Harry Reid on running again in 2016: 'Sure, why not?'

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Hill

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he'll run for a sixth term in the Senate in 2016 — though it doesn't sound like he's given the bid much thought at this point.

"Sure, why not?" he responded when asked by a Nevada reporter if he'll run again.

Reid, who won a hard-fought reelection battle in 2010, will be 76 by 2016.

He refused to speculate on whether Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) would run against him. Sandoval, a popular governor who is Hispanic, would likely be Republicans' best chance at the seat in the Democratic-trending state.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/284169-harry-reid-on-running-again-in-2016-sure-why-not

[Coolest Ranger]

1. Hope we got someone to pirmary him

[truebluegreen]

2. Yes, a Democrat with a spine would be great. nt

[The Last Dem.]

15. Sometimes:

the known devil is better than the unknown .

[FreeBC]

3. C'mon Nevada, send us someone good!

[graham4anything]

4. Hope he does run and wins big. He knows the minute intracacies in making the senate run.

Which is not a very easy job to do.
Very few have done it well.

[FreeBC]

11. Key to Harry's success: fold often if not early.

The job is not easy to do BECAUSE of Harry Reid. He could have forced filibuster reform He did not.

Don't ask for sympathy about how tough the job is when Harry Reid is the guy who could have made it a lot easier, but chose not to make it a lot easier because then he would actually have to do his job rtaher than throw up his hands about how hard the job is.

[GoneFishin]

17. Another key to Harry's success.

When you've got them up against the ropes, turn the other cheek.

[Third Doctor]

5. I'm sorry Harry, but it's time to go.

You have shown poor to no leadership and the first ever filibuster is a indicator of a lack of leadership.

[Smll_Ax3]

6. becuse there's more qualified people out there Harry

after giving in on filibuster reform, this guy might as well be gop...

[xtraxritical]

10. Yeah, Ms's Boxer and Pelosi caved on that issue too, what a dissapointment.

I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation from anyone, it must be a "back room" deal.

[awoke_in_2003]

12. Pelosi is a representative. nt

[xtraxritical]

14. Right, I mean Ms. Feinstein, thanks.

[awoke_in_2003]

16. Yeah, I figure you meant her...

Feinstein was another member of the dumbass status quo club. If the filibuster got fixed, then the dems would lose their favorite excuse -"we can't do anything because the mean old republicans won't let us".

[jerseyjack]

7. WHY NOT?

Harry, its because you are as useless as my left nut.

[xxqqqzme]

8. Sure, why not?

That nomination of Chuck Hagel is working so well under the filibuster 'reform' you hammered out.

[pscot]

9. At least one reason springs to mind

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Running for reelection to the Senate & running for reelection as Majority Leader are different to me

Reid isn't a blue dog Democrat. He's been with the liberal half of Senate Democrats on the majority of issues. And he is running in Nevada which is stiill not the bluest of States. I think it would be a bad idea to primary him in 2016. Splits among Democrats can help Republicans get in. We've seen that work in the opposite direction enabling us to hold or win seats that Republicans thought they had in the bag.

[blueclown]

18. Run for another term in the Senate, but not another term as Senate Democratic leader

[maxsolomon]

19. Senate power must be addictive

Otherwise why do these rich old men want to leave the senate feet first? Just to know they kept their boot on the neck of Progress until they died?

[Arkana]

20. Worst part? If Reid loses/bows out/whatever, we get CHUCK FUCKING SCHUMER.

I defy any of you to tell me how on earth he would be better.

[BainsBane]

21. Just replace him as Senate Majority Leader

That's what I care most about.