BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection

[jaxx]

Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
Posted by Aaron Blake at 01:29 PM ET, 12/27/2011

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) is set to announce he will not seek reelection, according to sources, leaving his seat as a strong pickup opportunity for the GOP in the 2012 election.

Nelson could announce his retirement as early as today, according to sources familiar with his plans. The news was first reported by Politico.

<..> It was not clear who might replace Nelson on the Democratic side, as Democrats’ bench in Nebraska is pretty thin. But former senator Bob Kerrey has been mentioned and would instantly give his party a fighting chance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-..._comboNP_p

[KonaKane]

A marvelous opportunity for a real Democrat to fill that seat, if there is one in the region. Kerry is much closer than Nelson was.

[jaxx]

<..> *** UPDATE *** That is, if the Democrats can't find a top-notch recruit. The same high-ranking Democratic source tells NBC News that former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) is considering a run with Nelson's seat open.

And the source sends this shot at the conservative Nelson, who often voted with Republicans: "He will be the least missed member of the Democratic caucus next year."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/201...tion-in-12

[There Is No Spoon]

Hmmm, he wasn't much of a Democrat anyway. Of course this makes it more likely the R's will be able to control the Senate, which would be a disaster. Shame that our government lets relatively small population areas (Senate) and gerrymandered districts (House) control the dialog in this country. While it's good that the rights of the few are preserved, it's ashame that the wellbeing of the many is abridged as a result.

[TheWraith]

(12-27-2011 12:56 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  A marvelous opportunity for a real Democrat to fill that seat, if there is one in the region. Kerry is much closer than Nelson was.

Unfortunately, "real Democrats" as we'd like to tag them aren't very viable in Nebraska. More likely, we're going to lose Nelson--who voted with the Democrats almost 80% of the time--and get a Republican who votes with us 5% of the time.

Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Strongly favors requiring companies to hire more minorities. (Sep 2000)
Supports “Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws”. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
Opposes parents choosing schools via vouchers. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Supports spending resources to stop Global Warming. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (May 2011)
Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities". (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Nov 2008)
Voted YES on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on confirming of Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court. (Aug 2009)
Opposes privatizing Social Security. (Sep 2000)
Voted NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (Feb 2008)
Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/ben_nelson.htm

[KonaKane]

That's an impressive list, but it sure throws a lot of smoke up around how Nelson voted on "key" issues. In fact, according to the Congressional Quarterly's annual vote study, Nelson earned the unenviable title of Senator Most Likely to Vote Against His Party. He voted with Democrats on just 54 percent of so-called "party unity" votes -- those in which a majority of Democrats opposed a majority of Republicans. Back in 2006, he voted with Democrats only 36 percent of the time.

He opposed key Democratic measures in the last Congress, voting with Republicans last year against the DREAM Act, the extension of unemployment benefits, and the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kaga.

I may be nuts, but I think we can do better. Even in Nebraska.

[firedupdem]

The longer I'm here, the more Democrats I find, yet this place is soo friggin red. I don't know how this will work out.

[Treestar]

That a more progressive Democrat can get elected - who can the Democrats run?

[KonaKane]

(12-27-2011 03:27 PM)Treestar Wrote:  That a more progressive Democrat can get elected - who can the Democrats run?

Off the top of my head, they could draft David M. Pantos, Executive Director of Legal Aid of Nebraska

Nebraska has, on just a brief look at their Progressive resources, quite a few organizations both local and state affiliates of national organizations (like the ACLU) to use as a pool for good candidates. I really cannot believe there is no one there who can be a better pick than Ben Nelson.

[Drunken Irishman]

Unfortunately, I think Nelson is about as electable as it gets in Nebraska. He might not be an Obama Democrat, but he was instrumental in getting healthcare and the stimulus passed. Even though he 'only' voted with the party about 80% of the time, it would be a huge setback if he was replaced with a Republican, who would hardly vote at all with the Democrats and could potentially flip the senate in favor of the Republicans.

I've not been satisfied with Nelson on a great deal of issues, but even I concede, as a liberal in a red state, that sometimes you've got to grin and bear it when dealing with these politicians. They're not ideological purist, but they're always (always) better than the alternative.

Now maybe, hopefully, a more progressive Democrat can win this seat. But Nelson sees the writing on the wall and I think much of his not running is tied to the fact he realizes he won't win in '12 - mostly due to his healthcare vote. That's what sucks about these Democrats in conservative states. They vote for liberal legislation and often are voted out of office for it.

I know we'd like to think it was because they voted conservatively on some issues, and that, as we're told, voters will pick the 'real' Republican over the 'fake' Republican every single time. But it's also possible to assume that had Nelson voted against the stimulus and healthcare bill that he would've been able to hold on to this seat. So, in the end, what very well could have cost Nelson his job was actually voting for progressive policies.

That's the tightrope many Democrats (and the few Republicans left in ideologically different states) have to walk. Nelson successfully did it until he was put in the position to vote on policy that was proposed BY the president who belongs to his party. That's a game changer, really. In his first term as senator, he was only there in opposition to Pres. Bush - not casting votes for the winning side. I know that doesn't sound like a big difference, but I believe it is. Nelson was casting votes these last three years in radical policy changes - the stimulus and healthcare. Even today, the stimulus is thought to not be working and healthcare has its lowest support rating since it passed.

My guess, unless Bob Kerrey runs, this is a seat the Republicans win easily.

The fact is, Nelson only won comfortably as a senator once - in '06, when Democrats held a huge favorability rating over Republicans. In his first election, back in 2000, he won narrowly, by about 20,000 votes. In '96, he lost by 15 or so to Chuck Hagel, even though he was a popular governor at the time. So, it's definitely a conservative state.

[KonaKane]

The part of the "unelectable" meme which has made my teeth ache the most in the past, is the part that provides a dynamic in which change has no chance to occur. It is the change killer, the dull hum that whispers "this is how things are and don't expect them to be different in the future".

Elizabeth Warren is bucking that meme in Massachussetts, currently. There was also a little known Black Illinois Senator who stood up to a chorus of those scolding that he was the definition of 'unelectable' - and became president anyway.

Change starts when we say to ourselves out loud "Yeah, this is possible."

[RoyGBiv]

(12-27-2011 03:27 PM)Treestar Wrote:  That a more progressive Democrat can get elected - who can the Democrats run?

This is an odd statement. Without the assistance of the party and its resources, no one gets elected. This is what many of us in red states continually complain about with regard to the national party. The national party is not supporting leftward candidates and, at least with the House, often don't bother supporting any opponent to the Republican. They leave us to our own devices while the Republican national party structure pours money in here to make it as red as possible.

I think, rather, it's time for the national Democratic party to show it supports more progressive candidates by promoting and financing their campaigns the way they have with Senator Nelson.

[Still a Democrat]

(12-27-2011 05:32 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  The part of the "unelectable" meme which has made my teeth ache the most in the past, is the part that provides a dynamic in which change has no chance to occur. It is the change killer, the dull hum that whispers "this is how things are and don't expect them to be different in the future".

Elizabeth Warren is bucking that meme in Massachussetts, currently. There was also a little known Black Illinois Senator who stood up to a chorus of those scolding that he was the definition of 'unelectable' - and became president anyway.

Change starts when we say to ourselves out loud "Yeah, this is possible."

Those states are worlds bluer than Nebraska.

[KonaKane]

(12-27-2011 05:54 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  .......

I think, rather, it's time for the national Democratic party to show it supports more progressive candidates by promoting and financing their campaigns the way they have with Senator Nelson.

Yes. THIS.

[KonaKane]

(12-27-2011 06:09 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  Those states are worlds bluer than Nebraska.

I'm not thinking Nebraska will become a state of Abbie Hoffmans. I'm just saying I really believe the Democrats there can do better than Ben Nelson.

[Drunken Irishman]

Democrats can do better than Ben Nelson. That isn't up for debate.

Will they do better than Ben Nelson, though? That's the bigger question. I live in a state where we consistently throw up fairly progressive Democratic candidates to run against the locally established party and none have sniffed 40% - let alone a number needed to knock off a senator.

The problem here is that we're discussing a statewide race. Nebraska IS conservative. It's a state that Obama lost 42-56%. Yes, he managed one electoral vote, but that shows you just how conservative it is. Obama, in a change election, who had a great message and an opposition party coming off eight awful years, still couldn't make Nebraska competitive.

Even then, Obama's showing in Nebraska was better than Kerry's, Gore's (he lost 33-62% to Bush) and Clinton (35% of the vote in '96 and 29% in '92).

To be a successful ideologically different politician in these states that are heavily conservative, you need a few things on your side...

1) An already successful path of victory in the past. J. James Exon, Bob Kerrey & Ben Nelson were governors of this state. They had an already built in support they could rely on. Even so, as I mentioned, Nelson still lost in a landslide, while a popular governor, to Chuck Hagel.

2) A moderate record. I'm not saying conservative, but a record that will get you Republican support. Nelson, in his reelection campaign in '06, garnered 42% of the Republican votes.

In many of these states, Republicans outnumber Democrats by a great deal. Republicans outnumber Democrats 48-34 in Nebraska. That's a pretty big deficit for a liberal to overcome and win an election.

So, it takes us back to the original point: Nebraskans do deserve better, but can they get better?

I don't know. If you're a Democrat in Nebraska, to win, you've got to gain most of the independent support (and remember, independent doesn't mean liberal or conservative) and a fair amount of Republican support.

I'd love for more progressive Democratic senators. But at what expense?

That's just me, though. I'm not convinced a liberal, or even a pretty progressive Democrat, could win statewide there. Maybe I'm wrong, but the fact the last three Democratic senators from there have been moderate (Kerrey, Nelson and Exon) makes me question that.

[KonaKane]

That's an extremely defensive campaign strategy. One that basically says "let me show you, republicans, how much this Democrat can be like you." And yes, it has worked in the past. But the salient issue is, nothing is changing and that lack of change is so glaring as to wonder why you bothering pushing a Democratic candidate at all.

Let's flip the tables and look at a more aggressive campaign that bucks that trend. Realizing that the union busting conservative governments of the upper rust belt have shockingly been slapped back in the face with successful recalls (and a big gubenatorial recall gaining steam), there have been some unforeseen setbacks for the GOP. There may well be a support base in places like Nebraska that is getting disregarded because of business as usual from the national Democratic Party.

What could we be overlooking just in order to play it safe?

[There Is No Spoon]

O'Donnell reporting that Kerrey is not ruling out a run for Senate.

[Drunken Irishman]

Not overlooking anything, I guess. Could be giving the senate to the Republicans, though. I guess that's okay, depending on your line of thought. I know many liberals who don't see much difference between this House and the Democratic-controlled House of Obama's first two years. If that's the case, you're absolutely right. We should take the risk and hope the liberal can somehow mount a successful campaign.

But from my point of view, I know just throwing up token liberals, or progressive firebrands won't guarantee anything. Rocky Anderson, as you've said a many of times, is a very liberal politician and he still lost by a lopsided margin to Merrill Freakin' Cook in the 2nd Congressional District here in Utah - a district that, since 2001, has been represented by Jim Matheson...a fairly moderate Democrat. In fact, that district currently is the most conservative district in the country represented by a Democrat.

It's also the only district (well was, since they gerrymandered it) a Democrat had any shot in and even then, it's still extremely conservative (McCain beat Obama 57-49 there and that was less than what Bush did here).

I know you want to believe that even the most conservative states will somehow rally behind liberal firebrands, but it doesn't always work out that way. If we have nothing to lose, sure, throw up a liberal and see what he can do statewide in Nebraska.

But I think you and I know there is a lot to lose. As much as Nelson pissed me off, he still put his butt on the line to vote for healthcare and probably lost his political career for it. That vote, coupled with his support of the stimulus, did him in there. So, I guess I find it hard to buy into the idea that Nebraska voters, who five years ago reelected Nelson in a landslide and now reject him for supporting Obama's policies, will turn around and vote for an even more liberal candidate.

Maybe they do...but that seems to be a mighty big if.

Are they going to run on supporting the healthcare law, which appears to have sunk Nelson?

It's a tightrope and I'm not sure a liberal can walk it. Some states just don't elect liberal politicians to statewide office. Utah hasn't. I can't remember the last statewide official who was a bleeding heart liberal. It certainly wasn't Scott Matheson, the last Democratic governor. It wasn't Cal Rampton, another Democrat, or Frank Moss, the last Democratic senator.

Yet that hasn't stopped the party from running liberal candidates like Anderson for congress (he lost), Pete Ashdown (he lost) for senate and Bob Springmeyer for governor (he lost). Sure, Nebraska is probably more progressive than Utah - but I wouldn't wager it's by a wide margin. Certainly it's still a solidly Republican state that has, since '64, voted Republican at the presidential level, has a Republican governor, a Republican (unofficial, since it is technically non-partisan) unicameral legislature (by a 32-17 margin), one Democratic senator (Nelson), one Republican senator and three Republican congresspeople.

Ben Nelson is the most prominent Democrat in the state. I'm just saying that sometimes practicality needs to be our goal here. Was Nelson really awful for Obama? No. He was instrumental in getting healthcare passed, got the votes needed for the stimulus and has, at least right now, kept the senate in the hands of the Democratic Party.

I know you'll agree a Republican in that seat will vote far more against Pres. Obama than Nelson. Of course, I get that ideally, we could get someone like Barbara Boxer in there.

But is it likely? This is high stakes. Playing it safe sometimes is the smart move.

If it's Kerrey or a sure loss, I'll take Kerrey every day and twice on Sundays.

That's just me, though. I'd love to be proven wrong and have a true progressive win.

[jaxx]

December 27, 2011, 9:34 pm
A Snapshot of the Race for the Senate
By NATE SILVER

The electoral implications of the impending retirement of Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska are fairly obvious. This is bad news for Democrats, who were already going to have a difficult time holding on to their narrow 53-47 advantage in the upper chamber.



http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...he-senate/

Well that sucks. We have 10 months to make sure we keep those seats.