MarginOfError Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 I've started to get a little tired of all the hoopla over the fact that "so many democrats are not running for re-election." So I thought I'd provide a little education about the 2010 Senate races There are five democratic senators who are not running for re-election. There are six republican senators not running for re-election. That means more republicans are throwing in the towel than democrats. The "sinking ship" philosophy just doesn't hold water (ha ha! great pun!) On the democrat side, the senators that are retiring are Christopher Dodd (30 years), Ted Kaufman (1 year, replaced Vice President Biden), Roland Burris (1 year, replaced President Obama), Paul Kirk (4 months, replaced Ted Kennedy), and Byron Dorgan (18 years). On the republican side, the retiring senators are George Lemieux (6 years), Sam Brownback (14 years, replaced Senator Dole), Jim Bunning (12 years), Kit Bond (24 years), Judd Gregg (18 years), Greg Voinovich (12 years). So, just to be clear, there are two elected democratic senators retiring compared to six elected republican senators. Three of the retiring democrats were appointed. Of those two, the seats weren't even scheduled for re-election in 2010. If Senator McCain had won the presidential election, this year you'd see 3 democratic senators retiring compared to 6 republican senators. That's a much different picture than what people keep trying to paint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Well, I haven't heard the conservative excitement limited to the retiring folks in the senate. There's also Colorado Dem Gov Ritter and Mich Lt. Gov Cherry throwing in the towel. And the Jan 19th special election in Mass, where GOP Brown very well might take another senate seat from the Dems. More fuel for the excitement is not just the news of who is retiring, but how good GOP chances are in taking these seats over. I'm not sure, but I can assume from the total lack of media coverage, that the republican seats will be filled by other republicans. I'm thinking the real picture, while maybe less rosy than the zeal you're seeing, is certainly more rosy than you're painting it... LM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 According to this story, this is why its interesting that Senate Dems are stepping down...here is the linkAbrupt Dem retirements show tough landscape - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyando Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 I was on vacation for a week and didn't know there was a problem with Dems or Rebs, retirement. Maybe the sinking ship is the USS Congress? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 I was on vacation for a week and didn't know there was a problem with Dems or Rebs, retirement. Maybe the sinking ship is the USS Congress? I agree with you on that one....:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 The problem for the Democrats is that some of their races will be very tough ones. Even Harry Reid is expected to have a tough time winning. The Republicans who are retiring are from conservative places, so they probably will not lose any to Democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted January 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 The problem for the Democrats is that some of their races will be very tough ones. Even Harry Reid is expected to have a tough time winning.The Republicans who are retiring are from conservative places, so they probably will not lose any to Democrats.I have no problem saying that seats currently held by democrats are up for grabs. But that's a lot different than saying that the democratic ship is sinking because so many senators are retiring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Instead of the ship sinking, perhaps we can use the analogy of the big bloated Dem cargo ship surrounded by half a dozen Republican fast-attack nuclear submarines? I mean, if we really need the appropriate analogy... LM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 The best thing to do at this point is wait for the mid term elections. Then we will know if there is floating or sinking or just hit an ice berg. Wait, there are no ice bergs, they have all melted. Anyway, we will see then...:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trulykiwi Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 McDonalds vs Burger King....mmm given to us to appear like we have choice yet owned by the same corporate entity! And in the end they both make us fat, unhealthy and poor......Catch my drift! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyando Posted January 14, 2010 Report Share Posted January 14, 2010 McDonalds vs Burger King....mmm given to us to appear like we have choice yet owned by the same corporate entity! And in the end they both make us fat, unhealthy and poor......Catch my drift!Now all of a sudden, I'm hungry for a JR Whopper with cheese. Thanks a lot truly........thanks a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Virginia: Bob McDonnell defeated Creigh Deeds in the November. New Jersey: Republican Christopher Christie defeated incumbent Democrat Jon S. Corzine for Governorship in January.And now, Massachusets: Brown wins the landmark Senate race over Coakley, promising to kill off Pres. Obama's healthcare reform for good."Coakley, the state's attorney general, had been considered a shoo-in in heavily Democratic Massachusetts, which hadn't elected a Republican to the Senate in 38 years.""Trailing by double digits a little more than a week ago, Brown edged ahead of Coakley, campaigning as the pickup-truck-driving candidate, capitalizing on voter frustrations, and vowing to send Obama's health care bill "back to its drawing board."""Brown was underfunded and unknown statewide. No Republican had won a U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts since 1972. Democrats control the state's congressional delegation. They also hold the state's governorship, along with overwhelming majorities in both houses of the state legislature."I'm still coming down off the election-night adrenalin rush, but I gotta say that I see quite a bit of hoopla in the painted picture...LM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyando Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Virginia: Bob McDonnell defeated Creigh Deeds in the November. New Jersey: Republican Christopher Christie defeated incumbent Democrat Jon S. Corzine for Governorship in January.And now, Massachusets: Brown wins the landmark Senate race over Coakley, promising to kill off Pres. Obama's healthcare reform for good."Coakley, the state's attorney general, had been considered a shoo-in in heavily Democratic Massachusetts, which hadn't elected a Republican to the Senate in 38 years.""Trailing by double digits a little more than a week ago, Brown edged ahead of Coakley, campaigning as the pickup-truck-driving candidate, capitalizing on voter frustrations, and vowing to send Obama's health care bill "back to its drawing board."""Brown was underfunded and unknown statewide. No Republican had won a U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts since 1972. Democrats control the state's congressional delegation. They also hold the state's governorship, along with overwhelming majorities in both houses of the state legislature."I'm still coming down off the election-night adrenalin rush, but I gotta say that I see quite a bit of hoopla in the painted picture...LMThis is a good sign for conservatives. And it is a wake up call to Republicans and Democrats.I do have concerns about what happens, after we put away the party hats and clean up the confetti from Browns win. The way I see it, Browns election could very well drop the unemployment numbers, because his vote will go against undue taxes on small business (sometimes referred too as the rich). I don't think that a drop in unemployment would be a good thing. More like fantastic, yahoo, this is Christmas all year round, kind of thing. I know so many people who want to go back to work. I just hope we don't fall back into complacency. We have been there and done that, and ended up with the worlds most expensive T-shirt. One of the many problems we conservatives have, is that we think it is all common sense to us, and common sense does not need repeating over and over again. So our message gets lost and viewed as antiquated, once again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 another one is going to retire....we shall see what happens in the next few days..Another Dem to Retire - The Daily Beast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadams_4040 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I've started to get a little tired of all the hoopla over the fact that "so many democrats are not running for re-election." So I thought I'd provide a little education about the 2010 Senate racesThere are five democratic senators who are not running for re-election. There are six republican senators not running for re-election. That means more republicans are throwing in the towel than democrats. The "sinking ship" philosophy just doesn't hold water (ha ha! great pun!)On the democrat side, the senators that are retiring are Christopher Dodd (30 years), Ted Kaufman (1 year, replaced Vice President Biden), Roland Burris (1 year, replaced President Obama), Paul Kirk (4 months, replaced Ted Kennedy), and Byron Dorgan (18 years).On the republican side, the retiring senators are George Lemieux (6 years), Sam Brownback (14 years, replaced Senator Dole), Jim Bunning (12 years), Kit Bond (24 years), Judd Gregg (18 years), Greg Voinovich (12 years).So, just to be clear, there are two elected democratic senators retiring compared to six elected republican senators. Three of the retiring democrats were appointed. Of those two, the seats weren't even scheduled for re-election in 2010. If Senator McCain had won the presidential election, this year you'd see 3 democratic senators retiring compared to 6 republican senators. That's a much different picture than what people keep trying to paint. Oh gotta love those right wing spin doctors!:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Oh gotta love those right wing spin doctors!:)yes you do....especially since the left wingers can't even keep their radio station on the air....goodbye boring air america...:):) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Here is more from the spin doctors....Marion Berry to announce retirement - Alex Isenstadt - POLITICO.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 yes you do....especially since the left wingers can't even keep their radio station on the air....goodbye boring air america...:):)Which is a dang shame. I was becoming a big fan of Randi Rhoades. Sort of the flip side of Rush. Tons of uncharitable rants about the other side, mixed in with the occasional deep insightful monologue about why she feels the way she does.A worthy opponent. But those who paid for the marketplace of ideas voted, and I guess we won.LM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmahaLDS Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 yes you do....especially since the left wingers can't even keep their radio station on the air....goodbye boring air america...:):)Liberals, by and large, are not necessarily that interested in having their opinions shouted back at them. It just seems silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyando Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Liberals, by and large, are not necessarily that interested in having their opinions shouted back at them. It just seems silly.Then why did they try Air America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmahaLDS Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Then why did they try Air America?I am not entirely certain. We have discussed this at the secret meetings. A good friend of mine, fellow liberal, once commented that after watching Rachel Maddow (sp?) she understood how it could be easy to fall into the trap of listening to people who share their ideas, but she forced herself to stop watching. I can honestly say I have never watched a whole episode of either Olberman (sp?) or Maddow (sp?). I have seen clips mostly from channel surfing.Edit: After thinking about it for a while, I, as a liberal, find I am more interested in learning about a subject myself instead of hearing what someone else's opinion is. I tend to read more than watch TV or listen to the radio. Edited January 25, 2010 by OmahaLDS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Then why did they try Air America?I might be wrong about this but I thought the idea behind it was to have a radio show voice somewhat comparable to Rush's show but a liberal voice. There were several people who tried this...I know franken did and he did not have ay ratings and others...same problem, no ratings.Where is my favorite Liberal at, she would know...Elphaba where are you??????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmahaLDS Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I might be wrong about this but I thought the idea behind it was to have a radio show voice somewhat comparable to Rush's show but a liberal voice. There were several people who tried this...I know franken did and he did not have ay ratings and others...same problem, no ratings.Where is my favorite Liberal at, she would know...Elphaba where are you???????But liberals are not interested in having their beliefs dictated to them. They are more interested in forming their own opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyando Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I am not entirely certain. We have discussed this at the secret meetings. A good friend of mine, fellow liberal, once commented that after watching Rachel Maddow (sp?) she understood how it could be easy to fall into the trap of listening to people who share their ideas, but she forced herself to stop watching. I, once again, wonder why you try to disparage any one who doesn't think like you. In your telling of the story of your liberal friend, she equates listening to people who share the same ideas, to falling into a trap. What is the trap? And did she stop listening to everyone with the same set of liberal ideas? Does she now turn off the President, when he comes on the tube?Ask anyone who listens to talk radio, and they will admit, that they love to hear from those with the opposite point of view, in a discussion forum. Unlike the six o'clock news, that has evolved into opinion news, by selecting what is put on the air and what is not.Seeing that we are getting all, confessy, like, I hope my fellow conservatives will not hate me for admitting, I can't make it through a full hour of Hannity's TV show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Edit: After thinking about it for a while, I, as a liberal, find I am more interested in learning about a subject myself instead of hearing what someone else's opinion is. I tend to read more than watch TV or listen to the radio.Me too...not the liberal part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.