This has been the top headline on the WaPo homepage for the past two hours:
Does anyone really think the Democrats will lose the Senate? They would have to lose 11 Senate seats. Even Politico says Dems are likely to maintain majorities in the House and Senate.
And the Post article the headline goes with doesn’t say Dems are likely to lose the Senate.
What’s going on here? Just sloppy editing?
inkadu
It’s just the good drugs they pass around over at the WaPo.
WaBong.
Mnemosyne
Well, now that we need 60 votes to get any goddamned thing passed in the Senate, losing just one or two seats would basically be the same thing as losing the majority except for stuff like committee assignments.
Ed Drone
You must remember that 60 is the new 50 in the Senate, and that without the super-majority, the Democrats will be in the “minority.”
It’s simple, just like the Post writers.
Ed
Quaker in a Basement
What’s going on here? Just sloppy editiing?
Yes!
DougJ
What’s going on here? Just sloppy editiing?
Thanks, I fixed it.
ruemara
Because everything must cast doubt on the Democratic Party’s ability to govern, basic stability and the abilities of our current Democratic President. Simple, really.
Linkmeister
If it is drugs, CBS took ’em too. There was Katie Couric and there was Chip Reid, both saying how hard a row to hoe it was gonna be for the Dems. Not a single mention that the Republicans have four or five retirements from the Senate themselves, and that there are fourteen Rs retiring from the House, more than the Dems.
Gwen Ifill, whom I often get annoyed with, stated both sides of the equation on The PBS News Hour (that new name doesn’t exactly trip off the tongue or fingertips).
Midnight Marauder
Yes.
Sentient Puddle
Sloppy fact-checking, I’d say. I think figuring out how senators get elected is too difficult for these guys.
General Winfield Stuck
@Ed Drone:
Jeebus, this is so correct and is the main reason I am pissed at Harry Reid for letting a supermajority become the norm for passing legislation. He started it back in 2007 with an agreement with Mcconnel to bypass cloture votes and just make all final votes requiring 60 votes for bill passage. He has recently tried to undo this, but now it seems to be Village wisdom.
eric
the real story they want to tell is that he uppity black man is in trouble and the best way to do that is claim he is losing his party.
tonight on the local news in chicago, the claim was that Obama’s health care took a blow because the republicna GOVERNOR of california came out against it because of hwat Nelson procurred for Nebraska. the MSM will try every meme possible to create tension and strife for Obama…because breathless reporting of style is all they are good for.
Martin
And Democrats could lose all 60 seats. It’d take some giant asteroids and constitution party victories in 2010, but it could happen.
Yutsano
The narrative is set, the die is cast. Now the MSM has another club to stop the uppity nigra who just might effect their precious status quo. It’s real simple really.
ajr22
Can’t a right wing rag dream? This is good new for President Mccain also, too.
Sophist
What’s going on here? Just sloppy editing?
Depends. Do Freudian slips count as editing errors?
MikeJ
@Martin:
Only one third of the seats in the senate come up every two years. The dems can’t lose more than 34 (plus or minus a special election here or there) this year. In reality, they can’t lose that many, but that’s the cap.
arguingwithsignposts
They like using the word “spate” in a headline.
Mark S.
@General Winfield Stuck:
Is that right? I’ve been trying to find out the definitive history of the filibuster and it’s been frustrating. I sure as hell don’t remember everything down to bathroom breaks needing 60 votes.
eemom
“What’s going on here?”
do the words “vulture” and “carrion” mean anything to you?
Not to say that the Democrats are actually dead…….just that feasting on flesh is the emmessemm’s…….er, bread and butter.
“It’s interesting when people die, we love dirty laundry…..”
A freakin prophet, that Don Henley.
Ailuridae
Balz is actually a decent writer. Not being a reader of WaPo on a regular basis is that secondary headline that included the possibility of losing the Senate necessarily under his control or could it be an editor who doesn’t understand the realities of seats in contention?
themann1086
Also, I seriously doubt the Dems will lose the House. It’s more likely than the Senate, but it’s a real stretch. I’m also pretty sure the majority of the Governor’s mansions is safe, but I’d have to actually look into that.
Martin
@MikeJ:
Did you miss the asteroids reference? An election isn’t the only way out of office.
MikeJ
@Martin: Yes I did miss it. Sorry. When I cleaned my keyboard I hit F7 and was wrestling with the bizarre concept of caret browsing. Of course I had no idea what was causing all the weirdness since I didn’t know I had turned it on. I was distracted by my own stupidity. It’s hard to ignore something that large.
General Winfield Stuck
@Mark S.:
on controversial legislation, or that which the wingers planned to filibuster, yes , I remember at one point Reid just bypassing cloture votes to save time. Though since Bush had the veto pen, senate wingnuts let some bills pass for a certain veto.
It didn’t make much difference one way or the other back then, because anything repubs didn’t want signed into law wouldn’t be, but it gave the aura of a supermajority as being standard, or routine, which it now seems has taken hold in the presses mind, if not the publics.
MikeJ
And speaking of stupidity, when you check your iGoogle page, make sure you know if you’re reading the NYT info box or the Red Sox info box. When you read the hed “Lackey to share spotlight at Writers Dinner” it will make more sense.
I thought the grey lady on go into full on serfdom.
4jkb4ia
Completely OT and in full awareness that this is a heathen blog, wait, there’s more!
John
The Democrats losing the Senate would be virtually impossible. Basically, they’d have to lose Democratic seats in North Dakota, Delaware, Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Connecticut, New York, Wisconsin, and California, without picking up any of Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, or New Hampshire.
It’s basically impossible. I don’t think there’s any way the Democrats lose California, Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, or Pennsylvania, and I doubt they’ll even lose all of the first five. They’re also probably going to pick up at least one of the Republican held seats. I’d say the most likely result is the Democrats losing 2-3 seats in the Senate. It could be better or worse than that, depending on circumstances, but really not that much worse.
The House also seems rather unlikely – the Democrats currently have 256 seats, with a vacant seat in a safe Democratic district. That means that 40 Democratic seats would have to go Republican, without any Republican seats going Democratic, for the Republicans to pick up the House.
The Republicans achieved an even greater pick-up in 1994, but really, this isn’t 1994. 1994 was in large part the culmination of a process where conservative southern districts finally elected republican congressmen. There just aren’t nearly as many Democrats representing very conservative districts now as there were in 1994. And Obama is, at present, much more popular than Clinton was, and the Republicans now are much less popular than they were in 1994.
I imagine the Republicans will make gains in both houses, because that’s what generally happens in mid-term elections. But the idea that the Democrats’ majorities in either house are threatened seems really unlikely.
NR
You’re assuming that the Dems would have to go below 50 to lose the Senate. But really, if they lose even one Senate seat, they’ll effectively lose the Senate, because they’ll promptly give the Republicans everything they want, using the excuse that “We have to get 60 votes to pass (whatever).”
Hell, we’re already seeing this today, with Lieberman and Nelson. It’ll be ten times worse if the Republicans net even one Senate seat in November.
Emo Pantload (fka Studly)
I say, if the GOP hasn’t figured out by now that Steele is secretly on the DNC payroll, nobody’s gotta worry about them taking either chamber of Congress anytime soon.
Yutsano
@NR: The fact is even if the Republicans gain that seat to get to 41 and just basically stop everything that might turn around to bite them in the ass. The biggest complaint about Congress is the fact that they do nothing (even though they’ve honestly done a shit ton since the election) and havingthe Republicans stop EVERYTHING would be a disaster for them. It wouldn’t stop them of course.
NR
@Yutsano:
The problem is, the current Democratic leadership is so weak and spineless that they’ll never let it get to this point. They’ll never make the Republicans stop a vital piece of legislation; rather, they’ll just water it down until the Republicans finally decide to toss them a vote or two because whatever bill they were trying to pass is now utterly meaningless.
See: Health care reform, except a lot worse.
jenniebee
I’m really amazed at this number counting as though it’s already October and anybody really knows anything about what’s going to happen between now and then. This time two years ago Hillary was a mortal lock for the nomination and Mitt Romney was the man to beat. As late as July of 2008, there was a shadow of a chance that John McCain could have been elected, despite having to run against Bush’s record.
It’s a long season, and you gotta trust it.
Mark S.
I could actually see the GOP regaining the House (the Senate is a bridge too far). If they do, they’ll end up scaring the hell out of everybody who isn’t a teabagger and Obama will coast to victory in 2012 (assuming the economy isn’t still in the shitter).
So basically I’m calling a repeat of the 90’s.
Mark S.
@jenniebee:
What else do these guys have to do?
Bubblegum Tate
OT: It’s hard for even a Twitter-hatin’ guy like me to hate Twitter when there’s a trending hashtag as awesome as Tea Party Pickup Lines.
reality-based
@General Winfield Stuck:
Yes, and one of the things I liked about Dorgan is that I cornered him at a town hall here in NoDak – and we had a productive 5 minute bitchfest about how Reid had just let the GOp magically impose the 60vote supermajority rule –
I mean, whatever happened to the old magical “up-er-down vote,” fer Chrissakes?
“Make ’em stand up there and obstruct for the c-span camera” was Dorgan’s comment.
(General – OT, see my reply in earlier thread)
jenniebee
@NR:
But really, if they lose even one Senate seat, they’ll effectively lose the Senate, because they’ll promptly give the Republicans everything they want, using the excuse that “We have to get 60 votes to pass (whatever).”
There’s a chance – a slim one, but a chance – that it gets easier. Dems with a theoretical 3/5 majority don’t have any excuse for doing things in any way other than getting all 60 votes. Going to reconciliation or using the nuclear option when you actually have 60 Senators makes you look like you aren’t willing to work even with members of your own caucus.
But if you only have 58 Senators, then, ah! you don’t have any choice anyway. You use the tools you have to work within the majority you can muster, and nobody claims it as a sign of weakness in the caucus because nobody expects anything more sublime.
General Winfield Stuck
@reality-based:
yes, i read it and responded. We are cool:-)
Tecumseh
I think the headline writer went to the Huffington Post School of Headline Hyperbole.
And, yes, the fact that nobody in the political press has even noticed that the Republicans have more people retiring than do Democrats is reason # 10050 why they should all be fired.
Yutsano
@reality-based: I’ll be honest: if Reid loses his job I won’t mourn his loss at any point. He has shown no fight, no resolve, just accommodation and an interest in Senatorial congeniality over the interests of the nation. Even if he wins I want him to lose Majority Leader status especially if the Democrats fall to under 60. We will need someone who can actually FIGHT in there.
inkadu
jenniebee–great point… if i was more drunk i actually might think the dems would respond the way you suggest.
i haven’t heard anyone comment on dodd. i’m from connecticut, and i like dodd. he’s no more bought and sold than any other senator, and i was hoping his failure in regulating financial firms would actually make him a stronger reformer. mccain’s only good bill was a penance for his savings and loan debacle.
anyway, it reflects well on dodd that he is choosing to retire. he probably could not have won the race, and it would be a disgrace for connecticut to be represented by lieberman and linda mcmahon. blumenthal (d), our long-time state attorney general, looks to be a shoo-in.
reality-based
speaking of the magical “up-er-down vote” –
this is another WaPo story that just went up –
======
Every damn Democrat that could get in front of a camera should be baying about this at full voice tomorrow, demanding a vote, pointing out that the GOP wants you to get killed by terrorists.
(sigh – you suppose that will happen?)
jenniebee
Oh ick – something called America Rising has a video that looks pretty professionally done.
inkadu
@jenniebee: That was by turns amusing and disturbing. It felt like the trailer for “Omen.” It does a good job of both demonizing Democrats as well as being incredibly menacing. If they didn’t include the election dates, I’d assume they were going to strangle Reid, Obama et. al in their beds.
But it’s also really dishonest. These people voted for Obama for hope and change? “We trusted you.” I really tend to doubt it. But it does bring in the betrayal/stabbed-in-the-back narrative.
One of the laughs was “we bet the farm,” and then the multiple rushcut of a barn…
And can anyone explain the comedy/tragedy masks after the flag and the statue of liberty at 1:44? Bizzare.
Mr Furious
@inkadu: I grew up in Connecticut and family is still there, but I bolted 20 years ago.
I, too, liked Dodd and was willing to support him because I think he’s a net positive force, but despite his being cleared of wrongdoing, he’s making his own decision about a situation of his own making.
I don’t mean to absolve Dodd completely like some kind of brain-dead GOP bootlicker. While was completely cleared of any wrongdoing, I don’t think that equals innocence. I think much of what went down with him at the end was symptomatic of being too close to the people he should have maintained a clear distance from.
Did he get better-than-average mortgage terms? Sure. SO DID I. It’s called good credit, high income and being a longtime customer. But if you are the Chair of the Banking Committee, you don’t get any leeway to plead ignorance or uncertainty in matters financial—you keep your shit square and way above board. Failing to do that—or worse, failing to realize what you are doing looks wrong even if technically okay—means you’ve lost perspective, and it’s time for you to step aside.
asiangrrlMN
@Yutsano: Hi, honey! What’s your news? I did NOT call the VP of Taiwan my bitch!
As for the “analysis” cited in the lede graf, what the fuck ever. The Villagers are just fucking boring me now.
Yutsano
@asiangrrlMN: I did reply below. Kinda made my thoughts here known so not a lot more to say on this other than the MSM can DIAF.
jenniebee
@inkadu: re the masks – I know! that statue of liberty/flag/masks triptych was like shots of wall decorations from the bedroom of a 14 year old girl who’s really into Up With People.
The only target audience/intended effect combo I can figure for this vid is that it’s intended for teapartiers to convince themselves that they’re conducting outreach. I don’t see it changing anybody’s mind, and the whole first part seems like it would be alienating to a teapartier. Very, very confusing.
Yutsano
@jenniebee: Consistency has never been their strong point. Remember these people believe they truly are the majority in this country.
Mark S.
@jenniebee:
Are they serious about “No More Spending”? How are we going to pay for all of our wars?
Also, I sincerely doubt the people who made this video actually voted for any Democrats last election, so this “We elected you” bullshit is pretty stupid.
asiangrrlMN
@Yutsano: I saw. Good luck!
The Main Gauche of Mild Reason
I think the most amusing part is that Balz seems to quote the Dodd retirement as a contributing factor to “worries” when it’s almost universally recognized as somethign that will help Democrats hold the seat…
But on a different topic, I’m staging an intervention:
DougJ, step away from the Washington Post.
Seriously. It’s getting a little old.
reality-based
@General Winfield Stuck:
left you another “inside baseball” post on the other thread –
inkadu
@Mr Furious: I’m not absolving him of anything. I just don’t know what the metric really is for ethics any more. The whole of Washington DC is an unethical morass. Lieberman sleeps with an insurance lobbyist every night. Senators seem to find themselves suddenly much richer — to the tune of millions — after a few years in the senate (and it’s not their government salary). The entire system is corrupt. When everyone is guilty, who are the criminals?
@jenniebee: If they want to draw people in, they need to start with some less ominous music… but this is way over the top for any kind of outreach… socialism vs. FREEDOM. I’m surprised there wasn’t a shot of William Wallace in a kilt in there somewhere… Doesn’t make much sense at all. But who knows, maybe this was made by a fourteen-year-old girl. Maybe their next video will be about horses.
Martin
The Colbert segment on Domino’s was hilarious.
Joshua Norton
They’ve been harping on winning mid-term elections since they got their asses handed to them in the last one. The parts of the population that aren’t die-hard political junkies still don’t like the Republicans and there’s a big enough of majority of support for the Dems that the only ones keeping the “we’re all gonna die” scenarios spinning are people who make money off if it.
It’s a lot of shit stirring for its own sake. People make the now knee-jerk claim that they don’t believe or respect the MSM, but they still fall for every cheap trick that’s pulled to get their dudgeon in high gear and their tongues wagging.
Check it
Sorry if this somehow got posted twice, I don’t think so because it never showed up or stated was awaiting moderation.
Anyway, shorter, (slightly less funny) version. All you need to know about the Washington Post, here –which also includes an examination of the Post’s wildly misleading headline. (Another perfect headline example is where the Washington Post headline the day this piece ran, on its home page and for its RSS feed, stated, in direct contradiction to the headline of its very own article “The Death Panel Debate..”
And an open query to ask anyone interested (the more the better) in sending the relevant sections of this to the Post (or publishing somewhere), so that the paper finally steps up to the plate and shares who the “scientists” and “some” are that the article’s entire, misleading theme on the most basic question of climate change, was based upon. Queries to both managing editors, both reporters, still not answered. (Ombudsman Alexander answered by essentially saying he has no role in any of this, leaving one to wonder what his role is).
Sly
A 40+ seat swing in the House, which is what is needed to shift majorities, is incredibly unlikely. So unlikely that it only happened twice in the past century (1932 and 1994, while 1964 got close). This was fed by resentment against the previous majority party. 1932 remains the only year in in the past century where the number of seat flips in the Senate went to ten or higher.
To put it bluntly, the chances of the GOP taking a large number of seats in either chamber are next to impossible. For one, they don’t have the favorability that they had in 1994 (~55%). In every region except the South they are polling well below 50%. It’s under 10% in the Northeast. And you can’t win seats that you already have. But you’ll almost never hear or read that the GOP has become a Southern party, or that national polling trends are utterly worthless because they are aggregates of sharp regional disparities.
Joshua Norton
@The Main Gauche of Mild Reason: Dodd’s demise was eminent when he snuck amendments in the bailout bill that gave away the store to Wall Street so they’d “accept the money”.
He pissed off so many people over that little double cross that his ass was grass and he knew it.
maus
Hopeful thoughts on the Post’s part.
Monica Wolf
@Ed Drone: 59 is the new minority.
Existenz
It should read “facing possible midterm election setbacks in 2010..”
And of course the headline ignores the fact that more Republican senators have announced their retirement than Dem senators.
Clearly the media is licking their chops for a GOP landslide.
kay
Oh, who cares? The media missed Republicans and they want them back. I think that’s clear.
I am curious about Ceci Connelly though. Where did she go? Does she still print industry press releases on health care with her name attached?
I haven’t seen anything from her on health care since the Post blatantly promoted that insurance industry study on the front page and she agreed to attach her name.
Where is she?
It looks terrible. She prints a series that is overwhelmingly negative on all aspects of health care reform, reliably repeating and amplifying every industry and conservative talking point, and then as passage starts to look inevitable, she just disappears?
The media coverage of health care reform has been an absolute disgrace, so maybe it’s me, I’m absolutely bitter, and perhaps paranoid, but doesn’t just the appearance of her fighting tooth and nail against reform and then not a word on the actual legislation look odd?
Mark Centz
@MrFurious
Dodd played by the rules set for everyone. If it hadn’t been that, it would have been for picking up a sale item at Macy’s. Meanwhile, Senators Ensign & Vitter, lawbreakers, haven’t gotten the same heat from the MSM. Calling this kind of response “sloppy” is overlooking what ought to be obvious-that the powerful owners of the media companies have made a culture where stories are told about politicians depending on whose interests they defend. From ownership to publisher to editor to reporter, the score is known and everyone plays or leaves. Dodd was too close to the banksters, but so are plenty of others who have no doubt misbehaved worse.
Obama should take note, the other side plays this game well, and the other side isn’t the firebaggers.
AB
Not sloppy editing or fact-checking, it’s just villager porn.
Karen in GA
Fortunately, the New York Times isn’t biting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/us/politics/07dems.html?hp
Never mind.
JD Rhoades
DRAMA!
Xenos
I have not been following this very carefully, but as far as majorities go I doubt the Democrats will lose Dodd’s seat, and while it may be difficult to find a replacement for Dorgan it is certainly too early to conclude it can’t be done.
Who else is at risk? Specter? Really? We were hearing about how the Democrats were losing PA for weeks, and now there is nothing newsworthy, which must mean that Specter looks pretty good.
Xenos
@The Main Gauche of Mild Reason:
‘Forget it, Dougj. It’s the Post.’
RSR
Yesterday, I heard an NPR report which mentioned both the Dodd and Dorgan retirements.
Regarding CT, the report mentioned likely candidates, but did not discuss current polling or potential outcomes. Yet, regarding ND, they specifically mentioned the uphill battle Democrats face.
So, in instances which look good for Democrats, the issue of future outcome is virtually ignored, while the bad news for Democrats is brought up early and often
Atrios said it early yesterday, “the media still continue to take their cues from whatever the latest Republican talking point of the day is.”
Mako
Never mind that, what’s up with this Tina Tequila thing? Apparently she is well known and her wife died?
Only in the US
Xenos
@Xenos: Wait, that does not scan. Too late to edit. Trying again-
‘Forget it Doug. It’s Kaplantown.’
brantl
They’ve already “lost” the Senate. Without 60 votes, the Republicans are going to mire every bill down in the mud until Obama leaves office, if they possibly can. And a bunch of weak-kneed Democrats are too spineless to do what’s right for the country.
bob h
Presumably a business decision to go after the Washington Times subscribers has been made.
Stroszek
John,
The term you’re looking for is “wishful thinking.”
filkertom
The narrative. Dems are losers, everything’s good for Repubs, people want Dems to lose and Repubs to win. Just ask our wise and glorious punditry, all of whom know what the Common Rab- er, People want.
bob h
That Blumenthal is up by 30 points over Simmons, et. al., is of no relevance to the WP.
norbizness
Perhaps all WaPo articles could have the sub-byline: “Hey! Anything’s possible!”
Michael
OT – GOP primaries are going all Teabaggot, with a prominent hat tip to Erick, son of Erick.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MattTowery/2010/01/07/conservative_bloggers_will_play_huge_role_in_coming_gop_contests
Fat shit-drawling, cretard rednecks should be the intellectual front men for the GOP, ‘coz that’s all they got anymore.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Sloppy editing my ass. It’s all about the page hits to impress the advertisers. At Kraplan’s current rate of decay all of their headlines will be BRITTNEY SPEARS, NUDE! by 2012.
scav
@Monica Wolf: “59 is the new minority.”
This.
Besides, “There is never good news for Democrats.” TINGNFD
Stroszek
@jenniebee: That’s true… if we get a better majority leader… which is why I’m hoping one of the seats we lose is Reid’s.
PaulW
It’s a combination of wish fulfillment by the Far Right and their media lapdogs, and a need to panic by the Democratic leadership who tend to jump at their own damn frickin’ shadows.
Two retirements is not a SPATE. It’s TWO. And guess what, suckers? The seat in Connecticut is still safe for Dems: they have a popular state AG lining up for it and the GOP is dead to the North and East of NYC. The only seat up for grabs is North Dakota… and I’m willing to gamble that the Club for Greed Palin-worshiping wingnuts can screw even that up by nominating a hypocritical birf-certificate-obsessed brownshirt that will drive enough centrist/moderate voters over to the Dems AGAIN. Save this quote. Prove me wrong, wingnuts.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
To be part of that reality-based community that John was pining for yesterday: The reason Republicans a few years ago were able to pass legislation with 54 members is that Democrats acted like a minority party that was interested in making government function. A minority party realizes it is a minority and therefore does not control the legislative process; the best it can do is affect legislation at the edges. Thus, they defer to the majority party on majority of legislation. This means that they allowed procedural votes to continue on stuff they didn’t like and voted against the actual bills.
The Republicans right now have no interest in the proper functioning of government, only the rules that allow them to disrupt something. Thus, they will never allow any procedural vote to go through, requiring 60 votes for just about everything.
I also heard this the other day: If the normal reconciliation process is followed, the Republicans then have the opportunity as the minority party to completely can the bill. Imagine that, all that work is done in both houses, the bills are reconciled, and then 40 people come in and completely stop HCR.
So, if you want to blame anyone, blame the people who created the Senate rules for thinking that the members would always act reasonable.
Remember November
MSM- Making Shit Matter.
Jay in Oregon
Well, we are a center-right nation, after all…
K. Grant
I have been politically active and aware since the ’84 election (bleghh – what an ugly first election for an idealistic young person), but I have never quite figured out why, especially in the last 20 years, the press really seems to like the Republicans. Is it just the scent of old money that grabs them? Or do they really have a deep-seated hatred/fear of the middle and lower classes?
I guess I thought that Obama would give them the opportunity to feel smug about their social progressivism, and thus cut him some slack. Clearly, that is not the case. So what gives? Is the Washington press corps that old world? What is the benefit to propping up the Republicans when it is clear that none of them are the old blueblood Northeastern fiscal conservative type of Republicans? This new breed are mean little thugs from dodgy backgrounds. Would this not be enough to turn the press against them?
On another note – is Dana Priest still working for the Post? She was the only one who seemed to do this thing we call ‘journalism’ and ‘reporting’. Has she done anything as of late?
Brick Oven Bill
I guess the modern Left does not get out of bed until, what, 9:30am?
nepat
Just another example of how the Huffington Post and Matt Drudge have infected the approaches of formerly respectable news organizations. If you sensationalize it, they will click. Huffington Post must hold a record for the most headlines that bear little to no relationship to the articles they describe. Traditional pubs follow their lead because Huffington and Drudge have packaged themselves as “the future of journalism.”
Punchy
Flying paranoid is sooooooooooo 2010.
Prediction: this will happen at least once a week, making the whole process a disaster.
jeffreyw
This thread is lacking kittehs. I supply the remedy.
Moar kitteh.
Ben
Yes, sloppy editing. Should be, “Spate of Retirements Puts Democrats in a Bind.” Spate is the subject, not retirements. Learned that in ninth grade.
Fleas correct the era
Depends.
——————-
No, that’s Broder; these were Balz.
Svensker
@Sophist:
Yes, Depends. As in, they haz a happy dance in their Depends.
El Cid
Maybe the Washington Post should just import the FOXNOOZ chyron system to show a (D) after anyone Republican having a hard time.
Svensker
@Mark S.:
This should be the bumpersticker of the decade.
Svensker
@Fleas correct the era:
Great minds….
Pasquinade
Bored, BoB? Check out Orly Taitz’ latest craziness.
WAS IT A NEURO MAGNETIC ATTACK ON Rush Limbaugh
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=7140
cleek
@jenniebee: this
Alex S.
@Pasquinade:
That is totally crazy…. but it reminds me of the Spassky-Fisher chess world championship.
ericvsthem
Somewhat OT: Chris Mathews, having one of his finer moments. This question cannot be repeated enough by Democratic politicians, pollsters, and consultants – what are the major Republican accomplishments over the past 20 years? Republicans can’t give any solid examples, but Democrats can point to SCHIP, Health Care Reform, Credit Card Reform, America Recovery Act of 2009, Lilly Ledbetter Act, etc – and that’s all in the last 12 months. Hopefully, they will pass a jobs bill in the next few months. And lest we anyone forget – Republicans voted against all of that stuff.
Democrats need to get in front of some microphones and make this point until people are sick of hearing it, and then repeat it some more.
mcd410x
Awesome quote from TPM:
As DougJ has said, we’ve had a nice ride …
zhak
I could be wrong about this but I think someone — Steve Benen? — has a list of incumbents who are retiring and the Republicans outnumber the Dems (both chambers).
Is there nothing that can’t witlessly be slanted as a fail for Dems and a win for Repubs?
It’s like that xmas day thing — the terror attack that wasn’t — could it be any worse if the fellow had succeeded?
You know, most people don’t pay any attn at all to politics, to govt, they just catch snatches of “news” here and there in their busy lives. And what they’re being fed is a steady diet of slanted shit & outright lies.
cleek
a short, sharp, shock, perhaps ?
bondwooley
The Post is pushing the headline because they know about the GOP new crackerjack re-branding scheme:
Take That, GOP!
(satire)
Brick Oven Bill
Orly Taitz may be on to something Pasquinade, I hope Glenn Beck is very careful.
nealb
only because minority in the Senate now means anything less than 60…
GregB
Someone should tell Dr. Taitz that a mere application of aluminum foil on the head will prevent these attacks.
-G
margaret
2 Senate Dems are retiring, 6 Senate Republicans are. That’s a three to one ratio. Since there are currently 40 Republican Senators, that means that Republicans are losing 15 percent of their caucus to retirement compared to the 3.6 percent that the Democrats are losing. Why is this such great news for Republicans again?
Tom Q
K. Grant, I’d argue that, when it comes to long-running political coalitions collapsing, the press is almost always part of the ancien regime. Accustomed to GOP dominance from the Civil War through 1932, the press was uniformly hostile to FDR. Then the Roosevelt coalition’s long run made the press of the 1970s skeptical-to-ferocious when covering Nixon. Now, memories of the Reagan era cause most in the press to cling to Meacham’s “center-right” formulation, despite Dems winning the popular vote 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.
I’d also suggest a big press problem is complete disinterest in government as opposed to politics. The process of the Dems taking over both Houses and the presidency was exciting. But what they might DO with that majority is of zero interest to DC pundits — except insofar as how it affects the next electoral cycle. Thus, looking forward to a GOP counter-revolution is, to them, the next (and only interesting) logical step.
The question is, when do they realize their error and start to shift emphasis? If their predictions are really rendered foolish this year — if, say, Dems lose only low-teens in the House and remain roughly even in the Senate (still a very live possibility) — there might start to be some glimmers of reality. Certainly a solid Obama re-election would make them rethink their “GOP rules!” theory, for survival purposes alone.
I think the only danger of such coverage as we’ve seen in the last 24 hours is if wavering Dems buy into it. Tony Coelho always said that what hurt them most in ’94 was, the GOP early on said they were going to kick ass, the press quickly bought into it, and too many Democrats did as well — making them such a non-functioning majority that their defeat became almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think most (clearly not all) Dems are smarter than that this year. They don’t have the utter skepticism of progressive policy that much of the party did after the Reagan successes; they’re also (many of them) new enough to the scene that they don’t have the sclerotic quality the aging majority of ’94 did. If they hang together and get a few big things done — and, crucially, if the economy at least starts heading in the proper direction — they should hold their own in the Fall, and might even do surprisingly well in the Ssenate, given how the number of competitive races actually breaks their way.
cleek
because not having 60 votes means the Dems will be unable to pass anything without GOP help. and as long as the GOP is united, that means the Dems will not be able to pass anything.
and that will be Orahmba’s fault. totally.
Joshua Norton
That was wingnut manna from heaven for cable news. They got to combine terrorists AND Christmas in their attacks on Dems. “War on Xmas” and “Weak on Terror” all in one neat little bundle. They weren’t about to let that one go unless something earth-shattering happened – like another Tiger Woods affair or a missing white chick.
As it was, they needed extra mops to clean after themselves for a whole week!
margaret
because not having 60 votes means the Dems will be unable to pass anything without GOP help.
Bid deal. They don’t have 60 votes now, not without kissing Joe Lieberman’s ass.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@K. Grant:
It makes more sense when you realize that our national political press are highly insecure (both emotionally and professionally), overpaid, and easily replaced upper middle class to middling wealthy people with little or no skills beyond social networking, who are employed by ball crushing right wing bastards like Rupert Murdoch, in an industry whose public reputation was cemented back in the 1970s as the DFHs who single handedly lost the Vietnam War.
They are just doing what it takes to keep their spot on the lowest rung of the wealthy part of the Darwinian ladder, one which has been kicked down to the ground for the rest of us. It is all about keeping the big house in Bethesda and the payments on the Lexus. The rest pretty much follows from there.
LindaH
@John: I don’t know about the other states, but the Democrats can’t lose Ohio in 2010. We have 2 Senators George Voinovich whose term is up in 2010 and who has said he will not run again and Sherrod Brown, our Democrat. Since he isn’t running until 2012, we can’t lose an Ohio Democratic seat in 2010, we can gain one if we field the right candidate (I have no idea who that would be), but we can’t lose one this cycle.
K. Grant
@Tom Q: @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Solid and sobering thoughts from both of you. Depressing, of course, but then again, I guess that goes without saying.
I keep coming back to the business of governing. It seems to me that this may be what is driving a good many people round the bend about Obama. Not that he is some hyper-intelligent 13-dimension chess-player, but that he actually seems interested in governing. I think that is the reason for the latest freak-out about ‘the man who set his loins on fire’ – Obama was trying to govern, and the lunatics on the right were interested in politics and optics. I would bet that every single time somebody blew a gasket about Obama (either teabagger or Kossack/Hamsherite) it was because he was trying to govern and they were exercised about the politics.
So, how do you train people to focus on the governance issues and not the political ones?
And before our professional cynics and trolls grab hold of this – yes, I understand that Obama is a politician, I understand he would rather like to be re-elected (although after this first year, I would guess that he and Michele sit at the breakfast table and say to each other ‘we wanted this why?), but I get the sense that at least he seems to care about actually governing, getting things done.
Sigh. Can an idealist pine for pragmatism?
Mumphrey
It’s so infuriating. The Republicans have been behaving like 5 year olds for the last 15 or 20 years, and the press treats both parties like they’re the same. I mean, I know they want to be “evenhanded” and all, but when you’re covering, say, a court case or something, and the plaintiff is resaonable and well behaved, and the defendant is throwing tantrums each day and telling lies on the stand and threatening the jury, not telling the readers about that, and leading them to believe that both the defendant and plaintiff are normal people who just have an honest disagreement is not being evenhanded, it’s pretty much just flat-out lying.
I know everybody on this site has been over this and over it, but I can’t understand how the press doesn’t understand this, or if they do, why they keep on feeding us this bullshit. I don’t know how much longer we can hang on as a free and healthy society when we have such an unprofessional press.
alicia-logic
@MikeJ: OMG, I love you! I somehow turned this on in Mozilla during the last week and I’ve been miserable ever since.
I knew as soon as I read “caret browsing” that my problem had a name. Thanks bunches for giving me a term to Google!
Mumphrey
Good Lord, I just read the Orly Taitz thing. I know there are a lot of craaaaazy-ass nuts in the hate Obama movement, but Orly has to be the craaaaazy-assiest. I mean, this is pretty much “It’s time to put you away somewhere where you won’t hurt yourself” stuff here…
The Raven
“Does anyone really think the Democrats will lose the Senate?”
Washington Post crashed, burned, smoking, and spewing poison.
Dave S.
Now there’s a headline “Democrats departing in droves.” Whether this is a walkback or a doubling down depends on whether a spate is bigger than a drove or not. This is of course good news etc.
Ash Can
@Michael:
This! Forget the bullshit about Congressional Dems retiring, this is what, IMO, is what I think is most immediately important and interesting right now. I’m really wondering what the actual Congressional races are going to look like once the primaries are over with. Specifically, how many Republican candidates who are merely horse’s asses will be replaced by out-and-out babbling lunatics? The masses may be asses, but how much crazy can the voters handle? Here in IL alone, the north suburban Republican Mark Kirk, who’s kind of a jerk but still has his moments of lucidity, is being primaried from the right by Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F’tang-F’tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel the Second. If Biscuitbarrel happens to win the primary, there will be plenty of North Shore Republicans who sit the general out, or even vote for the Dem as the lesser of two evils.
If the Teabaggers really do manage to win a statistically significant number of primaries nationwide, I’ll be very, very interested to see how those general elections pan out. In other words, let the professional gasbags blow air about retirements. The real election handicapping will begin once the primaries are over and the real GOP landscape emerges.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@The Raven:
Any large and complex reality is going to be difficult for one person to grasp. But we are way past Blind-Men-and-the-Elephant territory here. Our pundit class have become a pathetic and terrifying collection of blind masturbators, each one lovingly caressing and fondling their respective parts of the hairy, fat, smelly pachyderm while furiously stroking their slick, engorged reputations.
Royce
It’s kind of strange to keep reading the same things over and over and over … all asking the same macro question: why, o, WHY is our corporate media so lame.
Here is what apparently cannot be seen: THEY. ARE. BOUGHT. They are owned by corporate entities, which are metastasizing into Aristocracy v98561.06
What’s happening generally is what raw market forces do to humanity: leverage dynamics serve to divide the population into two classes and keep it that way through oppression; first the poor suffer, then later, everyone.
But no, it somehow cannot be seen by Americans today. It is the invisible, unknowable fact.
Even though the reason for the beginning of blogging was to fact-check the corporate media, somehow “we” haven’t figured it out these communication outlets are in the business of creating reality, not reporting it. They are owned by people with an agenda. Is it really that difficult to see?
It’s like an endless loop of cluelessness. It’s boring now. Yes the corporate media sux. Yes, they are traitors to the people. Yes, yes, it’s really really true. It’s what the right-wing does, it’s how they roll: They are the Wealth made flesh.
Please find new voices and stop the whining. If we aren’t adapting we are goners.
Ed Drone
@Linkmeister:
It comes out as “PBS Snooze Hour,” which is at least truth-in-advertising.
Ed
Elie
I think that the MSM believes that it has to produce stupid stuff on celebrity and pump up the Republicans. If it actually produced journalism dependent on facts, they would risk making the public aware of stuff that would literally transform the political system.
There are a horde of sleeping Americans — too distracted by their own travails and insecurity to pay too close attention…the aim the MSM and entertainment has is to actually turn people off and away from paying attention more than actually believing their crap. They want the average American to be cynical and detached from real information — and they accomplish that handily..
Should we ever evolve a mechanism for going around the MSM (something more penetrating than the blogs as currently available), we can start to actually get facts and investigation to the people out there. That would radically alter the politics and competitive sociology currently in vogue.
I think it can happen though not easily…
PS — I wonder if Obama ever wonders what the H he got himself into. I bet he sees some real shit and knows a lot more of the behind the scenes corruption and distortion within the system … must be very very sobering and possibly make him even more conservative about what he attempts..
Ed Drone
@reality-based:
I think every Democrat should get in front of a camera and say that this is rich coming from the party that outed active CIA agent Valerie Plame! Just keep repeating “Valerie Plame,” “warrantless wiretaps,” “Scooter Libby” and “they should talk!”
Ed
Ed Drone
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
“Right now?” When, if ever, have they cared about properly governing? Republicans want to destroy the government.
Remember St. Ronnie’s mantra? “The government is the problem.”
Once the GOP became the party of true-believers instead of politicians, they adopted certain ideals, ideals which contradicted reality, but ideals nonetheless. And “NO” is a perfect description of their “ideals,” since “NO government” is their goal. You’d almost think they were anarchists, except they do not believe in “no rulers,” just “no elected rulers.”
Ed
Ed Drone
@Brick Oven Bill:
No, bub, it’s just that we put in a day’s work before logging in here.
Ed
schrodinger's cat
@Ash Can:
Professional gasbags are almost always wrong about predicting electoral outcomes.
Remember how Hillary was going to win the Democratic nomination, and Sarah Palin was going to capture the PUMA vote and all the good news for McCain during the primaries.
Oh and don’t forget the Bradley effect.
Comrade Mary
@Pasquinade: As much as I’ve laughed at Orly, that sounds a lot like paranoid schizophrenia, which really isn’t funny.
licensed to kill time
Orly took my reply arrow, I fear.
PaulW
@cleek:
What will happen if the Dems lose the 60-seat majority but still retain basic majority (which is possible, current polling suggests a 3-7 seat turnaround) is that whoever is Democratic Majority Leader (I doubt if they lose the supermajority that Reid will stay on, and that’s if he doesn’t lose his re-election bid, he is running this year, yes?) will be forced to do away with Cloture/Filibustering in that dreaded Nuclear Option. Yes, the Republicans will scream bloody murder that the SOCIALISTS ZOMG ARE DESTROYING DEMOCRACY but then again they scream that every morning. Just ask their neighbors.
But just think: no more threats of filibusters. Things can actually come to the floor for a frakking vote. We’ll just have to worry about Holds instead (and the Majority Leader can do away with those next new Congressional term anyway).
Bobby Thomson
@John:
Not necessarily. Robert Byrd is not in the best of health, and Tim Johnson’s brain almost exploded a few years ago. Doesn’t take too many deaths or unexpected retirements to shift the balance.
You can bank on a loss in ND. Given current numbers, losses are also more likely than not in DE, NV, PA, AR, MO, OH, KY, and NH. Democrats do not have a popular incumbent in CO, IL, or NY. Feingold tends to make it exciting and will get outspent. Boxer should win easily, and Blumenthal should start picking staff. But the odds of losing the Senate are much higher than they should be.
With a few different cabinet picks, we’d be looking at safe holds in CO and NY and solid pickup opportunities in AZ and KS.
Mike in NC
Anybody who’s seen what Dan Balz has been writing for the past year knows the guy is simply full of shit.