Harry Reid is Retiring

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) announced Friday morning he would not seek re-election in 2016.

IIRC either of the likely successors for leadership of the Senate Democrats are avowedly anti-rights; so this should clear the air some.

26 Responses to “Harry Reid is Retiring”

  1. beatbox says:

    He is going to be missed when people see what is coming next.

    • Ian Argent says:

      The devils we know? Neither Senators Durbin or Schumer are unknowns.

      • aerodawg says:

        Well, Reid sucked in a lot of ways, but he really didn’t let a lot of the anti nonsense get to the floor for a vote. He paid a lot of lip service without actually doing anything. Big Dick Durbin and Chucky Boy Schumer will thrown anything and everything out there for a vote…

        • Ian Argent says:

          Only if the Dems can retake the senate. I’m not following the odds on that, anyone know what the fundamentals are for the next Senate class?

  2. Matthew Carberry says:

    He also held a lot of pro-rights stuff off the floor to shield Dems from tough votes. Letting the extreme anti-rights stuff get public airing will eliminate the “wiggle room.”

  3. RAH says:

    Odds on the Senate are in the air 50/50 is my guess.3 D Senators are retiring and 1 R
    Reid is likely to be suceeded in his seat by a Republican. Sandoval is a shoo in. Murkowski will likely get repalcced by a Dem so no increase there. Boxer I have no idea.

    Reid has done more damage than he help in gunrights . Let him burn.

    • Crotalus says:

      Boxer is from the People’s Demokratik Republik of Kollyvornia, (PDRK) so count on a DemCom replacing her.

    • Ian Argent says:

      It’s not the retirees, particularly, it’s the seats whose state-level voting patterns have changed in the past 6 years. I *think* we’re neutral, I don’t recall 2010 being a particularly exceptional year for the Republicans, but I’d really want to check a map before betting the lunch money

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      From what metric do you get Murkowski losing her seat, and to a Dem of all people?

      Begich lost his to Sullivan last year because he -was- a Dem. There’s little to no chance of a Dem, particularly one who is anti-gun in any way, getting Murkowski’s seat.

  4. RAH says:

    Schumer is slime but I don’t worry about gun rights in the Senate. The new Senators are very strong on gun rights and they are in for at 6 years

    • Archer says:

      Correct, and they’re safe for now, but in 2016, there’s another 33 (34? I can’t remember which cycle we’re in) seats up for grabs, and the GOP majority can be made or broken then.

      I for one really don’t want to see “minority leader Schumer” become “Majority leader Schumer” because we thought we were safe after 2014.

  5. Archer says:

    Reid’s endorsing Schumer as his replacement for Senate Minority Leader.

    However, this doesn’t affect much now: Reid’s going to finish out his term, and Election Day 2016 is quite a ways off. I wouldn’t worry too much about this yet; the sitting GOP majority isn’t too bad on gun rights.

    Come 2016, though, we’ll need to double the efforts we put in to switch seats blue-to-red; if the Democrats perform an “historic sweep” in the same manner the GOP did in 2014, it won’t be “Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer”, it’ll be “Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer”, which is a scary prospect.

  6. BTR says:

    We need term limits. The evil old reptile should have been booted a long time ago.

  7. Bram says:

    Should be an easy flip for Republicans as long as they nominate a decent candidate.

  8. RAH says:

    Really to game it just count the number of red states and the number of blues states. Senate is not a small area but from the whole state. So the Senators that are up in 2016 there are supposedly more form red states. Really the only advantage Democrats have is since the are defending less then can devote more resources to races in red states. Red states still give the advantage to the GOP. So I am not worried about 2016. Especially if the GOP has good head of the ticket.

  9. BTR says:

    The longer a person has been in congress, the more power they accrue. This makes them harder to beat in an election. This also allows them to be more corrupt with less consequences. Just my opinion about term limits.

    • Ian Argent says:

      Hard != impossible. They’re keeping their constituents happy; if they didn’t, they’d be out of a job.

      Please note the damage the current president is doing to his office and the constitution because he may not stand for re-election…

      • Archer says:

        It’s still possible to use a Democrat incumbent’s lock-step support of Obama policies as an anchor tied around their neck.

        It just takes a message that resonates with their constituents.

  10. Scott Connors says:

    I am curious as to whether his retirement is related to the “accident” he had that left his face looking as if someone was using him for a speed bag.

  11. Bram says:

    Did he decide before or after somebody beat the crap out of him?