidities that they advance are in the style in which men establish religions and laws. Nothing is more discreditable than to have assertion and proof precede knowledge and perception. [Cicero].
—Montaigne, Of experience
I chuckle when I read a comment like this because I know the person making the statement is either engaging in a bit of intentional humorous sarcasm or is grossly disconnected from reality.
"Or"? Couldn't it be both? And other stuff too?
Don't set up false dichotomies.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Shots,
I have no idea why my statement was controversial.
America is not ready to accept retail sale of Heroin and Meth nor a candidate holding that view.
Can somebody please teach Shots what "anecdote" means?
I'd do it myself but I don't have the energy right now. (I suspect teaching Shots anything at all probably requires the application of considerable pain.)
filistro,
i'm disappointed in you.
I thought you liked me. Oh well.
You know what I find "incohereht/annoying/combative and/or juvenile" -- people who constantly say I'm gonna hold my breath and not vote for anyone because 5 corrupt dems in the senate and people who say Obama is a right-winger. Yes, that's why I engage childish posts with taunts, because anyone who says Obama is a right-winger doesn't accept forensic.
It was said rather tactlessly, but there is quite a bit of a tenor problem in the discussion area.
Political discussion on the internet is too emotional to be as laissez-faire as Nate has been. The rather serious bipartisan troll problem, embodied by the PeteKents and MikeinMDs, serves to make interesting discussion almost possible here and it simply detracts from the blog, not enhances it, as a well-run comment area should. Not trying to pick on Nate here (he darn well knows I've had nothing but respect for him over the years), but the discussion here is a problem.
Every non-moderated forum has to have a community that polices itself strongly and has no tolerance for people who step outside bounds of reasonable behavior. And even if that means that a Republican has to shun someone ranting about socialists or a Democrat has to scold someone for talking about Rethuglicans, that's what has to be done.
SHOTS
clearly you are still trolling, but get real...
since you are a newbie [at least under this assumed name with no blogger profile], check out the 538 archives as suggested above...
also, as noted Nate was a contributor to DailyKos last year until he launched this site
he is also into Net Roots and many other 'progressive' interests & seminars [as well as a semi-regular on MSNBC]
and he doesn't just post on Gay issues quite often simply because he is trying to be 'fair & balanced' but because it is a progressive issue of civil rights
but just stop & think [try to do so without hurting your feeble mental capacities] - WHY DO YOU THINK NATE IS IN COPENHAGEN RIGHT NOW ??? and who do you think got him credentialed ???
this site is & always has been at least a moderately progressive oasis & Nate makes no bones about it
he & his contributors do attempt to provide commentary, perspective & analysis from all angles - but tempered with his own progressive leaning insight
and the regulars here are well aware of this despite your own stubborn ignorance & refusal to investigate
ps - you might be taken more seriously IF you provided a profile rather than be just another anonymous poser/poster
Dodd is damaged goods, that much is clear. The Dems need to take a lesson from the Corzine fiasco and dump the incumbent post-haste. Ideally, Obama should appoint him to something and be done with him. And please note, even DKos is starting to call for Dodd's head.
A thought experiment - what if Dodd did run again, but the Dems and indies kick him to the curb and rally around Nader? I'd like to know what happens when a Senator, in this case Nader, refuses to caucus with either party? Does he even get to sit on a committee? I'm no fan of Nader's, but I'd like to know what would happen...
Jamison,
Committee assignments are made through the party caucus system.
New Senators (and Reps) come into office with a 'wish list' of committee assignments. They let the party caucus know what their first, second, third . . . choices for committee assignment are. In the Senate, a 'pecking order' is established - former Senators get first choice, then former Reps, then former Governors of states, then everyone else.
The initial 'screening' process is done by a party caucus 'committee on committees' - a caucus committee to assign who (of the members of that specific caucus) sits on which committees. The assignments are then approved by the party leaders, then by the entire caucus. The initial assignments are rarely changed by the party leaders or caucus members.
After everyone gets their opportunity to choose the first committee they want to sit on, they then go through the process again for each additional committee, third choice, etc., until all committee seats are filled. The leaders of the political parties then make the final committee assignments, considering the members' preferences, expertise, and loyalty to the party. After the caucus makes its selections for committee assignments, they present the assignments to a vote by the full body (House or Senate). It's usually a pro-forma vote, as voting against the proposed assignments (especially by a minority party member) could be, in effect, suicidal to that member's career (especially in the House).
Since one of the criteria considered is "party loyalty", consideration is given to filling all the party's seats on committees with members who are loyal to the party's agenda. Also, since all seats 'need' to be filled to 'spread the workload', members who are 'out of favor' might find their assignments to be quite different than their preferred assignments - i.e., Nader might want to be on Environment and Public Works, but find himself assigned to one of his last choices. (LIEberman is a special case - he was bribed to caucus with the Dems by being promised the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee [his first choice of committee assigments.])
Of course, the new Senator, if not receiving his/her 'preferred' committee assignments could then (at least threaten to) caucus with the opposing party, with the same process for committee assignment.
I'd imagine that Nader would not be welcome in the GOOPer caucus, and since a member not in a caucus would not get a committee assignment (where most of the actual legislation happens for most bills), Nader would by necessity caucus with the Dems. However, the caucuses would not be required to honor all, or even any, of Nader's wishes or demands. So while it is theoretically possible for a Senator to not be assigned to a committee, in practicality it probably won't happen.
Of course, all the above would change if there were a third party in the Senate, but as of now, there isn't. I'm sure LIEberman would consider caucusing with Nader (except for that pesky chairmanship [VBG] being pulled), but who else? Anyone? Saunders almost certainly would not. Maybe after the teabaggers win a few seats in 2010 [/sarcasm], there might be a third party, but a teabagger's political philosophy would almost certainly be a lot different than Nader's.
Mike in Maryland
Yes, Schiff is more Libertarian, as is much of the Tea Party movement. I think this philosophy is getting more support, as many Repubs got disillusioned with "compassionate conservatism"
Ron Paul's Fed bashing seemed wacky just a year ago. Now, alot of people are clamoring for more Fed tranparency.
I can't see Dodd quiting. Senior senators think their jobs are a birthright. Look how people like Craig, Stevens, Kennedy, Byrd have held onto their jobs to the bitter end.
brian said...
I can't see Dodd quiting. Senior senators think their jobs are a birthright. Look how people like Craig, Stevens, Kennedy, Byrd have held onto their jobs to the bitter end.
Actually Larry Craig did quit, or at least didn't run for re-election. And Kennedy and Byrd never really faced a chance of losing an electin. Kennedy actually knew he wasn't going to get a chance to lose an election.
Sorry, I find it hard to get up in arms about a Rasmussen poll, and this just proves why. I do not care what they try to sell me, there is NO WAY Linda McMahon could actually beat Chris Dodd and there is NO WAY she is ahead. I mean really, I watched the WWF (WWE now) as a kid, but come on, there is not a chance this could fly in the mainstream, more puritanical than you'd think New England states. She just doesn't play. I could certainly see Simmons winning, to clarify, but this poll proves exactly what I've been saying, Rasmussen is now tooling for the right on his polls, there is absolutely no question in my mind when I see a non viable candidate to any adult I know with a lead.
brian said...
Yes, Schiff is more Libertarian, as is much of the Tea Party movement. I think this philosophy is getting more support, as many Repubs got disillusioned with "compassionate conservatism"
LOL. You actually believe this crap, don't you? It's the same sales pitch warmed over. Ron Paul gets a little lipservice but the only thing that has changed is now the GOP is on the outside looking in, and so the song changes back...
:/
I agree Dodd is history if Simmons gets the nomination but he better watch going to far right.
Dodd really should retire but I agree he would rather go down in flames than help his state.
I think Simmons is the only one that could beat him, McMahon would never win a general or Schiff for that matter. I would like to see another Poll before I say he is history, I really think rasmussen oversampes republicans in state polling.
I didn't say they didn't quit...I said held on in spite of screwing their party/not being able to do their jobs effectively. Stevens/Craig/Kennedy were all from partisan states..so stepping aside would not endanger a seat flipping. At least Byrd, if he quits, Repubs have a great chance for a pickup, so his holding on till he needs to be carried out is helping the Dems alot.
Therein lies the cognitive dissonance. Liberals like her have been suggesting over and over again the past year that so long as the Republicans remain obstinate in their beliefs, they won't appeal to any new voters and will continue to have a dwindling base. Schiff isn't representative of that wing, at least not by his position on legalizing certain drugs.
Let's go ask Scozzafava about your theory.
GOP members that don't toe the line let attacked by a very powerful wing of the GOP.
It is not that GOP members have to become more right wing to attract more voters, it is that they have to to get support of the base. That is what you fail to grasp.
I have come to think of you as Pete Kent in a three piece suit.
All the 50 cent words in the world won't hide the fact that you are a moron.
brian,
why do you insist on being silly.
west Virginia is a democrat state.
In the state assembly, 71 of it's 100 members are elected Democrats.
In the state senate, 76% of it's members are elected Democrats.
In the federal congressional delegation, 3 of the 4 members are elected Democrats.
The governor is a Democrat.
Is this what watching Glenn Beck does the teabaggn mind - 29% state representation equals a "great chance" ?
Again, I ask, what's so bad about Dodd? It's not like he's pulling a Lieberman.
Anyone from CT want to fill me in.
Yo bitch, I wish you'd come call me a TB to my face, I'd slap you to next month. Cunt.
brian said...
Yo bitch, I wish you'd come call me a TB to my face, I'd slap you to next month. C**t.
~~~~~~~~~~
thanx for sharing ...
brian said...
Yo bitch, I wish you'd come call me a TB to my face, I'd slap you to next month. Cunt.
==================================
Yup, you're a teabagger. no doubt.
brian said...
Yo bitch, I wish you'd come call me a TB to my face, I'd slap you to next month. C**t.
Jeez, what an ass.
I always figured Republican men are the types who will hit girls when provoked. It's part of that "master of the house, lord of the universe, do NOT question my authority" ethos they marinate themselves in 24/7.
Attractive, eh?
Hey Jenny... you go, girl! :-)
Hey Shots!
Persons dwelling in domiciles fabricated of transparent silicate material should refrain from hurling hardened geological formations.
Jenny,
Please don't insult teabaggers by comparing them to brian.
@Dan Szymborski
Agree that there are plenty of disadvantages to a completely unmoderated forum. I think a lot of it has to do with the limitations of the forum itself. Moderation has been tried in the past but usually only when it gets to the death threat level. Several people (myself included) have requested community moderation though I'm not certain if that's available on the vehicle that carries the commentary.
It boils down to free speech versus echo chamber. I guess the former trumps the latter.
I no longer try to post on MSNBC's political blog due to their moderation. I suppose having a voice means putting up with the BDPs and PKs
No sooner do I post a reply about moderation then blogger brian says this...
Yo bitch, I wish you'd come call me a TB to my face, I'd slap you to next month. C**t.
I may think Jenny is a bit of a punk ass but Mister, you'll have to go through me first, you chauvinist bastard. That was waaaay out of line.
Shots said...
I'm unfamiliar with this person [PK] but, evidently, I perceive your comment to be some kind of backhanded insult
That was not "some kind of backhanded insult", shots. It was a plain and simple, upfront, out and out insult.
Mike in Maryland
Mike, it certainly was an insult... and a lovely one, too. One of your best.
Though I'm not at all sure about the "three piece suit." After a careful study of Shots' posts, I think he's more likely Pete Kent in unlaced sneakers, baggy-ass jeans and a hoodie.
Filistro,
Actually the comment was made by beavis, not me. I wish I had come up with that comment, but beavis is the one who should be complemented. I just wanted to make sure that shots realized the intent of beavis' comment.
As to lovely insults, your comment at 12:21 pm today was a dandy! Extremely well-worded, and a nice twist on the old 'glass house' phrase!!
Mike in Maryland
@shots,
If you want to say something of substance, say it.
Whining about other comments being partisan seems to decrease the signal-to-noise ratio for the conversation.
People are allowed to comment on blogs. Fiver Thirty Eight is designed so readers can easily avoid the comments.
If you're looking for a blog with a different set of people commenting, go somewhere else or start your own blog.
Мультфильмы онлайн
Post a Comment