Skip to main content

View Diary: Michigan Sen. Carl Levin will not seek a seventh term (141 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I can understand this... (0+ / 0-)

    However Dems already are in tough to hold the Senate, and now we keep retiring out of safe seats putting more in play, even if they still tilt.  That's more money that will have to go to Peters or whomever in Michigan that Levin wouldn't have needed.  

    I didn't say "All is lost, we are doomed"  I said Peters would make it tilt Dem at best.  So are we now arguing over tilt vs lean and one being a capital offense?

    I'm pretty positive on the whole about the Judd candidacy, and everybody else craps on it.  

    If you're not talking about what billionaire hedgefund bankster Peter G. Peterson is up to you're having the wrong conversations.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:13:05 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  "Tilt Dem at best" (8+ / 0-)

      See, that's what pisses people off about you. It's not "tilt Dem at best". That's just such a bizarrely pessimistic thing to say, and there's no reason for it -- other than maybe to antagonize people. I don't know.

      Keeper of the DKE glossary. Priceless: worth a lot; not for sale.

      by SaoMagnifico on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:15:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know why somebody who never won (0+ / 0-)

        statewide election would start out anything more than a tilt in Michigan in a non-Presidential year.  His name value will be very low.  Michigan has a lot of rich right wingers, at least one VERY rich family, and we're in a post CU world.  

        There was 4.679M votes cast in 2012 Presidential, there was 3.161M votes cast in 2010 Gubernatorial.  So 1.7M people voted in the Presidential who didn't vote in the mid-term.  

        No statewide name value, mid-term electorate (that went hard GOP in 2010), rich whackjob far right politically active family in a post CU world - that's my reason.

        If you're not talking about what billionaire hedgefund bankster Peter G. Peterson is up to you're having the wrong conversations.

        by Jacoby Jonze on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:39:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And in 2006 we destroyed the GOP in Michigan... (5+ / 0-)

          Your logic is to take a wave election and use that to color your analysis, but all years are not wave years and yes, even in Midterms, Democrats are favored in the state.

          And our candidate is going to be well funded, against a crop of second tier Republicans. But... I forgot, this is Jacoby world, where Republicans should be assumed to have an advantage in all races unless we can prove otherwise.

          Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

          by NMLib on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:59:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Jacoby, with all due respect, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, MetroGnome

          as a Michigan resident, who has lived here my entire life, you clearly know nothing about our state, politically.

          As NMLib pointed out, in '06, another midterm year, we cleaned up.

          2010 was a bad year for us here, but it was a bad year for Dems everywhere.

          There's no reason to expect a Republican wave in 2014.  And while I maintain that this state isn't quite as blue as a lot of outsiders think, it's also not as Republican as you clearly think it is.

          The problem with you mentioning the rich Republican family here........well, first off, not sure if you're referring to the Princes or the DeVoses.  Not that it matters, since neither is terribly popular in Michigan.  Hell, Dick DeVos got his ass handed to him in 2006.  Outside of the Republican party, they, frankly, don't have the power over this state that you think they do.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site