He's been in for about a week now, maybe two.  I'd put Oregon ahead of Maine and even Minnesota now.  Dems got JUST the challenger they wanted.

We pick up Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Oregon.  We lose Louisiana.  Gain of four, we're looking at 55-45 or 54-46 (depending on whether or not Joe decides to stick around.)

we kick Lieberman to the curb you think if we pick up 4-5 seats?

I'm quick to protect most "moderate and conservative Democrats" like Pryor and Ben Nelson.  But I've disowned Joe entirely.

However, the party leadership in the Senate is in no rush to get rid of a vote for Harry Reid for majority leader.

analysis on this one.  Thanks.

The coming 2008 election will be a watershed, if only because a Bush isn't on the ballot. The Democratic victories of 2006 are a harbinger of change. With a strong and unifying presidential candidate, Democrats should win at least 5-6 of the seven races listed above and then target three or four more to reach the magic 60 cloture votes in the Senate. With the plentiful resources available, we need to look south and west; states like North Carolina (Dole), Tennessee (Alexander), Georgia (Chambliss), and maybe even New Mexico (Domenici), and Alaska (Stevens) could come into play with effective candidates and strategy. Take a good look at the map here http://www.dscc.org/...  and you'll see there's a lot of opportunity.
Part of our expectation of a good Presidential candidate should be how well he'll expand the Democrat majority expecially south and west, and help turn red states blue. That's why I personally like John Edwards. I believe he'll do the most to build a strong blue insurgency in red states.

Democratic Nominee, assuming Gore does not run.  Edwards would turn some (previously red) western states blue, at least enough to make him the 44th President.

It behooves a whole lot of people to do their damnedest to persuade Mark Warner to run for the Senate. He could do the entire country a great favor by adding another Democrat to the majority.

If the nominee is Hillary. We won't win CO,ME,or NE from that list. We will also lose Tim Johnson for sure as well as Landreiu.

MN from that list would be tough to win as well if Franken is the nominee along with HRC. Just too much stuff to use in a contest where they would be asking people to both, pull the lever for the most reviled female candidate in history, and a guy who made his living telling jokes and being decidedly un Senatorial. A total disaster.

Not even HRC can stop Mark Warner if he runs for Senate though. That is a great bright spot of hope.

HRC would have less chilling effect on the Oregon race. Merkley being in the State House would naturally lend him a more local air and if he plays it smart, he can stay out of the storm of the Pres race for the most part.

Obama would not hurt any of these candidates to any great extent. Edwards would boost several of them.

That Nebraska race is interesting to see here. It will be very interesting if Hagel decides to get out this year.

I would like to see a breakdown of the house seats. CQ just did its 25 most competitive races for next year. Pretty good list.

I'm not sure why you're so down on her, but I believe you're dead wrong.

I'm getting damned sick and tired at all the moronic Democrats who are falling for the GOP game that Hillary can't win. It's a crock, but fools on our side could very easily turn this nonsense into a self-fulfilling prophesy.

big problem I see with Hilliary is if she gets the nomination this will infuriate the rethug base and probably get them out to vote. On the other hand, the candidates they have are so pathetic, who would they vote for? I think Hilliary will get it although Edwards is ahead in Iowa.
It's a horserace for sure.

But this is not a repetition of GOP points. This comes from conversations with no less than 8 House Dems and 2 U.S. Senators who have all said privately that they dont think they can survive a HRC candidacy.

It also comes from a strong desire to have a real Democrat who can win as the nominee. Not GOP-Lite. I would not vote for anyone who appears on the cover of Fortune Mag as Wall Street's candidate. Hillary is just too conservative, too in bed with corporate interests...especially those who are all to eager to send our jobs overseas. I can go on and on about how she will hurt working folks.

But beyond that, We Democrats need to think strategically about keeping the House and Senate as well as gaining the White House. I don't see a lot of that going on.

Give me a couple of days and I will post something that will outline all the House seats we will DEFINITELY lose if she is the nominee. I think that this should be a huge factor in anyones decision on who to vote for in the primary. Every conversation that Dems have about the House or Senate races should include discussion of the presidential nominee.

that you're helping the GOP's cause. It's also a loser's mentality.

Mary Landrieu is in trouble regardless. Tim Johnson is in trouble if Mike Rounds runs against him, but I doubt it.

But you obviously don't know Minnesota very well. They elected a pro-wrestler Governor and you think they have a problem with a comedian? And fmr. Sen. Paul Wellstone is way more liberal than the average Minnesotan but they think outside-the-box more than any other state.

And for all the talk about how she enrages Republicans, you're forgetting how much of a turn-off that is to Independent voters. When they go at her hard, it makes them look vile and disgusting, and they can't help themselves.

on the negative, how we're going to lose, how our candidates are inadequate, etc.  I prefer to focus on how we're going to win.

Or better yet, how NOT to lose.

And it is not a losers mentality to be realistic about her chances. It is the mind of a loser that thinks she can win.

Also, to address your other comment about Giuliani. She would have beat him in NY in 2000. She would beat him there again, as well as beat him in FL. But why are we talking about her, I was obviously referring to the other two candidates running.

And Hillary's negatives among independents are almost as high as among GOP voters. So that is misinformed or just plain wrong idea. It does not make them look vile and disgusting, it makes them look of like mind with the independents that hate her. All independents need is an excuse to vote against her. Any small one will do.

And I WILL NOT BE SILENT about how bad she will be for us. You are only repeating the Clinton campaign spin to divert attention away from her faults, which are legion.

and see where that gets us.  Personally, I'm not bashing any of our candidates.  As far as I'm concerned, any of them -- John Edwards, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton -- would make fine nominees for the Democratic Party.  I look forward to busting my ass for the nominee, whoever it is, in 2008.

You're so right about these moronic Democrats who just might turn this into a self-fullfilling prophesy.  She's head and shoulders above anyone else, and yet it's our own idiotic Dems who might just ruin the chance of having what could very well be the most fantastic president in years...perhaps ever.

You don't see the Hillary supporters cutting down Obama or Edwards, but you sure see their supporters ganging up against Hillary.  You guys are desparate because the polls are going through the roof for Hillary!

Democratic Nominee, assuming Gore does not run.  Edwards would turn some (previously red) western states blue, at least enough to make him the 44th President.

US Senate races are different from the presidential race. Normally voters often split their tickets.

I think WillieStark may be on to it. Alot may certainly depend on the VP selection and if HRC's selection is perceived as pure politics to win Ohio or something like that it may not help. HRC certainly has the greater potential for blowback down ballot especially in areas with greater independent voters, at least at this point but of course alot can change.

I'm going to be bullish and say we win all seven, if Hillary runs who knows what will happens, I mean if she runs against Mitt Romney, who cares about her negatives, we'll win EVERYWHERE.  I don't really want her as my candidate, as I find her to be a corporate Democrat of the worst kind.  But oh well, I suppose I'll have to deal and suck it up so we don't have a congressman.  ALthough I find it sad that we have many candidates who just excite me so much ,and the one who doesn't is the one who looks like they'll win.  Maybe she'll bring out more women voters, that might be good.  I won't attack her for being unelectable, but I won't say she's the best candidate for the Democrats either.  I just don't feel like she'll really FIGHT for us, like we'd need her to.  If Republicans attack her, I have a feeling she'll hedge, instead of directly confronting their bullshit.  I just feel like if we return to triangulation, the Democrats are dead, because nobody will feel like their is any difference between the two parties again.

How many times has he dressed up in womens clothes. 6 0r 7?

Imagine the billboards in the border south states like VA, AR, the Florida panhandle.

All the corruption, kicking his wife out of Gracie Mansion so he could move his trollop in? Wow. That is the guy to run against.

that polls well against Hillary Clinton, who you insist is electoral poison.

Florida has a lot of transplanted New Yorkers who would give Hillary a big advantage for their 27 electoral votes. But Giuliani could negate that.

Giuliani would have trouble winning NY. His corruption problems will still make it a very competitive state. And SERIOUSLY, does anyone with a modicum of political savvy think that any GOP candidate will be able to win NY in a national election. We may have to spend some money there for a change, but winning it is still very certain.

will come into play only if Dems don't strip the state of all  its electoral votes because of the primary-date diddlin'...

Only the delegates at the Dem convention.

I think Smith is arguably the most unpopular incumbent in 2008, and they have an ideal candidate in Merkley, AND Oregon is getting bluer by the day.

isn't there?

Lowell....  There's a primary race here - and the other candidate is a great guy named Steve Novick.  He's an activist and a political consultant.  He's trying to be the netroots candidate, to be sure.

But you'd be hard-pressed to find a more netroots-friendly candidate than Jeff Merkley.  As the Oregon House Democrats leader in 2005, he led that caucus to be the first caucus in the nation to blog, as a caucus.  That effort became a netroots and grassroots campaign to take back the Oregon House in 2006 - with thousands of volunteers around the state. 

Under Merkley's leadership, the Dems picked up an historic four seats in a non-presidential election (which we don't believe had ever been done in Oregon) to take a one-seat majority... the first majority in 16 years.

One-seat majorities are notoriously unstable - but Speaker Merkley led the House to the most progressive and productive legislative session in over three decades.  And they finished on time, too - which hadn't happened in a long time under GOP control.

[Full disclosure: My company hosts the website for Jeff Merkley.  Steve Novick is a long-time friend.  I don't speak for anyone but myself.]

No one is talking about John Cornyn yet, but the 42 approval to 43 disapproval rating that he had in June Survey USA poll is worth keeping in mind. 

http://www.surveyusa...

There's also the issue of cash on hand.  Right now the DSCC has something along the lines of $16 million on hand compared to the NRSC's $6.5 million. 

Then there's the matter of how individual candidates are doing from the Washington Post's Paul Kane:

Here, the new FEC report should be particularly troubling for Republicans. The most active fund-raisers this early in the cycle are usually incumbents. There are 21 incumbent Republicans up for election in 2008, compared to 12 for the Democrats, with one already announced open seat in Colorado. Yet individual Democratic Senate candidates, in the first six months of 2007, raised $47.6 million, compared to just $33 million for GOP Senate candidates.

http://blog.washingt...

Texans didn't like the job Rick Perry was doing, but they re-elected that sorry excuse for a governor.  And while he may not have won a majority, you need only add Carole Keeton Strayhorn's vote total to get the total Republican voting block.  Not a single Republican incumbent (who ran anyway) lost their seat in 2006.  Every statewide elected office was won by a Republican and not by a slim margin.  Republicans maintain control over both houses of the Texas Legislature too.  Generally, 60% - 75% of the money out of Texas goes to Republicans (though so far in 2008, only 54% has gone to Republican presidential primary candidates).

Realistically, I think Republicans needn't worry about Texas anytime soon.  It's the perfect Republican demographic too just suburbs, strip malls, exurbs, and individualism to the extreme.

The Congressional seat formerly held by Bonilla is now held by Ciro Rodriguez; the former DeLay seat also changed hands. 

In the case of Perry he was fortunate that independents and Democrats split their votes in the gubernatorial race.  I don't think there's much question though that Texas still leans rightward.

However, I don't think this necessarily equals a Republican "W" in 2008.  If Hutchinson was up for re-election I think she would be tough to beat.  Cornyn strikes me as being very similar to George Allen in this past election cycle.  If he were to run against a veteran with moderate social credentials, I think he could have real problems. 

Based on what I've read about Rick Noreiga he strikes me as a very viable Democratic nominee.  If he gets the funding, I would not be surprised to see him create problems for Cornyn's re-election hopes.  I don't know at this stage if he could maneuver an upset, but I like this match-up much more than Perry v. Bell v. Friedman this past November.

I like that you have hope.  It's just hard for me to see what disaster could befall Sen. Cornyn to tank his campaign.  Dallas, Houston and San Antonio are not as cosmopolitan as Northern Virginia.  If Allen were running in Texas last year, he would still be in office.

I think you would need to recreate the dynamics of the 1990 gubernatorial race.  If Cornyn makes a comment similar to Clayton Williams, then I would say all bets are off.

You do have me on Bonilla.  As to the governor, if you add 39% for Perry with 18% for Strayhorn; that's a 57% for a Republican candidate.

re-election to the Senate in Nebraska:

http://thecaucus.blo...

August 20, 2007,  9:27 pm

Kerrey Waits for Hagel to Decide

"Could Bob Kerrey - the former Nebraska senator, governor, one-time presidential candidate, almost New York City mayoral candidate and current president of the New School - be thinking about getting back into politics?

Mr. Kerrey has made it known that he might be interested in running for the Senate seat in Nebraska should Chuck Hagel, a Republican, not seek re-election - and Democratic leaders have made it clear that they would like Mr. Kerrey to run. Mr. Kerrey, in an interview yesterday, said it was unlikely but not impossible.

"At the moment," he said, "I don't think I'm going to run. But these moments don't happen very often. It's a possibility."

Unless Mr. Hagel seeks another term. "If Hagel runs, not only would I not run, I would write him a check," Mr. Kerrey said..."

This is one of the best examples of rising above partisanship that I have seen in a very long time!

Jon Soltz and Votevets.org are actually running positive ads for Chuck Hagel right now:

http://securingameri...

NEW VOTEVETS.ORG RADIO ADS COMMEND THREE REPUBLICANS

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 1, 2007 - 5:49am.

http://www.votevets....

NEW VOTEVETS.ORG RADIO ADS COMMEND THREE REPUBLICANS

Major General (Ret.) John Batiste, former 1st Infantry Division commander in Iraq, life-long Republican, and advisor to VoteVets.org, is featured in a new radio ad campaign being launched today, that praises Senator Chuck Hagel and Representatives Walter Jones and Wayne Gilchrest for standing up for the troops.

The ads can be listed to here:

HAGEL

GILCHREST

JONES 

Senator Hagel and Representatives Jones and Gilchrest have consistently voted with the troops, on bills that would begin a responsible redeployment from Iraq, and would give troops as much time on the homefront as spent in theater.

So let's say we have a great Democratic wave--where do we get the nine pick-ups for 60?
Lowell's 7-
Virginia
New Hampshire
Colorado
Oregon
Minnesota
Maine
Nebraska
then a few more targets--
New Mexico (culture of corruption)
Alaska (culture of corruption)
Texas (incumbent approval under 50%)
North Carolina (incumbent approval under 50%)
Georgia??
Tennessee??
SO if we can win just two of the last 6, and all of those first seven, we're there, 60! Remember in '06 no one thought we'd take all the seats we did.

It can be done--setting a goal of 60 is not unrealistic. Any strong president is going to need that margin to enact the bold change this country needs!

The Post just posted a story on this here http://www.washingto...

Unpopular incumbent (even if he is in a position of power) and Democrats surging there.

Lowell - You are really underestimating the DSCC here.  I think we are MUCH more likely to gain 5-6 seats for several reasons.

First, the GOP thinks they are going to lose 4 senate seats.

http://www.mydd.com/...

This means that losing four seats is the best they can realistically expect.  Therefore, it's likely that the Dems will pick up 5-6 seats.  The Repubs also have some serious downside risk; they could lose as many as 10 seats.

Second, races don't break evenly for both parties.  Chuck Todd talked about this in an article:

http://www.dailykos....

Todd states that there really isn't any difference between winning 3 seats and 7; all close races tend to break the same way.  It all depends on how many races are close at the end, and the Dems are likely to be close (if not way ahead) in all of the races above, making a gain of 5-6 seats MUCH more likely than a gain of 3-4.

Third, it's the DSCC.  We're talking about the folks that won six seats when everyone thought it was impossible.  The DSCC has a HUGE fundraising advantage.

http://blog.washingt...

The DSCC is up $10M already, and if you count individual candidates, the advantage rises to $25M.  The GOP isn't going to have enough money to defend all of its seats, and runs the risk of getting blown out.  The Dems might have a total (DSCC plus individual candidates) financial advantage of $100M by the time the election comes around.  That suggests a landslide.

advantage is going to be a huge advantage in 2008.