Reid has 52% Unfavorable in NV. Losing Badly In Polls.

[TexanBob]

Reid hits new low in poll

Las Vegas Review Journal:

More than half of Nevadans are unhappy with Sen. Harry Reid, according to a new poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. It's the worst "unfavorable" rating he's received in the newspaper's surveys for this year's election, and it comes amid quiet speculation -- or perhaps wishful thinking by his opponents -- that it's time for the Nevada Democrat to retire rather than lose re-election.

In response, Reid told the Review-Journal Friday he wouldn't consider stepping aside as did Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, whose announcement this week prompted rumors that the Senate majority leader might think about ending his political career now that he's the most vulnerable incumbent.

....snip....

Reid's numbers are pretty ugly, according to the latest survey by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which interviewed 625 registered Nevada voters by telephone Jan. 5-7. The margin of error on the poll is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

According to the survey:

• 52 percent had an unfavorable opinion of Reid, 33 percent had a favorable view and another 15 percent said they're neutral. In early December, a Mason-Dixon poll put his unfavorable-favorable rating at 49-38. The lowest Reid's popularity had slipped before in the surveys was 50 percent -- in October, August and May of 2009, when Mason-Dixon started tracking the senate race for the Review-Journal.

The poll also took a snapshot of how Reid would do against three potential GOP opponents. In each case -- as in past Review-Journal surveys -- it showed the senator would lose with only four in 10 voters supporting him. The potential match-ups would look like this:

• Sue Lowden, former Nevada Republican Party chairwoman, would get 50 percent of the vote to Reid's 40 percent with 10 percent undecided.

• Danny Tarkanian, a businessman and former UNLV basketball star, would gain 49 percent of the vote to Reid's 41 percent.

• And Sharron Angle, a former Reno assemblywoman, would get 45 percent of the vote to Reid's 40 percent, a strong showing given her low name recognition statewide -- 42 percent don't know her.

Reid's campaign manager Hall said internal polls show the senator winning the general election against any potential opponent, but he refused to share any details.

===================================

Can you say "Dead Senator Walking"? And, for you partisans, notice that this is not a Rasmussen poll, the latest victim of left-wing smear attacks.

And this poll was taken before the latest revelation that Reid made racial comments about Obama back in 2008. In an upcoming book, the Atlantic Monthly reports that what made Obama special to Reid was that he was a "light-skinned" black "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Reid has already apologized for this remark which must mean it was no misquote.

Spin away, Lefties!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Another thread started by another GOP shill who just doesn't get the whole "glass houses/throwing stones" principle.

News flash: Your party is in far worse shambles than Reid or the Dems could even imagine at present.

You even have your own RNC chairman going on record with "no way can we re-take the House next election."

Shouldn't you be worried about plucking the beam from your own eye, as it were?

Note: This post is NOT to be misconstrued as a defense of Reid - he's a DINO and a worthless POS who should be replaced.

[TexanBob]

Response to Reid Remark Shows Double-Standard

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans on Sunday accused Democrats of a double standard by accepting Sen. Harry Reid's apology for racial remarks about Barack Obama instead of demanding Reid's ouster as majority leader.

In a private conversation reported in a new book, Reid described Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Reid, D-Nev., apologized to Obama on Saturday, and the president issued a statement accepting the apology and saying the matter was closed.

GOP Chairman Michael Steele, in appearances on two Sunday news programs, compared Reid's predicament with the circumstances that led Senate Republican leader Trent Lott to step down from that post in 2002. Lott had spoken favorably of the 1948 segregationist presidential campaign of Strom Thurmond, and in spite of apologies for those remarks at Thurmond's 100th birthday, Lott was forced out as leader.

"There is this standard where the Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it's racism," said Steele, who is black. "It's either racist or it's not. And it's inappropriate, absolutely."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said in a statement that Reid should step down, calling his comments "embarrassing and racially insensitive."

=================================

Of course, Reid is not going to step down or go anywhere. He is staying in the race which is just where I want him. He'll get his comeuppance November 2nd.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha!

GOP to Michael Tom Steele: STFU


Link

Excerpt:

Top GOP aides have demanded that their colleagues at the RNC rein in Chairman Michael Tom Steele after Steele suggested House Republicans could not retake the majority this November.

Aides used a conference call Wednesday with RNC staff to voice their latest frustrations with Steele, who said "not this year" when asked Jan. 4 on Fox News whether the GOP would win control of the House in 2010.

It's against the rules to tell the truth in the GOP.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Before TexanBoob starts thinking Reid's troubles are a sign of some kind of right-wing resurgence...

Connecticut hates Kissyface, too

Link

Excerpt:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman's role in killing health care is costing him dearly at home.
A new poll has the Senator losing support in his home state with Democrats, independents and Republicans.

More than 80 percent of Democrats now say they disapprove of the Senator with only 14 percent approving.

Among Republicans, 48 percent disapprove with just 39 approving.

"It all adds up to a 25% approval rating with 67% of his constituents giving him bad marks," the study concludes.

"Obama's approval rating with Connecticut Republicans is higher than Lieberman's with the state's Democrats."

[barryr]

Liberals are ok with racists as long as they are in their party and support the majority of the democratic platform.

Christopher Dodd made similar comments about KKK Robert Byrd that Trent Lott made about Strom Thurmond, yet no outrage by the liberals despite Dodd's gushing over Byrd's history.

Racism is just another subject that is all about politics and shows why the liberals are a joke when it comes to racism. Only worry about it with nondemocrats. Phonies.

[Requiem]

Reid might get ousted, but I doubt it. The Republicans have nobody worth mentioning to challenge him in the state, (a big WHO to the people they mentioned) and the Democrats have an enormous lead in voter registration and turnout than the Republicans do. Have for quite sometime there. Polls can be manipulated, and I'd love to see the sampling size and margin of error for this one. Nonetheless, there is still a chance Reid gets pounced like Daschle did a while back. The GOP will pour a **** ton of assets into this race, it is just too bad Reid has millions on hand more than they do.

[epicSocialism4tw]

He's done.

Next.

[Requiem]

Yeah, Harry is toast because 625 registered voters have him losing by slim margins. It's too bad that non-scientific polling from journals like this are hardly right and fail to incorporate angles of election monitoring which are imperative to such estimations. Carry on.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Yeah, Harry is toast because 625 registered voters have him losing by slim margins. It's too bad that non-scientific polling from journals like this are hardly right and fail to incorporate angles of election monitoring which are imperative to such estimations. Carry on.

This guy was toast before he revealed that he was a racist.

[Requiem]

I think there is a difference between racism and pointing out sociocultural truths and identity perceptions in American politics. You seem to be devoid of realizing that difference.

[Bronx33]

For the record i don't think reid was being racist at all just a poor choice of words from an old timer from the way back machine and reids poll numbers are the result of a poor administration.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Bronx33

For the record i don't think reid was being racist at all just a poor choice of words from an old timer from the way back machine.

Not even sure it was a poor choice of words. Appearance, both physically and communicatively, have a significant impact on the perceptions people have when voting for certain individuals. This can be illustrated fairly easily. I think it's quite safe to say that back in the day, Nixon owned Kennedy point by point in their Presidential Debate, but those who saw Kennedy viewed a calm, collected individual with rather good looks, as opposed to a sweating, clammy old Nixon. That's just one large example.

Obama being a "lighter-skinned" African-American was probably beneficial to him, as well as his ability communicate. I'm not sure why people are challenging that. In life, there are hard truths. I think Reid just so happened to point one out.

[Bronx33]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Not even sure it was a poor choice of words. Appearance, both physically and communicatively, have a significant impact on the perceptions people have when voting for certain individuals. This can be illustrated fairly easily. I think it's quite safe to say that back in the day, Nixon owned Kennedy point by point in their Presidential Debate, but those who saw Kennedy viewed a calm, collected individual with rather good looks, as opposed to a sweating, clammy old Nixon. That's just one large example.

Obama being a "lighter-skinned" African-American was probably beneficial to him, as well as his ability communicate. I'm not sure why people are challenging that. In life, there are hard truths. I think Reid just so happened to point one out.

Todays over sensitive crowd says other wise and that goes for democrats as well if the show were on the other foot they would be all over him like a 2 dollar hooker, i was listening to rosen today and a black guy called in and was determined that reids comment was racist. Of course rosen pointed him in the right direction but that dude was sold lock stock and barrell, fact is some people will always take things the wrong way no matter how clear the comment was put forth.


PS; YOUR AVATAR IS CREEPIN ME OUT!

[Requiem]

Yep, some people are hard-headed in their beliefs. Doesn't mean they are right.

P.S., I love your avatar. Mine is of me on Halloween.

[TexanBob]

Racism Double Standards 101 by Ashley Herzog

These days, it’s difficult for normal people to determine what counts as a racist remark and what doesn’t. (For instance, the preferred PC term for a non-white individual is “person of color,” but if you accidentally transpose the words and say “colored person,” you’re racist.) Therefore, in the wake of the Harry Reid flap, I’ve decided to provide my readers with a handy racist vs. not-racist chart.

Not racist: Reid saying Barack Obama was an appealing black candidate because of his “light skin” and his lack of a “negro dialect.” Fellow Democrats have rallied around him, and Obama accepted Reid’s apology, citing his commitment to “social justice.”

Racist: Hillary Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro saying Obama was a more appealing candidate because he is black. In the face of relentless hectoring from liberals and black activists, Ferraro resigned from the Clinton campaign. (And she didn’t even use the word “negro.”)

Not racist: Chris Dodd praising fellow Democrat and former Klansmen Robert Byrd, saying he “would have been a great senator at any moment”--including, presumably, when he was running around West Virginia in a white hood. Dodd apologized for his “poor choice of words,” and with that, the subject was dropped.

Racist: Trent Lott praising fellow Republican and former segregationist Strom Thurmond, saying if Thurmond had been President, America wouldn’t have had “all these problems.” Lott was forced to resign as Senate majority leader despite his repeated apologies.

Not racist: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee obtaining a copy of black Republican Michael Steele’s credit report. (Because all black people have bad credit, didn’t you know?) Although the Democrats denied race had anything to do with it, Steele was the only candidate targeted.

Racist: A Republican ad in which a ditzy white woman says she met biracial Democrat Harold Ford “at the Playboy party.” Ford admitted to attending the party, and no normal person could figure out why the ad was racist. But according to liberals, Americans have a deep-seated fear of biracial men dating white women…or something.

Not racist: Cartoonists depicting Condoleezza Rice as a slave, a “house ni**a,” and a parakeet perched on Bush’s shoulder—often with stereotypical dialect and exaggerated black lips.

Racist: Cartoonist Sean Delonas comparing Obama to a chimpanzee.

Not racist: The media pointlessly obsessing over the skin tone of Republican governor and Indian-American Bobby Jindal—although the jury was out on whether he was “moderately dark-skinned” (The Associated Press) or just plain old “dark-skinned” (The LA Times).

Racist: Republican Senate candidate George Allen calling a liberal heckler a “macaca.” This is supposedly a disparaging term for blacks in Europe—although no American had ever heard the word, much less been insulted by it. Oh, and the heckler was Indian, not black.

As we can see, the liberal criteria for “racist” depends not on what a person says and does, but whom they associate with. If you have an “R” after your name, you’re a bigot. If you have a “D” after your name, you can praise former Klansmen, publicly obsess over your opponents’ skin tone, and drone on about “negro dialects.” And when it comes to especially hated Republicans like Condi Rice, you can even use the n-word.

It’s all good.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I think there is a difference between racism and pointing out sociocultural truths and identity perceptions in American politics. You seem to be devoid of realizing that difference.

The inability to make such "difficult" distinctions has always defined McDrama and the rest of the right-wing mouth breathers on this thread.