Here are the first two lines of the top headline story at The Hill:
Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) on Wednesday announced that he will not seek another term after facing a tough reelection bid.
Dodd's decision to retire is another blow to the increasingly fragile Democratic majority in the Senate.
Yeah, it's a real blow:
Blumenthal leads Rob Simmons 59-28, Linda McMahon 60-28, and Peter Schiff 63-23.(...)
Blumenthal's numbers in this survey are quite a stark contrast to Dodd's.... [Dodd] trailed Simmons for the 11th consecutive time in a publicly released poll, 44-40, and also found himself locked in a tie with McMahon at 43.
Democrats score a 32% boost in Connecticut Senate polling in one-day, and it is called "a blow" to their Senate election chances.
It's not like the PPP poll, or Blumenthal's entry into the campaign, were secrets. The same article in The Hill noted that Blumenthal will run. Further, PPP had tweeted about Blumenthal's dominant polling position 12 hours before The Hill published its article. Yet further, anyone writing about Connecticut politics should have already known that Dodd was in serious, perhaps insurmountable re-election trouble, while Blumenthal is by far the most popular politician in the state.
This is just shoddy, pro-Republican reporting. It adds a lot of credence to something Atrios wrote earlier today:
As I've said, the media still continue to take their cues from whatever the latest Republican talking point of the day is. Old habits die hard, or perhaps not at all.
Dodd's retirement is the best news Democrats have received in any Senate campaign in months. Any other characterization runs afoul of all existing empirical evidence.
Update: Here is some more genius from MSNBC:
Of course, be wary when the first set of blind quotes you read from party strategists after a retirement is "[Fill in the blank's] decision may turn out to be a blessing." As we wrote above, that's probably true regarding Dodd.
And then, at the end of the same paragraph:
The fact is that retirements, party switches, etc. hurt a party -- period.
Yeah, retirements always hurt a party. PERIOD!!!!! Except that, at the start of this same paragraph, the author wrote that Dodd's retirement helped Dems. Awesome.
Update 3--The Hill changes the article: The Hill has edited the article and no longer claims Dodd's retirement is bad for Democratic electoral chances.