How Reed Can Lose

I think Reed is a lock to win this race, but the past couple of days of Republican behavior (by others, not Reed), makes me think that there might be an opening for a Democrat to squeak by him. Here's how it could work:

First, Paterson needs to delay the special election as long as possible, but he needs to call one. Special election turnout is hard to get and is generally all about the base. If Democrats can motivate their base to turn out, and blanks are indifferent, a Democrat has a chance to win.

Second, we need to have more brick throwing, death threats, talk of tyranny, etc. The more the better (for Reed's opponent, not the country). Nobody likes to hear about at least 10 serious threats against Members of Congress over a fairly modest insurance reform.

Third, Reed's opponent needs to get in his face about that kind of stuff, and ask him to disown it. Here's an example:

(Those are sniper sight images.) Remember that in 2006 Randy Kuhl put out an ad showing Eric Massa targeting sniper fire at the elderly in the district. That ad came down pretty quickly. Perhaps Reed's opponent could ask him to disown this image -- which, remember, comes from a serious Republican, who was nominated to be the VP of a 72-year-old -- given the death threats, including one aimed at the children of an 80-year-old grandmother, Louise Slaughter.

Fourth, Republicans need to make repeal the cornerstone of their Fall campaign. That gives Reed no positive program to run on. Bonus points if they listen to Newt and pledge to shutdown government for two years until they regain the Senate and Presidency.

Finally, the NRCC and DCCC need to decide this race is a bellewether, and pour tons of money and ads into it. If Republicans are running on repeal, Democrats will be able to say that Tom Reed wants to re-instate insurance denials for pre-existing conditions.

If all these things happened, I wouldn't be surprised to see a close election. I don't think it's going to happen. I think the election will be won or lost on jobs, the economy and the memory of Eric Massa's shenanigans. But if Sarah and Newt are still in charge two months from now, all bets are off.


Yes of course the bill is law. We all know that. However the debate is far from over. The bill was 2700 pages, few people know what is in it and fewer people understand it. If the republicans will have as an issue repeal then they have an obligation to state what is wrong with it. The democrats will need to defend it if they hope to hold off a republican landslide.

Another person that ;lked to say "The debate is over" was Al Gore on global warming, turns out there are still lots of issues to debate there including fraud.

Are you seriously making an argument this stupid:

1. Al Gore said "The debate is over" about global warming, which is a natural phenomenon.

2. I said "The debate is over" about a bill, which was passed and is now a law. I also said that the debate is now about what to change in the law.

Therefore, given 1 and 2, Al Gore's statement and my statement are equivalent.

And, note that I called the argument stupid, which it is, not you.

Are you seriously making an argument that idiotic?

We are heading into a campaign season with a bill that was about as divisive as you can get. You don't think that there will be much debate on whether it was a good bill or not?

And not that I called your argumnet idiotic, which it is, not you.

It's a *law* not a *bill*. Now the question is how to change the *law* not whether the *bill* was a good idea. That argument happened, Congress voted, and it's over.

I said the yes the bill is now law. I also used words like the "bill was" implying past tense.

You said "There's no need for a debate anymore, Mike. The bill is law. The next poll that really matters is in November. We'll see if voters agree." we can still debate over whether it was a good bill process or wether the resulting law is good. There are years to come on healthcare debates over what happened. Pretty soon the courts will be debating it.

we can even debate over whether calling somones argument stupid is really name calling the person. We can also debate whether it weakens your argument to be clever about calling someone stupid. The point I am making with this and any action is it can be debated especially in politics. Whether its health care bill process, the resulting law, Al Gore hustling his bitter point of view or rottenchester or tiberius nattering back and forth with words that beside us not many care about.

You're free to debate whatever you want with whoever chooses to debate with you, but since this bill has now been signed into law, I'm looking forward to the next political debate on new issues, which could include proposed changes to the healthcare law.

However, I haven't seen any proposed changes from Republicans. And the Senate and House don't have any of those changes on their calendars. So any debate we'd have would be purely theoretical, wouldn't it?


Looks like we are in agreement now on the debate. However I am in disagreement on the republican changes. There position is repeal. If that is their position why debate over changes? We can now debate on whether we think that is a winning position. If that does become their official position I am sure you can count on a daily barage of what they believe is bad about the law. Does it work? I like to quote teh Zen Master, "We shall see"

As a student of history, modern and ancient, I tend to think in the long term...meaning decades and centuries.

You can accurately say that the bill has passed. That is a fact.

But I don't think you can claim that the debate about whether it was a good idea is "over". That debate apparently goes on, like it or not. If it was absolutely settled, why is the administration still trying so hard to sell the voters on the law?

That sounds too much like those who claimed that the debate about global warming was "over"..but as we now know from recent revelations..that debate is far from over.

No argument about a political policy is ever completely "over", unless you believe in permanent victories and defeats in politics..which I don't.

At one point, the debate about Prohibition was as "over' as you could get.. when Prohibition was enacted through a constitutional amendment no less!

We all know how that ended up.

The victory of communism in the USSR was "over" at one point.

Maybe it took 70 years to reverse that, but we also know how THAT turned out .

Is China REALLY socialist any more? Is India?

If this law withstands constitutional and political challenges and is enacted, are there any logical , rational objective individuals among us who look at the projected financial collapse of Social Security and Medicare and our surging national debt..and REALLY believe that this law will be economically sustainable?

Given past experience, can any rational logical person REALLY think that this law will actually REDUCE the federal deficit or national debt? In 1965, Medicare was projected to cost 12 billion by 1990; it actually cost about 107 billion.

It's an idealistic goal.. but like most such's extremely doubtful that it will work ..not forever..probably not even for more than a few decades.

This law, itself, is not "over" now.. but one way or another..logic and the lessons of history... predict that it will be.

Sad.. but I believe true.

Well said Bob

It's nce to try to keep some hope..but, if you want to talk about voters, we've already received at least some indications how voters feel.

Virginia and majority Democrat New Jersey, November 2009 and overwhelmingly Democrat Massachusetts, January 2110.

How much more convincing do we need?

I've seen the polls for various swing districts.

I'm not sure ANY Democrat from a swing district who voted for this bill is any more safe than a Democrat who now tried to run against Reed.

The possibility of the GOP taking over the House is very real..and perhaps even the Senate, though that is a longer shot.

IF the GOP takes the will say it all..and what it will say is that progressives are screwed, possibly for a generation.

"Virginia and majority Democrat New Jersey, November 2009 and overwhelmingly Democrat Massachusetts, January 2110."

Proved that the electorate is fickle. Frustrated voters throw the bums out. In NJ at least they elected a real bum and threw out a real governor.


I think it aguable both ways on who the bum is in New Jersey. Corzine had his share of New Jersey political pecadillos.

Certainly arguable. As to governance, Christy is just Christie redux. One could argue that that's a good thing. My opinion is that the previous Chris left the state in very bad financial shape by borrowing to balance the budget in order to deliver income tax cuts to the top ten percent in her first year in office. Previously a referendum was called, as the constitution requires, in order to float a bond. She found a loophole. True, her successors borrowed too, but she had dug the hole so deep that they really had no choice. Corzine attempted to balance the budget in a more responsible (but not totally above board) way and naturally couldn't promise to lower taxes as Chris Christys did. Now he's taking the money from the public employees, among others, in order to keep his promise.

Do I hear $10.00? Anyone?

Quite a wish list of events and circumstances you have there..

... but not likely to happen.

Wishful thinking ...I would say.

More likely scenario?

Your first gut level remark.

"Reed is a lock to win this race."

That isn't because Reed is any great candidate.

Given the mood of the country and the make-up of this district.. the main qualification a Republican will need to win to have a pulse.

I agree - that's the likely outcome.

Were there any target symbols used in the video? That needs to be disclosed to find out if there was actually a crime.

So you're saying that Sarah Palin, the VP nominee of your party, is the equivalent to a crazy person who posted 2000 videos to YouTube and threatened the life of the President?

That's quite an admission.

$20.00, do I hear $20.00?

Sarcasm. I'll teach you about it sometime. In other news the wildly popular health bill has some new polling on it:

(can you find the sarcasm in my statement?)

I'll teach you about polling, and polling averages, sometime when I get the chance, but today's not the day.

I'll also teach you about why saying "I was just being sarcastic" isn't a catch-all defense to bad reasoning.

So much for you to learn, yet so few hours in the day...

$100.00, going once...going twice...

Really adding to the debate aren't ya, Cuba?

I just don't understand how you can believe the American people are for this bill. I just don't see the overwhelming response to this being passed as positive. As for the Sarah Palin comment, come on buddy. You are better than that. I will concede that the tea party protesters are just a bunch of bigots who equate Obama as a Nazi. I was finally given video evidence.

Oh yeah, I just heard $200.00!!!!

It's clear to me that Reed is not the ideal individual to represent the fine folks of New York's best congressional district. He could lose if the Dems just flat out didn't pick a candidate and if a fiercely Independnt candidate would comes out of the wood work to run against him. Or in the alternative, both a Dem and an Independent ran then Reed and the Independent would cancel each other out, thus give the Dems another vote in the house.

As for the targets on the poster, I would prefer emoticons with different expressions representing just how angry they were at the candidate represented by the particular points on the map. The red targets could be replaced with emoticons wearing Rambo headbands.

Now that is adding to the debate.

Rotten you keep saying "Your Party" Then when I acknowledge I am a wealthy Republican you paint it as irrelevant. Thats also some pretty weak argument first you interpret what you think he is saying then conclude it is quite an admission.

On the first point, you're conflating two issues:

1. "Your Party". What's wrong with saying that? You are a Republican, right?

2. "Wealthy Republican" You accused me of calling you that. I didn't. I'd never call anyone that, because I don't know who's wealthy and who isn't, and it doesn't matter.

On the second point, I think that's the logical interpretation of what he said, and he didn't deny it, just tried to dodge it.

Actually I am not registered to any party. So technically no I am not a republican. I do tend to agree with them more than the democrats. I have voted for Democrats and I am sure I will again. It is sad because I was begining to respect Eric Massa (even though I could not vote for him). I was happy with him voting against HC and it made me take a look at him. Even though I did not agree with his reason. The end result was a no vote. I think his vote was to keep his constiuents happy and his rational was to keep the liberals happy.

He was very close to being right about why the dems kicked him out. With his vote they would have needed 217 they got just a few more than that. His no vote would have brough it down by one with needing one more to pass. So by kicking him out it was like two votes for Obamacare. He should have stuck around because he is always going to be remembered fro the reasons why he dropped out and got the scarlet "G" on him anyways.

Please help. Reed was the Mayor, Reed bought the Masonic Temple, Reed got $1.8mil from the State, Reed voted against receiving Stimulus Funds. What is the chronology? What is the building now used for? Is Reed a Free Mason? Does Reed get all the rent/sales proceeds of the new and improved Masonic Temple? Doesn't smell right. Thanks.

Let's get Joe Miller into office. I think that he will speak louder than any previous representative. Let's vote Joe. Let's force the man out of Cuba to step forward and make him test his mettle. I'm just saying.