Chris Dodd Set to Retire Tomorrow

Chris Cillizza reports:

Embattled Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) has scheduled a press conference at his home in Connecticut Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek re-election, according to sources familiar with his plans.

[...]

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is widely expected to step into the void filled by Dodd and, at least at first blush, should drastically increase Democrats' chances of holding the seat.

Blumenthal, who has served as state Attorney General since 1990, is the most popular politician in the state and has long coveted a Senate seat; he had already signaled that he would run for the Democratic nomination against Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) in 2012. (A sidenote: Assuming Blumenthal gets in to the race, Rep. Chris Murphy could be the long-term beneficiary as he is widely regarded as a rising star and would be at the top of the list of Democratic hopefuls to challenge Lieberman in 2012.)

This has certainly been an interesting day in politics, with a significant number of Democratic elected officials announcing that they won't seek reelection. Unlike the announcement from North Dakota and, to a slightly lesser extent, the announcement from Colorado (but perhaps more like the announcement from Michigan), this announcement may actually increase the Democrats' chances to hold on to this seat. Still, tough to see Chris Dodd go. More as we hear it...

[Update 23:53 by Nathan Empsall] Chuck Todd tweets, "NBC has confirmed @thefix's scoop about Chris Dodd's decision to retire rather than face a tough re-election battle."

Tags: CT-Sen, Senate 2010, Retirements, Connecticut (all tags)

Comments

19 Comments

RE: Chris Dodd Set to Retire Tomorrow

We hold CT but lose CO to the republicans. ND is a toesup with Earl Pomeroy and Hoeven.Slight edge to Hoeven right now.

by olawakandi 2010-01-06 12:02AM | 0 recs
Yesss.......!

Finally some good news for Dems.  It's been a lousy start to 2010--the Ras Congressional tracker, Dorgan retirement, race downgrades from CQ, Rothenberg and Cook; and the withdrawals in CO and MI.

Though Simmons will still be a formidable candidate, the Democrats' chances in CT went from 5% to about 65%.

 

by esconded 2010-01-06 12:21AM | 0 recs
RE: Yesss.......!

Assuming Simmons wins the Primary...  McMahon has a LOT of cash backing her up.

by FUJA 2010-01-06 12:34AM | 0 recs
Does this mean a Nadar run for the seat?

I think someone mentioned that as a serious possibility, and I would imagine this would increase the chance of an independent run. I think, if that happens, this could be an interesting test of my theory that a third party could win in some of the elections this year. 

by bruh3 2010-01-06 12:42AM | 0 recs
lol Nader

keep dreaming that dream.

Nader was thinking about running because of Dodd, with Dodd out, Nader has no reason to run, except screw things up, which he enjoys doing.

by ND22 2010-01-06 01:19AM | 0 recs
Contradictory Nader

Nader was thinking about running because of Dodd, with Dodd out, Nader has no reason to run, except screw things up, which he enjoys doing.

Ha, so we should expect a Nader run? :) I don't believe Captain Seatbelt has ever decided not to run once he starts blabbing about it.

The conventional wisdom used to be that he was such a parriah after 2000, and he has generally been reduced to a laughing stock nation wide, that his impact on any race would be minimized. However, I believe his narcisism knows no bounds -- if he can draw attention to himself (and deliver a seat to the Republicans), I think he will still run. He'll cook up some excuse that the democratic challenger isn't liberal enough or whatnot. Voters have largely caught on to him, but Nader's anti-corparatist shtick resonates better in this electoral climate, and the result of handing a seat to the Republicans will not dissuade his ego.

If Nader were a truly worthwhile and respectable person, he would challenge for the Democratic nomination and bow out when he loses.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-06 02:45AM | 0 recs
RE: lol Nader

Dont blame Nader for screwing anything up. If the Democrats did their job, Nader would be a total non factor. Do you think Nader would take any votes from Feingold if he chose to run against him the next time they have an election there? The best way to make someone irrelevant is not to whine about him being a spoiler but to make sure the party is strong enough to withstand such a challenge. I see we have not learned the real lesson from 2000. Take care of our own shit and people will vote FOR you instead of AGAINST you.

by Pravin 2010-01-06 10:45AM | 0 recs
Oh please

if Nader ran against Feingold, there would be at least 5%-10% of the population who would immediately be convinced Feingold is a sellout. I'm sure Nader will find something to bitch about and turn him into a villian.

The lesson from 2000 is, what, please the 2% of the left who wants ponies otherwise they're going to throw the country to the wolves?  Most of us came to terms with the fact that you can't please the Naderites A LONG TIME AGO.

Here's an interesting fact...had Ralph Nader gotten the same number of votes in 2008 that he got in 2000, Obama STILL would've won by 8 million votes and that's assuming all of Nader's potential voters voted for Obama, which they probably didn't.

 

 

by ND22 2010-01-06 11:02AM | 0 recs
RE: Does this mean a Nadar run for the seat?

It wouldn't shock me to see Nadar go independent for the seat.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-01-06 07:21AM | 0 recs
RE:

Thats about 4 - 6 senate pick ups for the republicans

by lori 2010-01-06 01:00AM | 0 recs
RE: RE:

this seat is now not a pick up for the GOP. They only had a shot with Dodd.

by bruh3 2010-01-06 01:01AM | 0 recs
RE: RE: RE:

North Dakota , Arkansas , Colorado , Nevada , Delaware....would likely go republican .....


Pennyslyvania  . Illinois and New York would likely stay  democratic......

 

Connecticut is a toss up in my view  , Simmons would be tough to beat ....

 

I don't see any republican seats flipping in the senate , Ohio seems to be moving back to the republicans....

by lori 2010-01-06 01:21AM | 0 recs
RE: RE: RE: RE:

PPP just polled CT, and if Blumenthal is in, it's a lock for the good guys.

Ohio will not elect Bush's former budget director, count on it,!

Delaware isn't a lock for the Repulicans, either.... Castle is due to get teabagged by somebody and that will hurt him.  His anti-health care vote hurt him significantly.  We still have potential gains in MO, NH and North Carolina as well as Kentucky if Rand Paul wins the primary.  It's not over, yet.  We're in the worst of the cycle, but it all gets better from here on out!

by LordMike 2010-01-06 01:27AM | 0 recs
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE:

Kasich is ahead of strickland in the last set of polls and Portman is also leading by a decent margin .... If any state would turn against the democrats based on the economy and jobs , it would be Ohio .......If Strickland is struggling in that stae thats a big deal for Brunner or Fischer...

by lori 2010-01-06 01:35AM | 0 recs
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE:

Kasich is tied with Strickland and has a favorability in the 30's... no one knows who he is, once they find out, they won't like him.  Ohio GOP'ers must be moderates to win statewide.  All the famous ones have been... a teabagger like Kasich will not fare well.

Strickland is struggling like all governors, but he is doing much better than most.  His biggest problem is with his base.  If you look at the polling, he only has about a 60% approval amongst dems.  That number will improve when dems see Kasich in action.

The latest polls stil have Fiwher beating Portman, which is amazing, since Fisher is such a weak candidate.  They are both in the 30's though, which means very little at this point in time.  We'll know more in the summer.  The biggest fear is with Fisher, 'cos he's an awful campaigner.  Unfortunately, Jennifer Brunner is bleeding cash and will probably not make it past the primary.

by LordMike 2010-01-06 02:05AM | 0 recs
RE: RE: RE: RE:
You forgot one: Missouri I think the Dems still have good odds here, but it could be one of the tightest races in the nation for Bond's old seat. Two longtime Missouri political families are expected to get the party nominations: Carnahan and Blunt. And the Blunt name is shit in Missouri after the idiot son of the idiot Congressman trashed Medicaid from the governor's mansion. I like Robin Carnahan for a Democratic pickup in MO. And we'll become just the 3rd state in U.S. history to be represented simultaneously by two female Democratic senators.
by Obamaphile 2010-01-06 07:10AM | 0 recs
RE: RE: RE: RE:

I see 4-5. Delaware and Colorado, I don't think will happen for the GOP. 

by bruh3 2010-01-06 08:30AM | 0 recs
Could be

I think Reid will hold on. But I would live with a four seat Senate loss if I had to (6 I think would be a bad night for Democrats).

Don't get me wrong. I'd perfer zer. And it would be the death knell for the GOP not to pick up seats in any substantial number in this midterm. It's a looong way to go to November, but you practically can't gain seats ad infinitum in this era.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-06 02:48AM | 0 recs
RE: Could be

Reid is toast.

by bruh3 2010-01-06 08:26AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads