Message to incumbents if Reid trails by double digits in Nevada?
An opponent of Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) protests outside a campaign event in Fernley, Nevada. Reid is lagging in polls following passage of the controversial health care bill that Pres. Obama signed into law. Reid is bidding for a fifth Senate term. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Incumbents may want to take note:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trailing the Republican front-runner in Nevada by double digits.
The Mason-Dixon poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal shows Republican Sue Lowden getting 47 percent of the vote... compared to 37 percent for Reid. The poll also includes a slate of third-party and other candidates, who get very little backing.
Reid has been in trouble in his home state for awhile now. His campaign had always argued that the presence of third party candidates distorted the real picture. Reid claimed when the election was held these minor party candidates would split the vote and he would still win.
But this poll suggests adding the minor candidates into the mix doesn't really "bleed support" away from the Republican. Experts suggest voters rarely choose third-party candidates in closer races with high stakes... because they don't want to throw away their vote.
Reid's people still sound confident that the senator can win a fifth term - what else are they gonna say. Another recent poll shows the senate majority leader with an unfavorable rating of 56 percent in Nevada. The people in his own state can't stand him.
And it's not just Reid who might be in trouble. People are increasingly angry about their government and are likely to take it out on incumbents come November. Let's hope they do.
Here’s my question to you: What message does it send to incumbents if Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is trailing by double digits in his home state?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What's behind GOP opposition to financial reform?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
You might call it "Health care reform, Take 2."
The financial reform bill might just set the stage for the next big partisan showdown on Capitol Hill.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/19/art.geithner.jpg caption="Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner spoke last week after meeting with Pres. Obama and the bipartisan Congressional leadership to discuss financial reform. "]
In what may be another political miscalculation by the GOP, all 41 Senate Republicans say they "are united" in opposing the current bill... and that they want to see a more "bipartisan and inclusive approach." Some have already promised to filibuster it.
Republicans claim the legislation would continue the Obama administration's intervention into formerly private industries.
Ironic when you consider that the original $700 billion TARP bailout happened under the Republican President Bush and his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson... those hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars vanished into the pockets of the big banks with very few strings attached.
The Democrats claim the financial reform bill will actually prevent future taxpayer bailouts of failing banks. It would create a consumer protection office for investors, regulate some of the complex investments that led to the collapse, and create a $50 billion "failure fund" financed by the banks.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says he's confident the bill will pass Congress. And if Senate Democrats can nail down one or two Republican votes, some think that could open the flood gates for others to support it.
Even conservative columnist George Will believes in the end, there will be plenty of bipartisan support - he says the Republicans don't know what they want... and he estimates the bill will pass with 70 votes.
Here’s my question to you: What's behind the Republicans' opposition to financial reform?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments