Dorgan Will Not Seek Reelection

Democrat Byron Dorgan of North Dakota will not seek reelection in 2010. The Senator states he wants to spend more time with his family. Considering that he is down by 31 points to a man who has yet to announce it seems that Dorgan would get to spend more time with his family even if he did run again.

The reality is that Dorgan does not want to end his political career by getting his ass handed to him on a platter so he is bowing out.

As the musical group Queen put it, Another One Bites the Dust.

Democrats are jumping off the ship rather rapidly and deciding either to not run in the first place or to not seek reelection. The downside of this, with regard to Dorgan, is that he can now do what he wants without fear of repercussion. He can vote for any Democrat bill regardless of how the people feel and not worry about the backlash at the polls.

Harry Reid and Chris Dodd are gone unless things drastically change and now Dorgan will not be in the mix. Republicans have a real good chance of cutting into the Democrat’s lead in the Senate if not take back control.

This next year will be a true test of America and will show if the citizens have truly had enough of this out of control government.

We can put a hurting on Democrats in two short weeks by electing Republican Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. Things are looking promising in that race but it will be a struggle. Voter turnout and the unaffiliated voters will decide that election.

UPDATE: Moments after I posted this Fox News and Drudge broke the news that Chris Dodd will not seek reelection. The problem is that without Dodd to beat up on Republicans have little chance of winning in very blue Connecticut. Story at Washington Post.

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

28 Responses to “Dorgan Will Not Seek Reelection”

  1. Darrel says:

    It’s a tough time to be a politician. Pat Buchanan is remarkably candid as he explains why:

    A Decade of Self-Delusion
    by Patrick J. Buchanan

    12/29/2009

    The answer to his question in his last sentence is, very likely, no. At least in the short term.

    D.
    —————–
    “There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.”
    Link.

    If any one was wondering what republican rule would look like. Now we know.

    • Big Dog says:

      He was remarkably candid when he explained the crisis illegal immigrants cause but liberals thought he was a xenophobic crackpot.

      • Darrel says:

        Pat does get a little cracky when it comes to immigration and those who are a little too different than him (like Jews).

        Maybe when Obama is finished fixing up health care real good, he can get onto fixing the immigration problem.

        What did your republicans do about it when they controlled all branches?

        D.
        ——————
        “Latinos come to the US to seek the same dreams that have inspired millions of others: they want a better life for their children. Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande. Latinos enrich our country with faith in God, a strong ethic of work, community & responsibility. We can all learn from the strength, solidarity, & values of Latinos. Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it is the sign of a successful nation. New Americans are to be welcomed as neighbors and not to be feared as strangers.”

        –GW Bush, speech in Washington, D.C. Jun 26, 2000, Link.

  2. Adam says:

    I’m not really getting the media’s need to talk about retirements like it’s a big deal. Dozens of members retire every session. There were 5 open seats in the Senate for 2008, 4 for 2006. I guess that’s the liberal media for you. Painting every move as negative to the Democrats…

  3. Darrel says:

    Interesting:

    “In addition to the six Senate Republican incumbents who have decided not to seek re-election (compared to the two Democratic incumbents) there are 14 GOP incumbents in the House who have decided not to seek re-election (compared to the ten 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same decision.)”

    “…the fact is Republicans have six retirements and they have to run the table across the board just to stay even to where they’re at,” Menendez added.”

    Link.

  4. Adam says:

    At this point it would take an economic disaster (which the GOP seems to be hoping for sometimes) to give power back to the GOP. The GOP screwed the pooch in the last decade but apparently they think the public’s memory is shorter than 4 years and nobody remembers how bad things were under their leadership.

    • Big Dog says:

      Yes, low unemployment and a good economy were in vogue until Democrats took control of Congress. No, it ould not take economic disaster (which we already have) but more likely will be based upon how fed up Americans are with out of control government.

  5. Adam says:

    The poll Big Dog cites from Rasmussen has Coakley +9 against Brown in the Kennedy seat. If Rasmussen can only scratch up a -9 for Brown it doesn’t sound as favorable as some conservatives are saying.

    • Big Dog says:

      So I guess you buy into this idea that Rasmussen is in the tank for Republicans and he makes polls favorable to them. Rasmussen is one of the most respected pollsters and you never had complaints when he was polling Obama high. Brown is -9 but is way ahead in those who have no party affiliation. Obama won the state by 20 points and it is very blue. Coakley should be ahead by high double digits given her name recognition. I understand why you would like her, she kept an innocent man in jail to further her career.

      Like I said, voter turnout will decide this one. Who is more fired up. If it is close then the Dems should be worried.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “I guess you buy into this idea that Rasmussen is in the tank for Republicans and he makes polls favorable to them.”>>

        DAR
        Oops:

        “Rasmussen has been a paid consultant for the RNC and President Bush’s 2004 campaign. The RNC paid Rasmussen $95,500 between 2003 and 2004 for items listed as “survey,” “survey cost” and “voter data.” Bush’s campaign paid Rasmussen $45,500 for “survey research.”

        All fine and dandy, except:

        “While Scott Rasmussen, the firm’s president, contends that he has no ax to grind — his bio notes that he has been “an independent pollster for more than a decade” and “has never been a campaign pollster or consultant for candidates seeking office…”

        Link.

        D.
        ——————-
        “…what REALLY hurts a pollster’s credibility is when they work for a partisan entity for pay and then LIE about it.” –ibid, comment thread

        • Big Dog says:

          There is a difference between Scott Rasmussen and Rasmussen reports. The statement might be factually correct depending on the entity that actually did the polling.

          None of that, however, negates the fact that Rasmussen has been the most accurate pollster of recent note. I know that libs get upset that his polls give different results than others but he uses a different methodology in that he polls likely voters while others poll registered voters or adults.

          Not sure he told a lie until it is clear what entity was paid for the polling.

          You shoulod know about the subtle nuances of the language, you defend Obama’s all the time.

          Should organizations like Pollster.com and Real Clear Politics, each of which put an (R) or a (D) by the name of pollsters whom they consider to be “partisan affiliated”, put an (R) designation by Rasmussen Reports?

          Well, I can’t really answer that question, because I don’t know exactly how they define “partisan affiliated”. Still, I think some nuance is in order. In particular, it’s probably useful to distinguish between Scott Rasmussen himself and Rasmussen Reports. The polling industry is fairly incestuous; people may be partners in some firms, consultants to others, and may conduct further polling on behalf of themselves as a sole proprietorship or another entity like an S-Corp created for tax purposes. And these relationships may change over time. In this case, the polling for Bush and the RNC was conducted on behalf of “Scott Rasmussen Inc”, which I’d surmise is Scott’s personal business and is separate from Rasmussen Reports itself.

          Does that matter? It emphatically does not excuse the statement on Rasmussen Reports’ website, which is specifically applied not just to Rasmussen Reports but also to Scott Rasmussen himself. But, if RCP and Pollster were to place an (R) or a (D) by the name of any polling firm who had any partner who had ever conducted polling on behalf of partisan clients, there wouldn’t be too many pollsters left who went without a partisan designation. Source

          If it is specifically applied then he is wrong but if his words were technically correct then he is not.

          I am sure he will have to address it soon. Let’s see what he has to say.

        • Darrel says:

          Your pajamapudit source is quoting Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com, which is where I first read about this.

  6. Big Dog says:

    I have written many times, we welcome those who come here legally.

    If you come illegally you should not get amnesty or pay a fine and then be allowed to stay. You should get deported and be forced to wait out a penalty period before you can apply to come in legally.

    I do not believe in rewarding those who broke the law. Bush was wrong on the issue and he and the rest of the politicians got spanked for it.

    If you want a better life, come here legally.

    And, those who come here and commit a serious crime should receive life in prison or the death penalty if their acts resulted in the death of an American. Tough sentences reduce crime and recidivism.

  7. Adam says:

    You’re just going out on a limb now. My point was simply that Rasmussen polls favorably for Republicans almost every time so if even they don’t have him looking very favorable then it may be tougher than you say.

    I don’t think the Democrats gain anything by attacking Rasmussen. Attacking polls is your side’s job and silly stuff like that needs to stay on your side. I prefer to simply say Rasmussen’s polling methods differ from other companies. It’s hard to say if Rasmussen biases it’s polls since they don’t reveal all of their weighting methods.

  8. Big Dog says:

    It does not matter who he polling favors if he has been more accurate or right up there with everyone else.

    I would not reveal my methods, in business it gives an advantage.

    I like how you say attacking polls is my side’s thing. Attacking polls that are not right or are weighted wrong is fair to do and it shows the bias of the pollster. You guys just attack the guy taking the poll instead of the poll.

    You also like polls as long as they favor your position and then discount them when they do not.

    If they did a poll that said 99% of all Americans want guns removed from society your side would be using it as justification to ignore the Second Amendment and trying to take all the guns. Liberal politicians and the Brady group would say it shows proof positive that they are right.

    If the same polling company had a poll showng that 1% believed that we should take all guns away and 99% thought we should all be allowed to openly carry then anywhere your side would say that the poll was BS and that it was a pollster who was hired by the RNC or that it only asked right wing gun nuts.

    So please, don’t give me the holier tan thou attitude. You already ignore the polls on the health care debate. When they favor what you want you love them and when they do not you say it is based on right wing lies.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “You already ignore the polls on the health care debate.”>>

      DAR
      Speaking of that, while it’s true this current bill has a majority against it, it’s important to realize a good chunk of that is people being opposed because it doesn’t go far enough. A small *majority* of Americans are in favor this bill or something to the left of it. This means they probably got the compromise about right.

      In Polls, Much Opposition to Health Care Plan Is From Left.

      If you add the left side of the chart together (31+12) and split the undecideds down the middle (+10), you get 53% of the population wanting this bill or something to the left of it. This leaves 48% on the other side, a slight minority, not wanting this bill (35%) or wanting something to the right of it (3%).

      D.

    • Adam says:

      Don’t pretend you only attack polls that are not right or weighted wrong. How can you tell? You’re kidding yourself.

      Your side has finally found a pollster that consistently polls in your favor and now you don’t have to make silly little unscientific attacks on things like the number of Democrats and Republicans questioned in their polls.

      The most legitimate criticism about Rasmussen for me is their opinion polling. Rasmussen is known for their accuracy in election polling but this doesn’t translate into accuracy in opinion polling because how do we check it? We can’t. What we can do is examine their questions and Rasmussen has come under fire often in the last few years for the giving questions a ideological angle that other pollsters do not.

      • Adam says:

        By opinions polling I mean when they poll on issues, not candidates for office.

        • Big Dog says:

          That’s rich Adam. You make a snide comment about Rasmussen only being able to muster a -9 for Brown and then say how great he does with election polling…

        • Adam says:

          You’re just pretending it’s snide because you think I’m attacking Rasmussen, the Golden Boy Pollster of the right. My comment is simply pointing out that their accuracy is not in issues polling, but in election polling.

          The right loves Rasmussen because the issues polls finally support their radical world view and they no longer have to cry and whine about party ID being out of whack and how polls don’t matter anyway…

  9. Doug says:

    “The reality is that Dorgan does not want to end his political career by getting his ass handed to him on a platter so he is bowing out.

    As the musical group Queen put it, Another One Bites the Dust.”

    So? Isn’t that a good reason to not seek reelection?

    By the way, did anyone ever find out the real reason Palin quit on Alaska? Her stated “reasons” were incoherent. At least Dorgan’s reasons make sense.

    • Adam says:

      Only cowards cut and run! Real men just charge to their doom and hurt the things they’ve stood for and the party they’ve supported, facts be damned!

  10. Big Dog says:

    We know why Palin quit and her reasons were lucid to those who are not so filled with hatred of her that their minds are clouded.

    She could not effectively run the country when all her time was spent on frivolous law suits instigated by a few liberals and encouraged by well funded liberal supporters.

    She was racking up millions of dollars in legal fees and spending all her time answering law suits. Were they not all dismissed?

    She took away the target.

    • Darrel says:

      She was running the country?

      She took away the target?

      Bigd: “She was racking up millions of dollars in legal fees…”>>

      DAR
      That claim is regarding the state, not her, and it’s not true anyway. Debunked here:

      Anchorage Daily News.

      “Is it a check that we wrote, no, but is it staff hours, yes,” Sharon Leighow, spokeswoman for Palin, said of the expenses related to state employee work.

      Those state employees would have been paid regardless.”

      Also:

      “Around two-thirds of the $300,000 that has been spent was in addressing the “Troopergate” issue last fall. Palin herself initiated the personnel board investigation on “Troopergate,…”

      D.
      —————
      “Palin last month reimbursed the state more than $8,000 for travel expenses for nine trips, accompanied by her children, after the state paid for them.” CNN

      • Big Dog says:

        I meant run the state.

        Yes, she took away the target. Nothing was debunked because what she said was true. I know you don’t understand because it is always a lie if it is not a lib saying it. You would have credibility in your claims of seeking the truth if you were not one sided.

        Palin had a lot of debt and frivolous lawsuits KEPT being filed. The staff, if it was working on it was going to get paid anyway but was not doing what it was supposed to be doing. The troopergate was initiated because of all the bogus claims by the left. That too was cleared.

        You huys are so afraid of this woman you continually lie and yet, when Hillary is running you all extol her virtues and we know she is a liar. She took all that fire in Bosnia, you know.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “The troopergate was initiated because of all the bogus claims by the left.>>

          DAR
          She initiated the investigation, but it’s someone else’s fault.

          Bigd: That too was cleared.”>>

          DAR
          Not exactly:

          “The Alaska Legislative Council is a bipartisan body of state House… it was made up of four Democrats and eight Republicans.

          The state of Alaska investigation concluded on October 10, 2008. After a full day of deliberation, the twelve members of the legislative commission voted unanimously to release the 263-page Branchflower Report. The report included four main findings:

          1) Governor Sarah Palin abused her power as Governor in that her conduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act, which provides “The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”

          Link PDF

          Bigd: “You huys are so afraid of this woman you continually lie”>>

          DAR
          You give no example of anyone lying about her.

          No one is afraid of this woman, she is a farce. But speaking of honesty, I must say she is an astonishingly dishonest politician by any measurement. She would be like a Fox News politician. Perpetually dishonest. I can bury you in examples. Or you can read them yourself.

          D.
          ————–
          “Who voted for McCain/Palin in bigger numbers than they even voted for Bush/Cheney? Only one shrinking group: uneducated white folks in the deep south and a few folks in Appalachia. Take away the white no-college-backwoods-and/or-southern McCain/Palin vote and the Republicans would have been approaching single digit electoral college oblivion.

          Sarah Palin will never hold national office nor will any Republican at the presidential level for a long time to come.”
          –Frank Schaeffer, author of “CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Li
          ved To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back.”

          Link

  11. Big Dog says:

    No Adam, cowards cut and run from their positions. If Dorgan or Nelson or any others were comfortable with what they did then they would have the bravery to stand up for their acts. They take a position and then run when it gets hot.

    That is a coward.

    And I have never charged to my doom and I know of no others who have charged to their doom. Real heroes have but in support of a cause bigger than themselves, something you and the other liberals no nothing about.

  12. Big Dog says:

    And all those uneducated blacks and welfare liberals who voted for Obama did so out of their great knowledge?

    Look at the Howard Stern piece or the interviews after the election and see how many uneducated people voted for Obama.The reality is there are a lot of dumb people who voted for both candidates. There should be a literacy test for voting.