Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Interesting. A personal attack... (0+ / 0-)

    from the high and mighty.  

    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 04:16:12 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Ah yes (5+ / 0-)

      A valid methodological criticism is a "personal attack." Quite the scoundrel's refuge. Maybe I'd believe you were opining in good faith if you didn't always automatically take the most pessimistic viewpoint humanly possible.

      When you first resurfaced in this community a while back, everyone branded you a concern troll, and I understood why. I reluctantly gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you've demonstrated quite clearly that you don't deserve that much.

      I'm well and truly tired of your knee-jerk Chicken Littling. I don't know why you seem to enjoy it so much, but your perpetual one-note downerism isn't welcome here.

      Get the Daily Kos Elections Digest in your inbox every weekday. Sign up here.

      by David Nir on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:42:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So ban me then. (0+ / 0-)

        But first point out where one must offer sunshine and rainbows in order to post here.  

        So instead you accuse me of "playing downer" which is an accusation that my opinion offered is somehow disingenuous and thus that I'm either a liar or a troll.  That is an insult and "attacking the commenter, not the comment".  

        Pointing out that Michigan Dems don't have a bench, and that 2010 (ie the last non-Presidential year) was a statewide bloodbath for Dems seems to not be out of the mainstream opinion.  

        You resorted to name calling and didn't like getting called out on it - So ban away, but I'll just leave this hear to let everybody know why.  And I will also point to my lack of hide ratings here - http://www.dailykos.com/... , and further explain my NR rating as being hide rated and thus warned in the past because I don't like Cenk Uygar and let him know it in a diary of his and I was anti-pot in a pro-legalization thread.  Again neither offences came in DKE.   My offense in DKE is that you don't like me - which I guess we're going to find out is enough to get one banned.  

        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 05:01:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Given that you want to just assume the worst... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, SaoMagnifico

      It appears to me that David isn't wrong...

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

      by NMLib on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:50:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Assuming the worst isn't against the TOS... (0+ / 0-)

        And it's a worldview shared by many millions.  I don't see voicing concerns about creating open senate seat in Michigan in a non-Presidential year as assuming the worst.  

        I'll own up to being a glass-half-full guy most of the time, it's my hard wiring.  But I don't think it's irrational - Levin was a lock to hold, now Peters would at best be a tilt Dem.  Wow, I'm sure that blew some minds with such an out there opinion on the matter.

        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 05:08:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And I will further add non-downer posts (0+ / 0-)

        just from Today's Live Thread -

         I love the rationale needed to vote against (0+ / 0-)

        nominees now - "he was arrogant and bit shifty".  Really - Graham calling somebody else arrogant first of all, but then to state that is somehow reason to vote against them - well I hope Dems were paying attention because you can bet the next GOP nominee for treasury, defense, CIA, Labor, EPA will be all kinds of arrogant and shifty.    

        http://www.dailykos.com/...
         He sounds like he'd hate the Senate... (1+ / 0-)

        McConnell rules with an iron fist and you're expected to be nothing except a party line vote - especially as a freshman Senator.  NRSC see him as nothing but a chess piece, to win the seat and thus the majority and nothing more.  

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

         

        I expect them to go back to winner-take-all (1+ / 0-)

        in all states as well.  It's funny that they changed things from 2008 to 2012 because they thought Obama/Clinton's long primary helped them win by dominating the narrative and getting all the coverage.  Now they figure - gee, we gotta hide our crazy again.  

        They don't want debates - they want networks to cover carefully crafted GOP propaganda.  Any network worth it's salt would refuse to play this game.  So of course all will go along with it.  

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        I'll just link to the rest -
        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        Out of my 11 posts in Todays DKE, that's nine of them.  Not downer negative.  I am not happy with Levin retiring and the less safe as a result seat he's leaving behind.  

        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 05:25:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But dude, the sky isn't falling here (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NMLib, MichaelNY, ArkDem14, R30A

          If Sen. Pryor announces his retirement, I'd be completely understanding if you wanted to do some teeth-gnashing and garment-rending. Gnash and rend away if Lt. Gov. Dardenne announces for Senate.

          But Democrats cannot be reasonably expected to struggle that much here. Sure, Sen. Levin was a lock for reelection, but one, we knew he was probably going to retire already, and two, we have three or four Democrats who could not only hold his seat, but do so by probably a double-digit margin against anyone but Rep. Candice Miller, who probably won't give up her safe seat to lose by single digits.

          You cry wolf every damn time, and it's getting really tiresome. It's like DownstateDemocrat posting something about a major announcement by a progressive blogger, the devastating political impact of a Wisconsin state representative getting a bad haircut, or the obvious presidential ambitions of a radio personality as indicated by who he follows on Twitter every single day. It grates after a while because it's so much hullabaloo for no apparent reason.

          We won last November. Remember that.

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

          by SaoMagnifico on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:58:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  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