BREAKING: Dems Plotting Ouster of Harry Reid (UPDATED)
By Erick Posted in Congress — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sources tell RedState that disgruntled Democrat staffers are working with a handful of Democrat Senators in preparations to oust Harry Reid after November 7th.
The staffers and senators feel that Reid tied their hands and they were not able to fully capitalize on this election cycle. Feeling that they will not recapture the Senate, but that they will make it very close, the plotting has begun. With the ever aggressive Mitch McConnell in line to become Majority Leader, the staffers and senators think they'll need someone better able to match wits with McConnell.
The Democrats, btw, have always loved trying to tie Mitch McConnell to lobbists and "pay to play" allegations. Unfortunately for them, they won't be able to use that card against him if Reid is the leader, given that the Reid family business is apparently lobbying -- not to mention his current ethics problems and shady land deals.
UPDATE: Since this post appeared, numerous individuals in the Senate have come forward to tell RedState that it is Senator Dick Durbin, not Senator Hillary Clinton, who is pushing for Harry Reid's ouster. Durbin, who called U.S. troops Nazis on the floor of the Senate, wants to replace Reid as leader of the Dems in the Senate.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | I loathe having to do this... — Comments (10) »
BREAKING: Dems Plotting Ouster of Harry Reid (UPDATED) 35 Comments (0 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I know that I read several months ago that Harry Reid, noticing that his numbers in Nevada are suffering mightily since he took over as Senate Minority Leader and worrying about his own re-election prospects - which are responsible for putting food on the tables of his lobbyist sons - had offered to step aside and offer Hillary his full support to become the next Senate Minority Leader IF she promised to not run for the Presidency in 2008.
I imagine Hill's reaction would be, "I'm running for President in 2008...if I don't get it, then I'll take the majority leader's position, and I will welcome your support at that time."
I'm sure that Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer both covet that position, too, though.
I read that same article, I think it was from the LV..Tribune-Review? LV's main paper, regardless. I think it was the guy who owns the paper, actually. Hehe.
But that's why liberals love him, and it's also why the heading "breaking news" isn't really credible.
If Harry Reid stays Senate Minority Leader, I think that he will continue to become increasingly unpopular in Nevada. If he is viewed to have lost power, I think his stature will be greatly diminished. Either way, I think he's open to being defeated by a strong challenger.
Luckily, we have Sharron Angle - who would be a phenomenal senator. I say that if she runs, she stands a good shot at knocking Harry Reid off.
I'm a Republican for Human Protection from Psycho-Environmentalist Religious Zealots like those who caused tens of millions to die in Africa from malaria ever since they got DDT banned because they made completely false allegations that DDT was harmful to humans and birds.
Whether or not it's true, that's the theory that everyone should be pushing... if one wants Republican turnout as high as possible.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
If anything, the Senate playing field is expanding by the day. Ohio is pretty conclusively given up by the GOP now--the RNC removes $1 mil, NYT reports GOP has given up Ohio, Mehlman (turnout maestro) indignantly denies and, just to show up the NYT, puts the $1 mil back in Ohio. Interesting, no?
My interpretation is that Rove decided DeWine was cooked and yanked the money. Then Mehlman realized that that $1mil was more useful giving the impression to nat'l GOP voters that Ohio was still contested, than spending it in other races that could use more money. The GOP gets more marginal utility out of making a lost position *appear* contested, than it does by spending that money elsewhere.
If true, that is VERY dire for the Republicans.
Combining that with your intellectually dishonest "misogynist" labeling of Jim Webb, Kingston posting here about such and such big-gov't conservatism(pimping that subsidy-addled energy bill last year comes to mind) one has to wonder about how much of admin is actually grassroots. We're all principled here, and we have our principled disagreements over whether or not the GOP deserves to return to the House with a majority, but this just doesn't pass the laugh test. In my view, the GOP has _given up_ four seats. Now we're at Missouri and Tennessee; Virginia, which was supposed to be a lock, is now almost a total tossup. (Then again, TN was supposed to be a lock too until Corker missed out on those 27% of 911 calls while he was mayor.) SUSA, no liberally biased pollster, shows Republican collapse in AZ, with JD Hayworth now within the margin of error against his opponent and Kyl leading by only 5, with seismic shifts of party ID all over the country.
Brand trust takes a long time to get back; just ask the Democrats. The rules for the RedState brand are no different.
Furthermore, the Kos crowd is in love with Reid. Liberals and moderate Dems alike are falling all over each other to praise him. The Dems already have their corruption (Billy 90k Jefferson), so it's not like Reid is going to make or break their Senate prospects by himself.
...they're just spotty - at best.
Rasmussen is still the gold standard in political polling. Other than the final election day poll, their polls are the only ones that really count in my book.
Remember, the Republican turnout crew smoked the Dhimmicrats in 2004. That wasn't a factor on the ground that Rasmussen could have evaluated--so, in 2004 at least, if you exclude that factor Rasmussen is actually "pro-GOP" by about 2 points.
SUSA is best for picking up on trends. Their actual results, as I recall, are still pretty reliable, but not out of line with other pollsters one way or another--but they pick up on trends earlier than most.
You just said, if I may sum it up: "Rasmussen's polls are only accurate if you compare them to the actually votes on election day. SUSA, on the other hand, is really good at telling us the way people would vote but for the GOTV machine of the GOP. And how dare RAsmussen attempt to predict who will vote in November. The shame."
Sola Gratia
Rasmussen tilts GOP, because it was spot-on perfect when the exogenous factor of the GOP turnout operation was superior to the Democrats'. That could not have been a prediction factor for Rasmussen, so their results were actually a point or two off. Thus, with equal turnout operations, Rasmussen would not be the "gold standard."
As for SUSA, here's an example: it came out with a poll a weekish ago that showed Talent trailing McCaskill by 9 points. Nobody thinks it's actually that bad. It was probably because more frustrated Republicans are too annoyed with all the thought of the election to answer a phone poll, so Republican response rate sucks with SUSA, so the Democrat gets a big, fat lead. So is McCaskill ahead 9 points? Doubt it--but whether it has to do w/ Republican non-enthusiasm or a real shift, it signifies a major weakening of support for Talent, even though its numbers themselves are outliers.
Caveat lector
I'm betting that Rasmussen will significantly outperform SurveyUSA again this election cycle.
If a poll isn't reliable, then neither are their trends. Survey USA is to be used for ballparking at best.
Not since he adjusted his party affiliation quotas, anyways. I'd estimate Rasmussen is 2-3 points the other direction now.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
how did a troll like you survive for almost two years here?
Or are you just a very, very disgruntled Republican.
Harry Reid is an idiot. But who in congreess is not? A bunch of crooks and fools.
freezer.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
to hold a cool mil. Gotta admire the guy, he's no amateur like Jefferson and the 90k in his freezer
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats
It conjures images of a cash-wrapped Walt Disney or something.
Thanks, Tbone. It's been a hard few days of news.
reid was a lackluster figure, and apparently just as guilty of corruption as anyone else; but he didn't turn off anyone; he was just there.
not that hastert and frist are great leaders, but theyre not offensive either. the public could get tired of a kerry or durbin, much as pelosi can only be taken in small doses. some smooth talking lawyer makes them actual look like a normal party.
lobbyists, unions and his constituents for money like the rest of the Democrats, just his wives.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
outside of Clinton?
Durbin is a ruthless partisan savage and is next in line. If something is afoot, prematurely, I guarantee that he has something to do with it.
I'm sure that Dicky wasn't amused by the reports of Reid offering to step aside for Hillary. He may be trying to preempt any move by Hillary towards the Minority Leader's post, should she decide that she wants it.
Pelosi and Durban as the face of the Democrat Party between now and 08. I couldn't think of two better characters to compare and contrast Mitt Romney against.
"Durbin is a ruthless partisan savage and is next in line. If something is afoot, prematurely, I guarantee that he has something to do with it."
I'm inclined to agree wholeheartedly. Durbin is a weasle, and he will do whatever it takes to protect his senority.
"He may be trying to preempt any move by Hillary towards the Minority Leader's post, should she decide that she wants it."
Agree with the first part of that statement. But the second part...IMHO, there's no way Hillary would want the Minority Leader's position. Majority Leader maybe, but not the Minority Leader. It would be much easier to attach the "obstructionist" label to Hillary in that position.
Either she's seen by her base to look weak should she compromise with the Republican majority, or she directs the execution of the filibuster to stop the Republican agenda and risks having the "obstructionist" label attached.
Neither scenario bodes well for a sitting senator who seeks the presidency.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
We can only hope Chuckie Schumer is one of those welding the knife. He's a loon, a camera hog and the one of the best spokesmen for why Republicans should be in charge.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Neither scenario bodes well for a sitting senator who seeks the presidency.
I find it odd that so many conservatives seem to believe that Hillary has a chance of receiving the '08 nomination. She is loathed and despised by the left, we hate her more than you do :) I ask this respectfully: why do so many of you believe she has a shot?
Neither screaming faction, yours or mine, would give up victory to spite an apostate.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
I made no attempt to offer an opinion regarding Sen. Clinton's chances of winning the Democratic nomination in '08.
My point was pretty straightforward. The Senate Minority Leader's position contains many pitfalls for any politician with presidential aspirations. Sen. Clinton is too politically savy and calculating to get caught-up in the trappings of that position when she clearly has serious presidential ambitions.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Thomas,
Thank you for your frank and interesting comment. You obviously pay close attention to the entire political picture and are aware of what the left thinks of Ms Clinton, while I had no idea that Mr McCain was considered the same, by your side. I would have to sadly agree with your statement if this was about ANY other Dem. . . but the climate has dramatically changed since we held our collective noses and voted for Kerry. The people who felt compelled to vote for him would NEVER vote for Hillary. The betrayal is felt too deeply and the animosity is at a level I never thought possible toward a fellow human being, forget a democrat. Again: Thank you for your frankness.
Did your sources indicate who might replace Reid? ...Hillary?
Republicans for Environmental Protection