Reid has influence with the DNC.  The DNC decides how much money is given to various candidates.  Reid could also instruct other senators to not support whatever candidate emerges from the CT primary.

Lieberman won't filibuster the health reform bill because he's lying about being against it, as far as I can tell.  He's just trying to wrangle concessions out of Reid so that he can avoid a strong Democratic challenger in 2012, as far as I can tell.

It's up to Reid to decide if he wants to call Holy Joe's bluff or not.

"Reading too much into it" might be a significant understatement with regards to these elections.

The only thing that really delivered an unexpected result tied to national politics, in my estimation, was the NY-23 race, because the national super conservatives threw the kitchen sink at that one, and ended up losing what should've been a Republican giveaway.  

All politics is local.

Your predictions of doom are always welcome, Kent.

...I actually won't manage to get to a voting place, but I hope R.T. Rybak pulls through to hold his seat as Minneapolis mayor.  He probably will; Obama is incredibly popular here, and R.T. was on the Draft Obama team.

Anyway, I'm actually not too concerned about 2010; if people are as anti-incumbant as you say, we should be able to hold onto the Senate fairly easily; our big wins in 2006 aren't coming due until 2012.

Furthermore, if Democrats pull out a health care plan that works and starts delivering, and the economy starts getting better for the general public (instead of just for investment bankers), Democrats should be set for 2012 anyway, as they'll be able to campaign on Republicans essentially wanting America to fail.

The favorable/unfavorable ratings are pretty clear: Democrats have a 20% higher favorability than Republicans.  That's not Monopoly money.

...reducing the overall military budget during a hot war is a guaranteed political loser.

I'm all for reducing the military budget in peacetime, though.  

You need a hug.

I don't think anyone really cares if it's not a big fight about Alegre or TexasDarlin.

Haven't really had the energy or inclination to write up my own blog lately, between my personal life and trip to Florida.

I've already explained all this sufficiently; you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've been saying to make it seem like we're still arguing an issue.  

Much like the fact that Obama simply not doing business with Fox because they're not acting in good faith does not equal going to "war" with them, me not engaging you further when you're not debating honestly is not "avoiding the argument."

Isn't it against the rules to call out another poster, for any reason?

I mean, I'm flattered and everything, but I don't want you to get into trouble over little old me. :)

Jon Goslin is a national celebrity and I don't think anyone needs to do anything about him.  Fox has always been unhinged.

You do not wait until the last minute and start whining about it.

You do if you're Joe Lieberman.  Remember: Not a Democrat.

Yeah, you're willfully misinterpreting what I'm saying, so... nevermind.

I highly doubt Lieberman will actually filibuster.

You have to understand, Holy Joe has no allies, he only has what he can wrangle from the Democratic caucus.  The only weapon he has is to be the 41st senator to support a filibuster.  Without it, the Democrats won't give him anything.  

Joe has chosen his timing well; this is not an issue the Democrats can fail on.  I imagine that he'll wrestle a promise for Reid and the DNC not to support Democratic challengers for his 2012 Connecticut Senate seat race.

Is it right?  Of course not.  Is it the way it is?  Yes, until Lieberman can be otherwise dealt with.  

Would kicking him out of the caucus help?  No, because then he'd just ALWAYS be the 41st filibuster vote and we wouldn't have any controls on him.

One might suggest that we should stop playing ball with automatic filibusters, and I acually agree with that suggestion, but until that time comes, it's easier to throw Joe scraps of concessions than to throw him to the wolves.

That's not even what I said.  I said that his only CONSTITUTIONAL requirement is to sign or veto the law.  Anything he does in excess of that is opitional.  Currently the extent of what he's done is of unknown quantity and quality, since a lot of it is certainly going on behind the scenes.  You can't know for sure how much he's done, since you're not a fly on the wall of the Oval Office.  Therefore criticism of his efforts lack credibility, at least until there's an actual result.

Are you really having trouble understanding this, or are you just pulling my leg?