CT Sen: POLL SHOCK! Quinnipiac sez Dodd trails all candidates

[Mr.Phips]

I'd like to see Chris Murphy as the next Senator from CT.

You dont want that.  Democrats dont want a lot of competitive House seats open in a year like 2010.  A Senate seat will be much easier to get back than a House seat. 

[TheresNoMoney]

You dont want that.  Democrats dont want a lot of competitive House seats open in a year like 2010.  A Senate seat will be much easier to get back than a House seat. 

A Senate seat is about 100 times more valuable than 1 House seat.

[Mr.Phips]

You dont want that.  Democrats dont want a lot of competitive House seats open in a year like 2010.  A Senate seat will be much easier to get back than a House seat. 

A Senate seat is about 100 times more valuable than 1 House seat.

I dont know about that.  There are more House seats and once one opens up and falls, it kind of becomes a like a domino rally.  Democrats would have a far better chance at winning back the Connecticut Senate seat than winning back a House seat or two that they would lose if Himes and Murphy both ran.

[TheresNoMoney]

There are something like 80 more Democrats in the House right now than Republicans, losing one seat doesn't make any difference.

The Senate is a whole other story with the Republicans trying to filibuster every piece of legislation, Democrats need to get to 62 or 63 Senators to get stuff passed. We can't afford to lose any seats in the Senate.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Can Obama just give Dodd an appointment to somewhere in the state department?  He speaks Spanish, so Politico's Smith suggested an Ambassador to Mexico.

Yes, please! Senator Simmons even earlier thanks to Governor Rell. 

And then he's gone in 2010 and the seat is safe. It's not much different than Bunning's threat to resign that you brushed off.

Uh, how is he automatically gone and the seat is suddenly safe? Simmons then has an incumbent advantage and he's a moderate.

Simmons was an incumbent who lost in a House seat that's more Republican than the state at large. The Democrats are favored in any CT Senate race with a non-tainted incumbent, that's pretty obvious.

Yes, he lost in a horrible year.

Just because he's from CT doesn't mean that he'd definitely be a goner in a midterm election.

This is a non-argument. Obviously Dodd won't resign in that case. He will anounce his retirement and after his succesor is elected then he will move to his other post (Ambassador to Mexico or whatever).

[cinyc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkyRw7kfi04&eurl

Rob Simmons as beholden to lobbyists and corporate special interests, says the DSCC's new ad.

Simmons is rubber and Dodd is glue when it comes to that charge.  No one received more campaign cash from AIG over the past 10 years than Chris Dodd.  No one.  And a lot of that cash came from AIG-FP workers.

This poll doesn't shock me.

Chris Dodd is in real trouble right now.  Luckily for him, the election is more than a year and a half away.  There's plenty of time to fix that.

[WalterMitty]

dodd should seriously consider retiring.

im sure obama could get him the gig as ambassador to the dominican republic.

[Mr.Phips]

There are something like 80 more Democrats in the House right now than Republicans, losing one seat doesn't make any difference.

The Senate is a whole other story with the Republicans trying to filibuster every piece of legislation, Democrats need to get to 62 or 63 Senators to get stuff passed. We can't afford to lose any seats in the Senate.

What if Democrats lose control of the House in trying to get those 62 or 63 seats in the Senate?  If Democrats lose the House, it probably isnt coming back.  If they lose a Senate seat, they will likely get it back. 

[Brittain33]

What if Democrats lose control of the House in trying to get those 62 or 63 seats in the Senate?  If Democrats lose the House, it probably isnt coming back.  If they lose a Senate seat, they will likely get it back. 

If Democrats lose the House, we're going to lose a hell of a lot of Senators, too...

[Mr.Phips]

What if Democrats lose control of the House in trying to get those 62 or 63 seats in the Senate?  If Democrats lose the House, it probably isnt coming back.  If they lose a Senate seat, they will likely get it back. 

If Democrats lose the House, we're going to lose a hell of a lot of Senators, too...

Democrats dont have that many Senators that could lose.  Just Dodd, Bennett, and maybe Reid. 

[Stranger in a strange land]

There are something like 80 more Democrats in the House right now than Republicans, losing one seat doesn't make any difference.

The Senate is a whole other story with the Republicans trying to filibuster every piece of legislation, Democrats need to get to 62 or 63 Senators to get stuff passed. We can't afford to lose any seats in the Senate.

What if Democrats lose control of the House in trying to get those 62 or 63 seats in the Senate?  If Democrats lose the House, it probably isnt coming back.  If they lose a Senate seat, they will likely get it back. 

near impossible, as those are dependent events. It's hard to see how the Democrats will lose 40 or so seats in the house while gaining any seats in the Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Can Obama just give Dodd an appointment to somewhere in the state department?  He speaks Spanish, so Politico's Smith suggested an Ambassador to Mexico.

Yes, please! Senator Simmons even earlier thanks to Governor Rell. 

And then he's gone in 2010 and the seat is safe. It's not much different than Bunning's threat to resign that you brushed off.

Uh, how is he automatically gone and the seat is suddenly safe? Simmons then has an incumbent advantage and he's a moderate.

Simmons was an incumbent who lost in a House seat that's more Republican than the state at large. The Democrats are favored in any CT Senate race with a non-tainted incumbent, that's pretty obvious.

Its not that much more Republican. In 2004 Bush got 44% in the district(according to wikipedia) and 43.95% or something like that in the state(The Atlas). If the wave had crested just a little lower Simmons would have survived 2006 seeing he only lost by about 100 votes. Seeing how it took a wave to dislodge him I doubt 2016 will be a wave Dem year. Obama's popularity will eventually come downward and people will have grown weary of him like all Presidents. Simmons would have a tough time in 2010 were he the incumbent but it wouldn't be impossible for him to win. His favorables are remarkably high for a defeated Congressmen. 

[justfollowingtheelections]

What if Democrats lose control of the House in trying to get those 62 or 63 seats in the Senate?  If Democrats lose the House, it probably isnt coming back.  If they lose a Senate seat, they will likely get it back. 

If Democrats lose the House, we're going to lose a hell of a lot of Senators, too...

Democrats dont have that many Senators that could lose.  Just Dodd, Bennett, and maybe Reid. 

Reid is safe and if Bennet loses it will be to a Democrat, not a Republican.  The only Democratic incumbents I'm worried about are CT (if Dodd doesn't retire) and NY (if there's a bloody primary and Pataki runs).

[Keystone Phil]

What if Democrats lose control of the House in trying to get those 62 or 63 seats in the Senate?  If Democrats lose the House, it probably isnt coming back.  If they lose a Senate seat, they will likely get it back. 

If Democrats lose the House, we're going to lose a hell of a lot of Senators, too...

Democrats dont have that many Senators that could lose.  Just Dodd, Bennett, and maybe Reid. 

Reid is safe and if Bennet loses it will be to a Democrat, not a Republican.  The only Democratic incumbents I'm worried about are CT (if Dodd doesn't retire) and NY (if there's a bloody primary and Pataki runs).

Amazing how people speak in absolute certainty concerning races in swing states. 

I also like how the CO seat isn't winnable for a Republican but NY is a possible toss up.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Not that I think that NY is vulnerable, but he did mention a likely candidate in NY. Who does the CO GOP have? Tancredo? Musgrave?

[Keystone Phil]

Not that I think that NY is vulnerable, but he did mention a likely candidate in NY. Who does the CO GOP have? Tancredo? Musgrave?

I'm sure the CO GOP will have enough sense, despite their disastrous state, to find someone other than the two you've mentioned for the seat.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It would be satisfying to see Dodd go down. Not as much as it would be for Murtha, but I would still be very happy.

[Mr.Phips]

What if Democrats lose control of the House in trying to get those 62 or 63 seats in the Senate?  If Democrats lose the House, it probably isnt coming back.  If they lose a Senate seat, they will likely get it back. 

If Democrats lose the House, we're going to lose a hell of a lot of Senators, too...

Democrats dont have that many Senators that could lose.  Just Dodd, Bennett, and maybe Reid. 

Reid is safe and if Bennet loses it will be to a Democrat, not a Republican.  The only Democratic incumbents I'm worried about are CT (if Dodd doesn't retire) and NY (if there's a bloody primary and Pataki runs).

Amazing how people speak in absolute certainty concerning races in swing states. 

I also like how the CO seat isn't winnable for a Republican but NY is a possible toss up.

Democrats didnt pick Gillibrand and possibly lose NY-20 so they could lose a Senate seat.  New York is one of the bluest states in the nation.  It would be like a Democrat representing Texas. 

[minionofmidas]

There are something like 80 more Democrats in the House right now than Republicans, losing one seat doesn't make any difference.

The Senate is a whole other story with the Republicans trying to filibuster every piece of legislation, Democrats need to get to 62 or 63 Senators to get stuff passed. We can't afford to lose any seats in the Senate.

What if Democrats lose control of the House in trying to get those 62 or 63 seats in the Senate?  If Democrats lose the House, it probably isnt coming back.  If they lose a Senate seat, they will likely get it back. 

If Democrats lose the House, it will be in 2012 after an utterly disastrous round of state leg control and governors' races in 2010.
Democrats losing the House in 2010 is frankly not a lot more realistic than the House being abolished by constitutional amendment by then.

[Keystone Phil]

What if Democrats lose control of the House in trying to get those 62 or 63 seats in the Senate?  If Democrats lose the House, it probably isnt coming back.  If they lose a Senate seat, they will likely get it back. 

If Democrats lose the House, we're going to lose a hell of a lot of Senators, too...

Democrats dont have that many Senators that could lose.  Just Dodd, Bennett, and maybe Reid. 

Reid is safe and if Bennet loses it will be to a Democrat, not a Republican.  The only Democratic incumbents I'm worried about are CT (if Dodd doesn't retire) and NY (if there's a bloody primary and Pataki runs).

Amazing how people speak in absolute certainty concerning races in swing states. 

I also like how the CO seat isn't winnable for a Republican but NY is a possible toss up.

Democrats didnt pick Gillibrand and possibly lose NY-20 so they could lose a Senate seat.  New York is one of the bluest states in the nation.  It would be like a Democrat representing Texas. 

Ok but it's less likely than losing CO.

[Lunar]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/dodd_may_get_primary_c.html

[Keystone Phil]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/dodd_may_get_primary_c.html

A former Selectman? Next...

[Keystone Phil]

Hey, what's Ned Lamont up to these days?

[Lunar]

the heir to part of JP Morgan's fortune probably isn't going to primary Dodd from the populist anger angle

[Keystone Phil]

the heir to part of JP Morgan's fortune probably isn't going to primary Dodd from the populist anger angle

It wouldn't be the first time that Ned was inconsistent.