But the rich as well as the poor are also not allowed to panhandle and sleep under bridges, that’s how fair the majersty of the law is!
Although Reid was an extraordinarily accomplished Senate leader as noted earlier, he probably will not win. Nate Silver at 538 gives him a 33% chance of victory.
I predict that most Nevadan Republicans will vote for Angle, largely because they are highly tolerant of the crazy and running away from tough questions just doesn’t bother them. I would lay 5:1 odds on that outcome.
Wow, Nevada voters must be a bunch of ingrates for not backing Reid more strongly, considering we’d be in a worldwide depression if not for Reid. Well, according to him, anyway. Has he been campaigning to tell voters how he saved the whole world? You think he could get a lot of mileage out of that.
I think you must have mis-read whatever you were looking at at 538 blog, because the Reid-Angle race isn’t anywhere on that page you linked to. I did click thru eventually to this map, which clearly shows his current prediction of Reid 48% to Angle 50%.
Since in this thread most of us have gone to pains to print Angle’s attempts at explaining what she meant whenever she said something stupid, I’ll note that you left out that part in your post, even tho the article you linked to is so short, this is like 14% of the content:
Hmmm, maybe it isn’t fair to also quote that, since, ya know, it at least makes sense. It’s not like any of Angle’s explanations for her gaffes ever do.
I missed my edit window, and then forgot about this as other, shinier things presented themselves, but I eventually managed to see what you did: that he’s giving Angle a 66.5% chance of winning. In Nevada, tho, those are good odds. 
If Harry Reid loses his senior position in the Senate, maybe we can finally open Yucca Mountain.
Doubtful. The project is dead. It was a stupid plan, anyway.
Anybody who votes for Angle instead of Reid is retarded. They would vote for a really dumb woman, with no connections , no understanding of how to operate in the Senate over a guy who is the Dem. leader, well positioned and powerful. How dumb do you have to be to think that makes sense?
Penn summed it up nicely: “You know what your problem is? You people suffer from bad math. You see a sign that says 98% return on slots, and you think that means you’re winning.”
Most of the population here seems to exhibit that same kind of thought process most of the time. Don’t think so? I present for your consideration: Gov. Jim Gibbons. I didn’t think it was hardly possible for there to be a worse gov than Florida’s Bob Martinez, but here we are, right where we went.
Maybe not everyone thinks the goal of our representative system should be doing as much as possible to give as little to the rest of the country while taking the most from it. Obviously I’m not supporting Angle, but “support Reid! He can get more shit to your state than you give back!” is a battle cry for dicks.
Out of context quote.
"It doesn’t give people a lot of solace, for me to tell them uh, “But for me, we would be in a worldwide depression.” He’s saying that to say something like that doesn’t help the optics. In other words, the meaning is the diametrical opposite of what conservatives are implying. For shame. Good news from Harry Reid: Harry Reid saved us from a worldwide depression – HotAir
What about the substance? Well, actually TARP and the stimulus package did prevent a worldwide depression. We’ve seen this movie before: it ran from 1930-33. How else can aggregate demand pop back if monetary authorities find themselves in a liquidity trap?
Snowboarder Bo: Ya, the odds are different than the point spread. I think it’s a pretty neat site: it presents some fairly intricate stats in a relatively clear manner.
Wow. How long did it take you to massage that out of gonzo’s post?
The truth is, having a junior senator will hurt the state, simply because she will have no clout (and no cooperation) from others in the senate. She will be unable to do much more than cheer on OTHER senator’s bills or help to further obstruct Democrats. It’s not so much a matter of her being unable to rake in more bucks for the state than we send out, as it is her being unable to get ANYTHING done. Anything important to Nevada, on the federal level, will simply not happen. You know: just like it was before Reid became the majority leader.
That’s the implication, though, isn’t it? Having a powerful senator gets you pork in your district and favorable treatment compared to other regions. Which is great, if you only give a shit about yourself and your area - that’s how our system works, the guy who brings the most shit into his district wins elections, so it’s a race to see who can rob from the national treasury most effectively and give back the least.
Yucca mountain is a good example - instead of having a centralized, safe, away from everyone, responsible repository of nuclear waste, we instead have that very same waste stored all over the fucking place all over the country in areas which are not as safe or secure. Having a powerful senator caters to that sort of NIMBYism, it hurts the rest of the country for a very small perceived (not even real) benefit.
Gonzo is implying hey, elect the powerful dude, you’ll rob the national treasury way more effectively than with the newcomer! And I’m saying not everyone is selfish like that.
Sorry, Senor but as I read gonzo’s post above, he neither said nor implied any such thing. Maybe he’ll come in here and tell me that you’re right, that I got it wrong, but I doubt it. You certainly have said it outright, twice now in as many posts, but as I said before, you had to have spent quite a bit of time and effort massaging that “implication” out of the words he wrote.
And btw, I (and most of the people who would be affected by Yucca Mountain) don’t agree at all with your characterization of either the former, ill-conceived project or of those of us who sought to stop the nation from forcing Nevada to become the toxic waste dump of the USA.
Now, can we drop the Yucca hijack? It’s not at all germane to the topic of this thread.
What are the benefits of having a powerful senator even if he disagrees with your ideology if not special treatment for your region? I say disagrees with your ideology because obviously the people who are voting for Angle aren’t voting for her for non-ideological/partisan reasons, so they’re not sympathetic to the democratic party platform. And yet Gonzo feels that they should vote for Reid anyway, because he’s powerful. What else could that mean? That he’s going to be powerful at the national level enacting the democratic platform that they oppose? No, he’s trying to say that they should vote for him because he can get special treatment for them and that should trump ideology.
Are you so partisan that is impossible to come up with anything with which you could agree with a Democrat, then? The need for roads and bridges? The need for a sensible immigration policy? The need to not declare war on countries which don’t threaten our own? Anything?
“special treatment for your region” & “sympathetic to your idealogy” != “money grubbing thievery from the rest of the country”
Why is your view of politics so narrow that the only thing you can talk about is the money?
Powerful senators get to advance an agenda, not just propose one law. They have some control of the docket of bills and the time spent discussing them on the floor. They have influence on who sits in committees and what the committees consider. They have histories with other senators, alliances to call on, and favors they can ask for and grant. And not all of those things have to do with distributing funds. Did you really not know this?
As for what gonzo meant, well, wait until he answers. I’ve made no comment on what he meant, only on what you said he meant, which is, as I’ve said, completely unsupported by the words he wrote.
At any rate, it really has no bearing on the discussion of the election. If you want to debate the proper role of politicians in general, please feel free to take it to GD. This thread is about the upcoming Nevada senate election.
What? Why do you think that I’m a republican or that there’s no ground I could possibly agree with a democrat on? Please, find me one post I’ve ever made on this board that supports this notion.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make by combining those. My point is that voting for a powerful senator can mean two things - you think he’ll have influence in pushing the democratic agenda - something a republican obviously doesn’t want - or you think he’ll have influence getting special favors done for your state.
Gonzo asserted that anyone who didn’t want to vote for Reid for the latter is an idiot. I’m countering that by saying that maybe they’re just not selfish.
I didn’t only talk about money. I used Yucca Mountain as an example - it’s not valuable because it’ll bring a few jobs to Nevada, it’s valuable because it’s a far more reasonable storage solution than storing it all over the fucking country in temporary storage facilities. That sort of selfish, short sighted NIMBYism is exactly the sort of thing that having a powerful senator who wants to give your state special treatment can give you. This is a prime example of non-monetary yet selfish influence.
If you’re a republican, you’re saying that the smart thing would be to vote for Harry Reid so that he could control the docket of bills and have influence on committees and all that in order to advance the democratic agenda?
What are you saying here? They have influence outside of strictly monetary considerations? Well, duh. So what? That influence is either going to go towards advancing the democratic agenda or enriching Nevada. How does that respond to my point at all?
I’m saying that’s the only thing he could’ve reasonably meant, the implication is pretty clear.
It’s a counter to Gonzo’s point, so it has exactly as much relevance to this thread as what he said. He said Nevada voters are stupid to give up an influential senator. I’m countering that there’s a reason besides stupidity.
My point is not in support of Sharon Angle. My point is in opposition to his arguments that people are stupid for not voting for a guy who will do a better job of enriching them at the expense of others.
In all fairness gonzomax’s point is a common one: I’d go as far to say that it’s even conventional wisdom.
IMHO, someone should amplify SeniorBeef’s point and back it up with research. I’d go further though. It’s really silly for most people to get gung-ho about creating extra jobs in their state, never mind their Congressional district, unless of course they are recipients of said jobs created. Don’t get me wrong: it’s in every American’s interest to have a robust stimulus package, since a Great Depression would hurt basically everyone’s income, excepting the bankruptcy lawyers. But typical Nevadan residents should prefer smart investments in say east coast or Florida railroads over subsidizing construction of the Nevadan State Sand and Rock Museum, in Bhutthole, NV, unless of course they are sand curators.
Yucca Mountain is another matter: for that, it might make sense to have friends in high places, as it’s not clear that either site or waste strategy are all that terrific anyway. (eg, it’s not reversible.)
I did not say that. That mantra works for Alaska though. There are lots of ways strong representation helps a state. But a bumbling ,not too bright Senator who does not even know how to write a bill can not be of much use. She could not sway experienced politicians. She would not know who to talk to.