« Gingrich Threatens EFCA Twitterer With Lawsuit, Doesn't Understand Twitter | Home | Bunning: McConnell Is A "Control Freak" »
Poll: Reid Has Weak Approval, Re-Elect Numbers In Nevada
A new Mason-Dixon poll shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid with some very weak numbers in his home state of Nevada.
Only 38% of Nevadans have a favorable opinion of Reid, with a 50% unfavorable number. For his 2010 campaign, only 35% would vote to re-elect him, 17% would consider voting for a challenger, and 45% would definitely vote to replace him.
That said, Reid has reason for optimism: The Nevada GOP is very weak right now, and they don't have a suitable challenger as of this writing. He also has a lot of money saved up, and a lot can happen over the next year and a half.
In an e-mail to TPM, Reid spokesman Jim Manley brushed off the poll:
"Sen. Reid has never put a lot of weight in polls. And polls by the Review-Journal are consistently out of line with other polls. The primary number he's worried about is Nevada's 10.4% unemployment rate and that's why he's focused on fixing the economy and creating jobs in Nevada. Polling numbers move up and down, the only poll that really matters is on Election Day, which is 18 months from now. In the meantime he will continue talking to Nevadans everyday and working on solutions to help Nevadans who have been hit hard by these tough economic times."
Advertisement
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
And this is exactly why Harry Reid is such a weak Majority Leader. I definitely understand why he has to tread carefully, given the state that he represents. What I don't understand is why the Democratic Senate caucus chooses someone that vulnerable to Republican influence for their leader.
May 19, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the puppet is afraid of his own shadow, he's easier to manipulate. Do you think that any Democratic senator takes orders from Reid?
May 19, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could be. In fairness, though, the explanation is probably less nefarious. Harry Reid was elected to his leadership role when the party was in the minority. At that time, there was a good argument to be made that the best path back to majority was to follow centrist leadership. Once the Democrats regained majority, traditions of collegiality made it difficult to replace Reid with a leader who better reflects the new political dynamic.
May 19, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, Nevadans, primary this MORmON's ass! And who cares if we lose Nevada to the Repukes anyway. This MORmON would lose a filibuster with 70 Democratic votes.
May 19, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Religious bigotry looks good on you.
May 19, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah I just love the moron-mormons who stormed into California with their shinny Prop8Hate and shoved their bigotry down our throats. Thanks for all that. Fuck Mormons!
May 19, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I didn't know Harry Reid was promoting Prop 8. I didn't know that John Huntsman was promoting Prop 8. Oh, they weren't? You just lump all people together based on their religion?
So, Ted Kennedy is just like Newt Gingrich because he's catholic?
Reza Aslan is the same as Osama Bin Laden because he's Muslim?
Barbara Boxer is the same as Paul Wolfowitz because she's Jewish?
For someone who talks about judging people as individuals you have a lot of growing up to do.
May 19, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't like bigotry, then drop religion. Everything in the "good book" is about identifying, isolating, and damning the different. As ye sew, so shall ye reap. I gladly apply your bigotry to you.
May 19, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you know I've "picked up" religion how? I'm not advocating for religion; I'm speaking out against bigots.
Disliking somebody because of their religion is just as stupid as disliking them because of the color of their skin or their gender or their country of orgin.
But, there's plenty of room for folks like you in the Republican party.
May 19, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. I'm a Republican like Maher is a Republican. Let me put it the way Ghandi said it, I like Christ, I don't like Christians. Christians are nothing like Christ.
And as for the Magic Underwear man, how can a MORmON represent a state that legalizes prostitution and gambling, and not try to defeat such abominations of HIS RELIGION, without being a complete hypocrite?
I am a bigot. I am a bigot against hypocrites.
May 19, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait. So now you're angry that Reid isn't trying to force his personal religious beliefs on everyone else in his state? Okie doke.
What next? Are you angry at Catholic Ted Kenndy for being strongly pro-choice, voting against DOMA and representing the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage? Confused much?
Plenty of room for folks like you in the republican party.
May 19, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Religion by definition is bigoted. So I use it willingly against the religious.
May 19, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that's the case, there's no need to single out Mormons, is there? Why didn't you say "primary his religious ass?"
May 19, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen punk- there is EXACTLY a case to single out MORMONS because they made the case to EXACTLY single out GAYS.
GET IT?!? Gays did not just storm into Utah with tens of millions of dollars to make the Mormon religion illegal and void the marriages of all Mormons because we feel superior. THAT IS WHAT THEY DID TO US!
Your stupid example of Jews and Catholics is grade school logic for children. Of coarse individuals differ, of coarse generalities are unfair. The point here is the Mormon Church took it upon itself to lead the charge into another state and rewrite the constitution with pure bigotry. They are very proud of themselves as an institution for having this victory. So individuals may differ, but as they choose to identify themselves, FUCK THEM!
May 19, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Were you born stupid or did you eat lead paint as a kid?
This is about Harry Reid; this has nothing to do with his religion. But since you're a bigot, you wouldn't know the difference.
May 19, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have every right to like or not like any god damned fucking religion I choose. I in fact do not like the ones that cross into my state and rewrite my fucking god damned constitution to take away my fucking god damned civil rights.
GET IT !!!
You are a name calling, self projecting little punk with a greasy keyboard. I distinctly remember calling you out a few months ago when you were making great fun calling someone gay like all you schoolchildren seem to do as a catchall negative. Bigot indeed.
May 19, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Bigot! They're calling your for lunch. A big helping of lead paint and shit-for-brains is being served.
May 19, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? You want me to become deathly ill? That would seem to undermine your arguments which purport to place you at some higher moral ground. That's ok. I don't expect everyone to be perfect. I know I am not. However, I do hope that people strive to not be hypocritical, which you apparently appear to be, as you wish sickness upon me while attempting to be high-minded.
May 19, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try to keep up, genius. This post wasn't to you.
But if you're stupid enough to take dietary instructions from someone on the Internet, you deserve to get sick . . . and then some.
May 19, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psst, FreepRuder... we're on to you.
May 21, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You called me every name in the book for saying Kos was gay, claiming that I meant it as a slur.
"Only a homophobe mentions someone's sexual orientation in a political conversation," you said. Two days later, you were here spreading rumors that some other politco was gay (and hot). Guess it's OK for you to "out" someone, huh?
Your posts are just as confused and contradictory as you are. Even now you can't decide whether to defend Reid or bash him.
Sad, sad little raging, foaming-at-the mouth mental case.
May 19, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
A bit of advice- If you make up quotes to defame people you just might get sued for defamation. Being a smartass is sometimes not smart.
May 19, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohhhhh. I'm really shaking. Hollywood, the nasty, bigoted defamer, is threating to sue me! I'm so scared. NOT.
I would suggest you take your own advice but "smart" is not a word I associate with you in any context whatsoever.
A bit of advice: Everything we posted is in the archives. So, it's easy to see who who's lying.
May 19, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you just made up the quote ..... with the intention of misrepresenting facts..... to bolster your current tirade of childish filth. End of conversation.
May 19, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Childish? Filthy? I'm pleasantly surprised to see how well you know yourself!
Run away, little whiny weasel who can't decide which side of an issue he's on!
May 19, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I'm just going to jump right in here and tell the story about going to Salt Lake City and visiting the public museum/tour at the Tabernacle.
The story of Joseph Smith and the angels was pretty unbelievable, what with the golden plates and the special glasses and all. So I asked the tour leader "do the plates and the glasses still exist"
"Oh, yes," he said.
Then I'm thinking, this is a pretty elaborate ruse (being a highly skeptical person when it comes to religious miracle and revelations, whether they involve a burning bush and two stone tablets, a guy reanimating after three days dead, or an angel squeezing the word of God into a "Prophet").
So again, I'm thinking, these guys really got their act together, making these golden tablets, and making these special eyeglasses, and all in the 19th century.
"So where are they now?"
I ask, thinking they're in some special "ark" in the bowels of the Tabernacle.
"Nobody knows" says the guide.
There you have religious "faith" in a nutshell.
Golden plates, special glasses, Jesus in the New World, funny underware. Come on.
Whether or not they're anti-gay, they're pretty much unquestioning brain-washed dupes.
Like most people who believe in a supernatural being.
May 20, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
So whom do you suggest? If you knew anything about Nevada politics you wouldn't be making an @$$ out of yourself. The problem isn't in Nevada, it's in Washington.
May 19, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter whom Nevadans pick. If the MORmON loses his Senate seat, he is now longer the Majority Appeaser to the Republicans.
May 19, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or they could elect another majority leader . . .
May 19, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if WE THE PEOPLE, or more accurately, Nevadans, remove Reid, than the Senate MUST elect a new leader. If WE THE PEOPLE, only WISH the Senate to elect a new leader, it WON'T happen.
May 19, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the moron. If Harry Reid loses, that means things are bad for the Dems all over. And we'll be electing a new majority leader, alright. But he'll be a Republican.
Perhaps if you took your dick out of your cranium, you might have room for brains.
May 19, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surprise surprise. Useless, weak, foolish Harry Reid.
May 19, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, if Obama keeps moving to a "centrist" position (i.e. backing former Bush policies) the Dems are going to face a backlash in 2010 and 2012 from their own constituents. I know I'm questioning my faith in the ability and willingness of Dems to really change the disastrous course set by the Bushies. Dems voters staying home in elections benefits Republicans.
May 19, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately the solution calls for more Republican destruction but when the guys on your own are up in their are Epic Fail then what choice do you have?
May 19, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe that's more telling than Reid spokesman Jim Manley intended. The prospect of a credible Dem primary challenger might give Harry something to worry about. Something that he couldn't make go away with just a strongly worded letter.
May 19, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God!
May 19, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
NEWSFLASH: Reid will win in NV, Dodd will win in CT, and Corzine will win in NJ. None of them will close.
May 19, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
But there is always the audacity of hope! I can continue to keep hope alive.
May 19, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only we could replace Reid with a Republican, all of our problems would evaporate overnight.
May 19, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still think Obama would have been better served if he'd asked Hillary to go after Reid's Majority Leader position than nominate her for SecState. She could hardly do any worse than Reid, and it's clear she has a spine and cojones that Reid can only envy.
May 19, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
May 20, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
So how many Democrats nationwide have a negative opinion of Reid? I'm one of them. It still doesn't mean that they won't vote for him given a Republican alternative.
It's a shame we can't choose our party leaders by general Democratic vote. Reid would be out of there quicker than you can say "Reid is annoying."
May 19, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would hate to loose a Senate seat, but if that is the cost of getting a good majority leader, it would be worth it. Harry is utterly worthless.
May 19, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your opinion is utterly worthless. You do not understand how the Senate works. Thank goodness you are not in charge of anything but your keyboard.
May 19, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well under Harry Reid, the senate clearly doesn't.
May 19, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly you are not the only person frustrated with how the Senate works. A single senator can hold up a nomination anonymously and forever. You need 60 votes to have a vote that you can win with 50 votes plus the VP. Filibuster rules ...... etc. Harry Reid is an absolute master at navigating the rules and getting the best possible outcomes. He is not a charismatic guy at all but I do believe he gets done what is possible at any given moment. I support him.
May 19, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You support a Mormon???? How dare you, after what they did with Prop 8??
It doesn't matter that Reid was not involved; he's a Mormon and (according to you) all Mormons are vile and should be hated.
Of course, that was what you posted an hour ago. Schizophrenia?
May 19, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are quiet simply mad.
Under the Republicans the Republican Senate got almost everything it wanted. Under the Democrats the Democratic Senate gets almost everything the Republicans wanted.
June 24, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think much of Harry Reid
But I think Harry Reid is a helluva lot better than NO HARRY REID
Some Dems better mind what they hope for
May 19, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. Not Harry Reid means NOT Republican appeasement. Not Harry Reid means possible, nay, probable, filibuster challenges. Not Harry Reid is nothing but POSITIVE.
May 19, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I support Reid too.
Consider where we were after Nov 04, versus where we are now, and how many things had to go right for for that to happen.
Reid was the face of the party during the gradual Bush implosion. He led the defeat of the Social Security bill, which was the key early victory. The other things that went our way were Katrina, the US Atty scandals (thanks to this site), etc. But we should appreciate his role throughout.
Do you really think we would have been better off with Chuck Schumer?
May 19, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would it harm the Democratic Party to lose the weakest leader it has ever had in the US Senate? Personally, I don't see much difference between him and a Republican anyway. It would be really nice if a strong challenger could be found for the primary.
May 19, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.......... Yes it would hurt the Democratic Party A LOT to loose it's Senate Leader!
The Senate is a complicated arcane institution with stupid antiquated rules that looks for all reasons like a swamp of no return...., but that is exactly what it would be with or without Harry Reid as well. So please do not take out your frustration with the stupid ways in which the Senate works with the person who works those rules the best anyone can.
...and if you can not tell the difference between the top Senate Democrat and a Reptile ..... you are not too perceptive yourself.
May 19, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid you really are not convincing me on this. Democrats in times past got a whole lot more done and were now constantly cowed by the Republican minority and in those days the rules were more, not less, restrictive and arcane. LBJ would laugh at Reid's cowardly conduct of the office of Majority Leader and cringe too I imagine as would Mike Mansfield.
Harry Reid is a disaster and if we're going to pick up several Senate seats next year (which we will)then it's no loss at all to get rid of him (preferably in a primary). He is a horrible parliamentary player, he is weak, he cannot control even his own vote let alone those of other Senators. He never, every stands up to the Republicans and his woeful face and monotone delivery are a horrible, horrible face for the Democrats to present to the nation.
May 19, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh ..... well I do sort of agree with you that Harry needs to get angry sometimes and kick some ass. Democrats just do not do party discipline the way the Reptiles do. Democrats do not punish each other for being free thinkers the way Tom DeLay "the Hammer" would in his leadership days in the House. Who do you think the Dems could pick as a new leader? And what states do you see new Dems coming from in 2010?
May 19, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure who would be the best, but Durbin is the next in line. You don't have to be a Nazi to get discipline. What you need is some leadership skills (lacking among Democrats generally) and a backbone. The two go hand in hand really, but it has been so long since Democrats used any leadership skills at all I wonder if they are capable. Durbin is next in line. He's a pretty good chap and he'd be a huge improvement over Reid.
May 19, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only voted for Harry because to not doing so was far worst. The problem isn't about Harry ... it's about Washington. If anyone thinks there is someone better in the Democrat caucus then let's hear the name of that mover and shaker. The fact is, there aren't any Democrats stepping forward to challenge Reid. So if Reid goes down his successor may be worst.
May 19, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem IS HARRY, because HARRY IS WASHINGTON. If you want to change Washington, CHANGE THOSE IN WASHINGTON.
May 19, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pay attention, please. If you have the name of someone better, don't be shy, speak up! Let's hear a name or two! Otherwise, all this talk is nothing more than an exercise in jerking off - it serves no useful purpose.
May 19, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon. You're asking him to do something besides rant. Good luck with that!
May 19, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am paying attention. IT DOESN'T MATTER who unseats the MORmON. When you're at the bottom of the barrel, as Hairless Reid is, you can be sure what comes along will be better. And I speak not of the Senate seat, but of the next Majority Leader. That's what is important, not a single seat from Nevada.
May 19, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every single seat is important. Nevada is trending blue. Reid will be reelected.
May 19, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would hate to see the democrats lose a seat but elated to see Reid go.
May 19, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please. PLEEEEZZZE people of Nevada. Kick this guy out so we can get a Majority Leader with some heuvos. Please.
May 19, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink