This is Texas, we have reset the bar when listening to Ted Cruz and talking about drag shows counts as an erudite and comprehensive analysis of Alreds policy positions, that barely flickers the crazy meter
WaPo (gift) article on the Osborn-Fischer Nebraska Senate campaign:
Hmm, that’s not coming up in OneBox or whatever it’s called. Here’s the title
Democrats thought their Senate hopes were dead. They were just in Nebraska.
Is this an actual Bob Casey ad, or some kind of deepfake?
I voted for Casey last week, but I definitely do NOT approve this message.
Prognosticators have written off US Senator John Tester (D-MT) too early:
Based on what they perceive in early voting trends, national groups supporting GOP Senate candidates are reducing their investment in Montana (a probably sign that they feel confident Sheehy will beat Tester) while pumping additional funding into the Nevada Senate race.
What Republicans’ money moves mean for the battle for Senate control
I feel like I’m part of the Texas senate race because I keep getting texts from Ted Cruz asking for money.
Since I’m not actually in Texas I haven’t been too exposed to Colin Allred. I recently looked at some clips of their debate and he was very impressive.
Maybe, except it seems like a rehash of an old story. The main difference seems to be that the WaPo anonymous source has come forward.
This is admittedly a doozy:
I think it important for the Navy to investigate friendly fire incidents to see if there is a lesson to be learned. Isn’t impeding such an investigation a breach of military discipline?
.
Gift link to a WaPO article on Dan Osborn, the independent running for Senate in Nebraska. One thing is that he insists he won’t caucus with either party if he wins.
Does that mean he wouldn’t get any committee assignments?
If he and Harris both win, and the Senate is 50 to 49 R advantage if he does not caucus D but tied with VP as tiebreaker, will he stay true to that promise, or bargain for huge power?
I just realized I called it a WaPO article by mistake. It’s a NYT article.
Normally, yes. Who knows what will happen if the scenario DSeid laid out actually occurs.
This is a Senate rules and precedents nerd’s (there are dozens of us, Michael!) dream scenario. How do you determine the Majority Leader? How do you craft an organizing resolution (which can be filibustered)?
Certainly, in this scenario Osborn could name his ticket. I’m a little surprised he doesn’t make this more of his messaging in the campaign: “Vote for Deb Fisher and the most you get is the Chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Vote for me, and I’ll relocate the Pentagon to Omaha.”
No - Norad. Omaha gets Norad.
You pretty much have to, or you wont get any committee seats.
Pretty much.
I think what he means is that he will caucus with whatever side wins.
What he might mean is that he wants everybody to vote for him in the hope that he’ll caucus with their side.
They already have USSTRATCOM. What more do they want?
Anyway, this guy is running as an extreme outsider, which is why the insistance on not caucusing with either party. If he wins, we’ll see how long that lasts once he gets to Washington.
My guess is he comes up with some arrangement (probably with the cooperation of whichever side he chooses) where he’s doing something that isn’t officially called “caucusing”, but has exactly the same practical effect.
That was my thought. Lone wolves don’t get anything done. Plus, wasting the power his win would give him—the likely majority maker—would be idiocy.
I received junk mail from the Nevada Republicans (addressed to “…or current resident”) breathlessly exclaiming that “A vote for Jacky Rosen is a vote against President Trump!” “She voted to impeach him and she’ll vote against him in the Senate!”
Not seeing a downside. Sounds like a win-win.
LOL. My response would be, “And…?”