Is Harry Reid Taking It On Himself To Lose The Senate In November?

Yesterday, the NY Times published a Senate forecast that is simplistic and misleading. It concludes that the Republicans have a 58% chance to win the majority and that the Democrats have a 42% chance. It's the perfect example of one thing: statistics run wild in politics. The while things is virtually worthless. It takes 11 Democratic states out of contention, including New Hampshire (where Republicans are spending millions on Scott Brown) and Oregon (where the Kochs are spending millions to defeat Jeff Merkley). They claim Wehby has less than a 1% chance of winning in Oregon and Brown has a 6% chance of winning in New Hampshire. Also with less than a 1% chance of winning is GOP heavyweight Ed Gillespie who has already raised $4,164,818, spent $1,052,825 and has been delighted to see the NRA spend another $203,142 on ads for him. Their analysis also takes 16 Republican states off the table, including West Virginia, where Beltway Dems are spending big time, Maine, where grassroots Dems are rallying around Shenna Bellows, Kansas, where Pat Roberts is so disliked that the Democrat was reported just yesterday to be within striking distance, and Montana, a race that hasn't been polled since the Democrats named their attractive new candidate, Amanda Curtis and where Republican Steve Daines just can't close the deal with Montana voters no matter how badly the Democrats have stumbled 'til now.

The Times names 9 competitive states-- 5 of which they say are leaning Democratic: Michigan, Alaska, Iowa, Colorado and North Carolina; and 4 of which they say lean Republican: Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia and Kentucky. The Democrats can hardly cut their two weakest incumbents, conservaDems Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor, lose but they've decided to take their stand and gamble it all on Georgia, Kentucky, and West Virginia with 3 unlikely conservative women candidates. The state the Times awards the GOP that we didn't mention is South Dakota, where they claim that prairie populist Rick Weiland has a 1% chance. The latest polls show him quickly catching up the Mike "99% chance" Rounds. If he loses there it will only be because the DSCC has decided they want him to lose. No, really.

DSCC chairman and centrist stooge Michael Bennet (D-CO) isn't going to be remembered as a good follow-up to the stupendously successful Patty Murray. He's probably going to lose as much as she gained. He was chosen by his own former campaign manager DSCC Executive Director Guy Cecil. Normally it's the other way around, but Cecil was comfortable with a weak and indecisive Bennet he could completely control. But the person who really calls the shots at the DSCC is neither Bennet nor Cecil. It's Harry Reid, who is fighting-- desperately-- for his political life. Reid's term is up in 2016 and his popularity in Nevada isn't sky high. If the Democrats lose the Senate, he will no longer be Majority Leader and his allure to many voters will evaporate entirely.

Last time he was lucky enough to drawn a certifiably psychotic Republican challenger, Sharron Angle and he able to cobble together a coalition of regular Democrats, Hispanics and progressives. Nevada Republicans aren't likely to make the Angle mistake twice. And progressives may look at him more carefully when his role in sabotaging the Democratic candidate in South Dakota, starts getting more attention. Yesterday, the AP ran a lede that made that sabotage very clear: Reid: "We are going to lose in South Dakota. If you feel this is a good time to contribute to Rick Weiland's campaign. You can do it here. I guarantee you we will never ask you to contribute to a Harry Reid campaign.

Still smarting because Weiland chased Reid' preferred pick, Blue Dog Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, out of the race, he has decided to kill Weiland's campaign and-- ironically-- the Democrats' only real chance to keep the Senate. He bumbled the Montana race by ordering that imbecile governor to appoint centrist fool John Walsh to the Senate seat and threw that one away too. Reid is nearly 75 years old. Is he losing it? Someone else might read this and decided he decided to try smoking pot for the first time right before the interview:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he expects Democrats to maintain control of Senate in the fall elections but acknowledged things could change between now and then.

"If the election were held today, we'd be in the majority without any question, but the election is not today," Reid of Nevada told reporters at his office in Reno.

The Senate is composed of 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans and two independents who vote with the Democratic caucus.

Reid said he's most concerned about the open seat in South Dakota, where longtime Democrat Tim Johnson is stepping down.

"We are going to lose in South Dakota, more than likely," he said Monday.

Reid said he thinks Democrats are ahead in Alaska, Colorado, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Arkansas.

"In Louisiana, we are trying to get to 50 percent plus 1," he said. "We are holding our own in Georgia and in Kentucky. We are doing really well in Montana."

"They have to pick up six seats and ... it's not going to be easy for them to pick up six seats," Reid said about the GOP.

It would be a lot easier if Reid stopped deluded himself about Georgia and Montana, pulled stick out of his ass in regard to Weiland and faced up to reality. The Beltway is not America-- not even almost. Voters in Montana, especially voters willing to vote for Democrats, prefer populists like Jon Tester to corporatists like John Morrison-- and saved the Beltway Dems from their own worst instincts in that state in 2006. So Reid comes up with the brilliant strategy of getting Baucus to resign early so Montana voters get get used to another wretched centrist, Walsh. Well they did-- and they hated him. What do Reid and his wretched consultants learn from this?

Voters in South Dakota, statewide, already rejected conservative corporate shill Herseth-Sandlin in 2010. Does Reid think they forgot? She knows she can't win a Democratic primary, which is why she bowed out as soon as Weiland bowed in. It's disgraceful that Reid will be running around the country-- along with Bennet and Cecil-- telling Democratic donors to not invest in Weiland. If the Democrats lose the Senate, they'll be getting what the deserve, doubly so if Reid loses his own seat in 2016 because of it.