Chris...from a local boy in Minnesota, a reality check (from a loyal Democrat) on possible Democratic Senate Hopefuls...

Rybak... A weenie who doesn't have the toughness for a hardball US Senate Campaign and no state-wide appeal.

Hatch... It won't happen after he failed to beat Pawlenty for Governor after his campaign snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the last week of this years campaign.

Franken...As much as Democrats and liberals (and myself) in this state like him and respect his moxy... he rubs too many people of the more moderate ilk the wrong way. I think he is better in his role as the radio anti-Limbaugh and should stay there.

Mike Ciresi...I like the guy but he couldn't even beat Mark Dayton in the Democratic primary 6 years ago, and Mark wasn't my favorite. He might be an OK 2nd choice...

Betty McCollum...Can you say Amy Klobuchar's sister--St. Paul side? This has to be the best candidate for now, if she wants to give up House Seniority. Women are a key sector of the electorate in swing areas of this state and Betty would have broad appeal over Coleman in moderate out-state areas. She would win!!!

So, there you go. Franken and Ciresi might make it a contest, but McCollum would win the seat.

BillinMD:

You hit the nail on the head. In actual on the ground truth, Bill Janklow would make a better run at Johnson than Rounds would. And since he has fulfilled the terms of his sentence, the felony will be expunged if it hasn't already. Also, I think Rounds likes the atmosphere in Pierre... I know Thune would have preferred it had his arm not been twisted to the point of breaking. Plus there's that little abortion bill that he signed that would be a big downer in a race against Johnson. Hell, Tim wouldn't even have to do any fundraising on his own if Rounds ran. Republicans don't have any candidates in their arsenal left that can win statewide, or they would have run one of them against Herseth last time. SD is one of the safer seats the Dems have to defend in 2008.

Steve

Johnson SD:

1) Remember that he in 1996, when he was elected to the Senate, he took out the only sitting senator to be defeated that election cycle (Larry Pressler).

2) And then he beat John Thune in 2002.

3) You can bet that Rounds, who never has had a tough, statewide race, is looking at those simple facts.

4) Johnson always starts slow on the fundraising, but closes strong--SD is an obvious low cost media state, so $600k in the bank is a predictor of little.

5) Anything is possible, but he's already said he's running.

Regarding Senator Warner's possible retirement, it seems like former Senator Allen might also be a candidate for Warner's seat. He's got two years to rehabilitate himself, and dreams of running for President die hard. Virginia is hardly a lock for Democrats. I'd love to see former Governor Warner run against former Senator Allen. Would that be fun to watch!

In the senior senator from New Mexico retires would there be a possibility of a Heather Wilson/Patricia Madrid rematch for an open Senate seat?

Also in New Mexico, I thought that the state Democrats were grooming Gloria Trisani (sp?), their 2002 nominee for 2008...

Well I meant that there would be a national fury against Bush(even more than now)Firstly because Iraq will continue to go downhill for two more years. Another thing would be if the Democratic investigations(they will investigate, though not as aggressively) uncover a smoking gun that causes public outrage against the administration. If that happens then the GOP will be utterly destroyed at the polls, and Democrats will take back the White House as well as several more House seats and a working majority in the Senate. But I doubt it.

subpoena power, I don't know what you're smoking: Barbara Mikulski will clean Steele's clock. He doesn't have a chance in Hell of beating her!!!...and this is coming from an African American too!

Barbara Mikulski is a D-MD Senator for as long as she wants it. This is not even open for discussion.

I wouldn't leave Alaska off the list either. Uncle Ted just celebrated his 83rd birthday, and given his son's indictment, his newfound minority status, increased national scrutiny over his earmarkings and the ongoing investigation of his involvement in VECO, I wouldn't be surprised if he took the opportunity now to retire, leaving a wide open field.

If stevens retires, I'd see the likely race being Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) against John Binkley (R). Begich is the son of the former congressman now serving in his second term in the city that is home to about half of Alaska's population, while Binkley is known for his time in the state legislature, as head of the Alaska Railroad Comission, and his recent run for governor (losing to Palin in the primary). I also wouldn't rule out Andrew Halcrow running under the banner of either party. He gained a lot of credibility with moderates and independents for his gubernatorial run, and many people I know think he was setting himself up for some other office besides the governorship.

Lion-

'08 would not be considered a wave election, as that term is applied to mideterms. What matters a lot more in these races is who wins the presidency in those states. Thus the perpetually-mentioned "coattials."

The best recent example of this that I can think of is Florida Senate '04, an open seat contest between Mel Martinez (R) and Betty Castor (D). Polling had Castor ahead by a bit, but that same polling had Kerry and Bush about even. The key was that Castor was about 2-3 points ahead of where Kerry was, and when Kerry underperformed Castor followed.

Still being in Iraq in '08 (as you said, likely) will likely affect the prez contest more that the Senate ones, but then will affect the Senate races because it affects the prez outcome. And while that may be confusing, it seems to make logical sense.

And btw, most of what was above also applies to the House races (except the polling, which is crazy unreliable in the House).

I agree with an earlier comment that Elizabeth Dole should be on the list. She was a disaster as DSCC Chairwoman. She could barely form a sentence on the various Sunday talk shows leading up to the election.

Hey Chris, What about Georgia?? I believe that Saxby Chambliss is the other Republican that Democrats will love to hate in this cycle. Democrats hate Chambliss for what he did to Max Cleland in 2002 with those sleazy ads that compared Max, a triple amputee, to Osama Bin Laden.

I think that if it's OK for local right-wing racist Republican bloggers and hate-radio jocks to twist the arms of the local respectable media into giving media play to every single bogus tale about Keith Ellison, it's more than OK -- in fact, long overdue -- for the respectable media, both locally and nationally, to start looking at a subject they've gone out of their way to avoid: Norm Coleman's personal life. (Hey, admit it: You'd do it if he were a Democrat!)

Lion:

A couple of things:

GA- I think Max Cleland could be aching for revenge, and I think GA voters might give it to him if he were to run and the playing field was even to tilting Dem.

NE- Best chance for switching party is Hagel switching to the Dems. He's barely a Repub to start with, and he is said to be pissed at BushCo, but I've been hearing that for 5 years, so take it for what its worth.

CO, MN and NH are in the bag unless there is a huge Repub tide. I would guess Lynch would be the best bet in NH, and I honestly don't think it matters who the candidate is in MN (its next door and we get MN news on our local news in ND).

OK- only Gov. Henry could make this a race, but if he runs, it will be epic. This state is so red that it bleeds tho.

TN- I think that Ford could win against Alexander. His graciousness in defeat and refusing to play the race card could be a strong suit in a Democratic year.

MS and TX are pipe dreams.

NM could go for Richardson even if Pete doesn't retire.

NC- this one is a real stumper. I think Easley could win, but the Repub tilt to the state is real. Its also conceivable that Shuler, given a strong term could beat Dole who has been thoroughly lackluster. This is probably a 2nd tier opportunity, though.

SD- I don't know where all the national people get the idea that Rounds is so well liked in SD. I live close to SD, and see absolutely no groundswell for the guy. He has faced token opposition in both governors races. Like in ND, I doubt he'd make the run, as Hoeven declined, because he's not as popular on the ground as he is on paper.

I think NJ and LA are the two best opportunities for Repub pickups, and I don't think Kean Jr. is as damaged as purported, in fact he probably would have won this year if not for the strong Dem. tide, but also CT Whitman could win that seat unless Lautenberg retires again.

The Senate Races go like this:

Alaska: What people don't seem to know is that Ted Stevens is the focus of an FBI bribery investigation that is targeting many other AK Republicans. It is quite possible he will get indicted. If he is( I cross my fingers) the Democrats have good options in either State Senate Minority Leader Ethan Berkowitz or Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. The GOP has little besides Palin, who probably won't, or Stevens' son, who is being investigated himself. That's probably not true, anyone got any GOP Alaska names besides those two.

Nebraska: If Hagel retires, than the Democrats best bet would indeed be Bill Fahey.

North Carolina: Easley could unseat Dole in short order, and I don't think the national party will like her very much after she blew it running the NRSC this year.

Mississippi: Mike Moore is indeed the best choice, though he would have an uphill battle against Chip Pickering. Obama becoming the Democratic nominee would definitely be helpful, as black turnout would be through the roof, possibly creating a coattail effect.

New Hampshire: Shaheen, Lynch and Dick Swett could all defeat Sununu fairly easily, after all, he barely won in 2002, a big GOP year.

Colorado: Allard is in big trouble. Mark Udall has already said he would run for the Senate seat. Udall is a very strong candidate who could knock out Allard with ease. Another option is Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, though Udall was promised the nomination in 04 when he stepped aside in for Salazar. If Allard retires, let us Democrats hope and pray that Tom Tancredo becomes the Republican nominee.

Oklahoma: Henry would make this a race to remember, especially if Inhofe retires.

Texas: John Cornyn is quite unpopular for an incumbent. The Democrats would again have an uphill battle to win, but Houston Mayor Bill White could make this a race.

Tennessee: With 46% approval, Alexander should watch his back. Bredesen could conceivably defeat him, especially if the Democratic national tide is strong.

Virginia: If John Warner retires, Mark Warner would obviously be the best candidate, he already has 10 million dollars raised in his PAC, add to that the fact that he is the most popular politician in the state, more or less. A Warner-Allen match would be quite ironic, the two former Pres contenders go head to head. Warner would crush him though.

New Mexico: Domenici has said he would run for reelection, but he's 74 and has health problems. If he ends up retiring, Richardson would be the strongest option, Tom Udall a strong second choice.

Georgia: Jim Marshall could mount a strong challenge to Chambliss, though we would lose his House seat probably.

Minnesota: R.T. Rybak is the best man to defeat Coleman, though Al Franken can provide some comic relief.

Here are some Republican opportunities

Louisiana: Landrieu is definitely the most vulenerable Democrat, with half her base gone. She is in for the fight of her life.

South Dakota; Rounds is the only Republican who could challenge Johnson.

Iowa: Harkin might be challenged by Nussle, but he's probably safe.

Massachusetts: If Kerry retires to run for President, the GOP has a chance, but Meehan or one of the other congressmen would have an overwhelming advantage.

New Jersey: Lautenberg is unpopular(somewhat), but with Kean damaged goods, the GOP has no one in New Jersey. Lautenberg may end up getting replaced by Rob Andrews though.

Arkansas: Pryor is probably safe, but could be challenged.

Montana: Rehberg probably won't give up his house seat, so Baucus is safe.

Delaware: If Biden retires to run for President, Castle could make it competitive, though he is 70 and has had strokes.

It all depends on the national current. If we're still in Iraq in 08(likely) than the GOP will be so unpopular that another wave will swamp them.

Two other comments, if I may.

Concerning John Sununu in New Hampshire, would former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. I think she was/is teaching at the Harvard School of Government.

Second, about Pennsylvania and Rick Santorum...one reason that Harris Wofford lost to Santorum was Governor Robert Casey, SR., refused to lift a finger for Wofford because of the abortion issue. The governor is the father of the senator-elect.

This is from the Drudge Report on Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"She also purchased more than $13,000 worth of flowers and funneled tens of thousands of dollars a month to consultants and aides".

Can someone explain me where you spent that kind of money for flowers?

This is from the Drudge Report.

She also purchased more than $13,000 worth of flowers and funneled tens of thousands of dollars a month to consultants and aides.

Can someone explain me where you spent that kind of money for flowers?

In any year, Rick Santorum would have had trouble in Pennsylvania.

The residence issue left a bitter taste in a lot of voters mouths. In western Pennsylvania, he only carried Butler County (where he was born) and lost Allegheny County (Pittsburgh and close in suburbs, where the Santorums maintained their legal residence).

As one political columnist noted, ask a Pittsburgher what he/she knew about Rick Santorum and the reply would be "he and his family lives in Virginia and Pennsylvania got stuck paying for the Santorum children's education.

A lot of people have asked me to tell my family's story once again. At the same time, I keep hearing that the government, at least the newly elected Democrats, cannot do anything about Bush and his insane policies. I will do both, since they are interwoven.

I am an engineer. I have more than 50 patents on everything from grocery store scanners and algorithms to test equipment for optical fiber networks, to the latest rf wafer technology. I have had three jobs outsourced out from under me in the past five years. My jobs, after developing something worth millions of dollars to companies, went to two different Indian and one Chinese "guest worker". In every single case, I worked from 6 months to a year or more, six and seven days a week, under a deadline to develop a new technology, write the code, do the paperwork for the patent, etc. Then, I would get a patent reward (a piece of paper) and literally, in one case, that day, following the reward, I was laid off with two weeks notice to train my Indian replacement. Now, 22 months ago, my youngest son was a college student. He was doing advanced training as a trama room nurse with plans (and encouragement from his teachers) to go on to medical school. When I lost my job, just after having written the algorithms and code for an OTDR device used by this government to trace taps on optical fiber networks (and something used by the CIA as well as the Defence Department) I was very sick. At the age of 56 I came down with a severe form of mononucleosis that got me hospitalized. I nearly died. As soon as I was back to work, the very day I was back at work, I was laid off. My son was worried sick about being a burden upon me and his mother and, so, took an offer from the U.S. Army to enlist as a nurse. What the Army did, was to lie to him and to us. They made him a combat medic. They never had any intention of using him as anything other than a combat medic. So, all you parents out there and you super patriots, just remember this - the U.S. Army, the Pentagon and the U.S. government are a lying bunch of scumbags. If you trust them with your children's life, if you trust them at all, you are in for a huge disappointment. Right now, having my older son back from that area, wounded, and with the government NOT paying his medical expenses, I call tell you from the bottom of my heart that I cannot imagine Al Qaida or any other group wrecking more harm, doing more evil, to my family and the families of other soldiers we know. I am flat out furious at the Bush Whitehouse and consider him and everyone associated with him to be criminals. I feel precisely the same of the Pentagon and all of those arm chair generals. If it were in my power, and I AM working for just that purpose, I would imprison them all for the rest of their lives. They are that bad, that evil, that despicable. I feel precisely the same about Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Ms. Rice, and every other member of this Administration and every single member of the Pentagon staff. To say I loathe George Bush, detest the Pentagon career scumbags, is an understatement. And I am a moderate man in most things, but these are the worst degenerates, the most evil collect of swine, to occupy power since the days of Hitler. And I mean that literally.

As for the newly elected Democrats, I expect them to not just investigate this Whitehouse, I expect them to put him and the Pentagon swine on trial, I expect them to be prosecuted and convicted, and I expect them to be imprisoned for the ret of their lives. I want them to stand as examples for all time as to what corrupt self serving men and women who abuse their public trust can expect. I also expect the Democarts to re-enact the draft so as to preclude any president ever doing anything remotely like this again. Our armed might ought only be used to defend this country when it's very existance is in question, not at the whim of some polciian or general who makes his career sacrifing the lives of young people...and their families.
So, the Democarts are not in office yet. So what! They were elected and everyone knows why they were elected. If they were courageous and honest they would use the bully pulpet they have been given by tyhe voters and they would rain fire and hell on Washington and on the Bush Whitehouse, they would call for massive street protests, do whatever it took to put a stop to Bush. Who amoung you believes for one moment that if all of the Democrats got together on the step of the Halls Of Congress and called for a day or even a week of nationwide strikes that the Amercian people would not answer? ANd who genuinely believe that Congress could not flat out shut down every office of government if they refused to pass ANY budgetary legislation until the troops were hime from Iraq? Sometimes, and especially in the face of genuine evil, we must do whatever it takes to fight evil, be willing to make any sacrifice. That time, more than ever in our history, is now. Congress, Democrats, Republican's, Independents, Patriots, if you value this country, if you value the very soul of this nation, you will make that sacrifice now.

Alan in Missoula: No problem with the name mistake.

You're correct, "What they (The Congress) did was cut support to the South Vietnamese government, not to American troops in the field."

I think that it's important to point that out because that is not what Buchanan, and now others, would have us believe; and they reach a large audience who depend on them to set the intellectual agenda.

To me it looks as if those people are trying to set-up a public perception mouse trap for the new Congress by revising history.

Thanks for the additional history. And service - "Doc" should be in your posting name somehow.

i think that the Dems have a great chance to increase their majority in '08. They possibly have Mark Warner in Va. if Sen. Warner decides to call it quits, R.T. Rybak or Hatch in Minn., Udall in Co and many more. the reps have a couple of seats to look at but the dems are probably going to gain some more seats next election.

I think one Senator that needs to be added to The Fix's list is Lindsey Graham (R-SC). He's ending his first term replacing Strom Thurmond and many in the state, even party loyalists, have been upset with his tenure. They believe he's trying to align himself with McCain for a possible Vice-Presidential bid and South Carolinians have never been keen on politicians trying to win nationwide support. While by no means do I think this seat has the possiblity of switching parties, I do think Graham could face a primary challenge from one or two big name GOP within the state.

You would've had to have one heck of a Republican year to save Santorum.In the Republican year of 1994, he only beat Wofford 49-47%.

You would've had to have one heck of a Republican year to save Santorum.In the Republican year of 1994, he only beat Wofford 49-47%.

Moshe:

AK is one of the three reddest states (with ID and UT). You are right his pork eating habits probably make him safe, but save for Murkowski, he is the one Repub who could put the seat in play. I certainly would think that a lot of other people would be in trouble before him, but if all the stars aligned he could be had.

Steve

I told you it wasn't his year, in fact it wasn't a republican year.

Moshe, you must be kidding! Santorum lost by 698,000 votes. Even a Red tide wouldn't have saved him. He lost in every demographic (telling...lost Catholics by 57-42).
He is a great fundraiser and a fine campaigner, but even after raising over $20 million, and crisscrossing the Commonwealth, he ended up with 40% of the vote....exactly where he was in August.

I don't think Hillary Clinton and the democratic field is any better then the republicans. the only good candidate the dams have, is Oboma, why ? Because the media loves him, he is a rock star, is this good enough to become president? In 2008 it's good enough. So let's all vote for Angelina Jolie or maybe Tom Cruise they are certainly more popular than Oboma.

The real story -- republicans in disarray:

'It's the GOP's Hour of the Wolf, walpurgisnacht, Karmageddon. They have a President who they're backing away from like a homeless person in a hot elevator. They've got a war they started and can't finish. They've got multiple intertwining ethics and corruption investigations and more on the way, and a line-up of '08 hopefuls who look about as appealing as water tetrazzini. This is no temporary run of bad luck for these people. It's the end of the world as they know it.'

I can't wait. I think Santorum ran one of the worst cmapaigns ever. He was stiff, lame and hysterical. Adn as far as him being a good fundraiser, so was mark foley. so was jack abramoff. so was duke cunningham. run 'em all.

Dirndl,

You can say what ever you want, in a better year Santorum would have won, he is a good fundraiser, he is a terrific campaigner, it just wasn't his time, don't be surprised if he has a big comeback soon!

'Afghanistan is sinking back into chaos and repression, especially in the Southern reaches where weak warlords and complicit officials have allowed the Taliban to retake power in exchange for some false sense of temporary stability as the repressive regime consolidates its stranglehold on the region and marches, ever onward, toward the prize of Kabul.

We gave our word when we invaded Afghanistan that the Taliban would be routed and that the repressive regime would be lifted so that young girls in the country would have a life outside layers and layers of forced cloth, so that they could have the hope of an education and some semblence of a potential future that allowed for them to make some choices about its course. We gave our word.

This is what we have today:

Clutching scarves nervously around their faces, the women whispered details of Taliban atrocities taking place in their native Helmand province: A translator's body found in a sack, carved into pieces. A police officer taken hostage, blinded and garroted with wire. A woman shot and hanged by her thumbs.

"All of our lives are in danger now. Our schools are shut, and anyone who works for the government is branded as an infidel," said Ma Gul, 52, a teacher who traveled to the capital this week with 20 other women from Greshk, a town in Helmand 300 miles south, to demand better protection and the removal of weak regional officials.'

--this is where republican 'leadership' has gotten us.

Forgot one-

tie #3 Louisiana
Mary Landrieu 53% approval; net +10%
Depending on pending Democratic agenda on Katrina relief, Landrieu is vulnerable or very vulnerable. Much will depend on the relief package that gets passed as well as the outcome of the Governor's race.

#1 Colorado
Wayne Allard (R)42% approval; net -4%

Colorado has a new Democratic governor and Congress2%man. The state has had a recent influx of new residents from the east, represenative of the recent Mountain Blue wave.

#2 Oklahoma
James Inholfe (R)40% approval; net -9%
If Henry does run, this will be an old west shootout.

#3 Oregon
Gordon Smith(R) 50% approval; net +11%
Traditionally Democratic territory, the re-election of an embattled Democratic Governor is proof that Smith needs something to hang his hat on or he will be hanging it back home.

#4 New Hampshire
John Sununu 52% approval; net +11%
With a Dem governor and two new Democratic congress members, Sununu is the remenant of the GOP in NH. Strong name may not be enough to survive in 2008.

#5 Tennessee
Lamar Alexander 46% approval; net +3%
A Democratic governor and a knock down in this years Senate race makes the Junior Senator who has been hidden in Frists shadow vulnerable. Gov Bredesen or Harold Ford could mount serious challenges for this seat. Bredesen is angling higher but may settle back for this seat, leaving Ford a contender for Governor.

Others to watch:
MN, KS, MI, IL, NJ

If there are retirements, these could come into play:
NM, IA, SD, VA

I just don't know what to say, Sgt. Mcdonald, if this is true... have you a militaary or civilian lawyer? Are you allowed to present evidence to defend yourself?

Is there anything anyone can do to help you?

The Joke is on a nation 11-20-06
Peter Macdonald 465 Packersfalls rd Lee NH 03824
603-659-6217
You the people that never served in our military just don't get it. John Kerry's as you call it "botched joke" is the truth. Only if you had been there, would you have any understanding why Kerry is one of many United States citizens that every one should be proud of. You the people that never served make fun of Kerry's military record. This is a man whom took combat injury for your freedom. It does not matter if you agree with the circumstances or not. This is a kid whom became a veteran under the worst circumstances you could ever imagine. Would Kerry make a good president. I do not know. He would sure make a better one than is in office now. Bush used presidential connections when it was his turn to go to Vietnam. Today he goes as president of a country that he was afraid to defend.
A NH governor had me arrested as a terrorist under the Patriot act. I lost my freedom for 6 months before the bogus charges were dropped. Our NH governor and politicians never served in our military. When taken my freedom did not stop my free speech, NH had my Veterans pension stopped. NH informed the VA that I was a terrorist to destroy a 100% disabled veterans (from the Vietnam era's) health to stop his free speech. I have been left to die. We have a nation of government officials whom never served destroying veterans character because you whom never served in our military just don't get it. I gave my life for our country many years ago. I was 17 when I joined the Marine Corps. John Kerry's joke about kids in our military was the truth. Can you grasp what it is like to kill another human being. Can you grasp what it is like to know every second of every day is your last. Can you grasp what it is like to become complacent with death, just to protect those that are there with you. You as people that never served will ever understand. You as a nation of people that never served left a veteran to die.
Peter Macdonald Sgt USMC "Semper Fi"

'You should beware of your neighbors. Yes. They are more dangerous than all the terrorists in the world. Like the neighbors we had that believed in the war when it happened...went along with everything...and then slowly disappeared when it was over. The neighbors who could not see you when you were suffering.

This is what wars do. They do not end on the battlefield. They destroy people. People who once could see nothing wrong with a neighbor suddenly see a racially impure thing. War creates hates and destroys long after the bombs have stopped falling. Look at America now.

Openly hating Gay people, calling war heroes cowards, questioning the authenticity of science itself and the advice of reasonable people. This is the punishment war wreaks on those who wage it. It creates a lower quality citizen. One inured to cruelty and or their own mistakes. Americans all around who have never been out of the country lecture me on foreign policy because they have just had a primer from Rush Limbaugh or that O'Reilly fool.

The only county in the whole world where one third of the population thinks Bush is a good president is the United States. It is that one third that will happily stand by if you are beaten. It is that one third of the country that will piss on laws and tell lies, all because they believe they are acting to protect something higher than law. The other day a reporter or a pundit asked a Muslim congressman to prove he wasn't a terrorist.

That is what war does. It creates bigots. It destroys brain cells. It burns reason to a crisp. Every explosion results in resentments.'

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/19/2197/7942

Without additional troops to ensure victory in Iraq, the U.S. could be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home, Republican Sen. John McCain said Sunday.
--mccain now the official spokesmouth for all deranged, delusional hard-right memes:

'McCain, a front-running GOP presidential hopeful for 2008, said the U.S. must send an overwhelming number of troops to stabilize Iraq or face more attacks -- in the region and possibly on American soil.

"I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic," said McCain, R-Arizona. "It will spread to the region. You will see Iran more emboldened. Eventually, you could see Iran pose a greater threat to the state of Israel.'

Wow, he's pandering so fast he's even moved to the right of dick cheney. didn't know there WAS much space on the edge.

Moshe-- run Santorum! Please! Again and again. His campaign was great comic relief. The man is precious--the king of K St. Why not run Abramoff and Cunningham too?

From the lips of god:

'LONDON, Nov. 19 -- Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger told the British Broadcasting Corp. on Sunday.

Kissinger presented a bleak vision, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's neighbors -- including Iran -- if progress is to be made.

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he said'

Does this calculation, that the Dems have a very good chance of increasing their majority in '08, mean that Lieberman will hesitate before bucking the Dems in the next session? If you're right, Lieberman should realize he can't offend the coming majority or risk being marginalized starting in '08.

Nor'Easter. forgive the post above. I dsahed it off after reading only the first paragraph of your post. You are, of course, correct on the history. I also didn't mean to post under your name. I spaced out and put the greeting in the author blank, sorry.

I went off half-cocked. I was in a hurry, my girlfriend says I spend way too much time on the computer and she's got me on a timer. I love her though.

Conan the Librarian,

It's an excellent idea, but I don't think he is ready for another race yet.

Your knowledge of Vietnam war history needs some filling in. The cut-off of funds for Vietnam came AFTER US troops left Vietnam. In the summer of 1972 the last combat maneuver battalions left Vietnam under a withdrawal initiative begun in 1969 by the Nixon administration. The remainder of U.S. forces left in the spring of 1973 after the Paris peace accords were signed.

Congress cut the purse-strings after U.S. troops were gone. What they did was cut support to the South Vietnamese government, not to American troops in the field.

I was one of those troops. I was a medic with an infantry unit (1/46th Inf, 196th Light Infantry Brigade, Americal Division) in 1969 and 1970. I've also collected a small library on the history of the war.

Congress will never cut funding to American troops in the field during war. Never have, never will.

I recommend a couple of good books. Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A history," It was written without the benefit of the declassification of military Vietnam records in 1994. But it remains a good, short, nutshell history of the war.

If you want a good study of the troop withdrawal period from 1969 through 1973, read "A Better War," by Lewis Sorley. There are, of course, many fine books about the war. But these two would be a good start for you.

Here's a long shot candidate for the 2008 U.S. Senate in Virginia -- Rick Santorum.

Okay, stop laughing and let me explain. RS is a political creature; he needs the poltical atmosphere as much as he needs oxygen.

RS is much more politically attuned to Virginia's politics than Pennsylvania's. A large chunk of GOP voters here in the Keystone State are Rockefeller Republicans and RS certainly isnt one of those Republicans.

One of the key issues in the 2006 Senate race in Pennsylvania was Santorum's residence. He and Karen and the children can keep the house in Falls Church and not have to worry about pesky reporters nosying around his house.

It is something to think about...

I would like to add one more thing, there was an ABC News report out, that the FBI is investigating 6 to 8 democratic senators, if Baucus is one of them, (and there have been reports that he had ties to Jack Abramoff) he could go down the same as Burns want down. And you don't know how well the dams are going to perform the next tow years.

Steve, we all hate him because he loves pork; remember in his state it makes him safer. And the democrats won't even go after him.

Moshe, Ted Stevens could be the only Republican besides Frank Murkowski that could put that seat INTO play.

Alan brings up a good point with Idaho. And I see that seat as being more vulnerable to a switch than either Montana or South Dakota for a few reasons:

1) Larry Craig has never been particularly well liked in Idaho. His recent news with him supposedly having some gay skeletons in his closet will sink him in Idaho if there is any truth at all to it.

2) Montana just had a divisive Senate campaign. There are no big name Republicans who want to wreck their careers on a race against Baucus that they cannot win.

3) South Dakota as a state does not have the stomach for another year like 02 or 04. Frankly Thune is more vulnerable in 2010 than Johnson or if he retires Herseth would be in 08. Rounds does not have the same cachet in the state that Thune did. He's from Pierre, so he doesn't have the natural power base in the western part of the state that Thune did, nor does he have wide ranging support along the I29 corridor where most of the rest of the votes are.

Frankly mountainwest and northern plains voters are just as likely to trend more towards independent the more that the southern Evangelicals assert themselves in the national GOP. Wyoming is not just like Alabama. It is old style libertarian Republicanism, not the new style stuff. ID and UT will probably stay reasonably safely GOP because of the LDS values voters, but there are some potential downfalls there:

1) Evangelicals could start making some real fratricidal noise if Mitt Romney looks like a strong candidate in 08, and the result could be very damaging to the GOP and open up UT and ID.

2) Evangelicals don't consider Mormons to be Christians. If that plays out in the nominating race in 2008, it could also complicate Craig's reelection in ID.

But for the rest of the mountain west, where stay out of my business is the rallying cry, I don't think that the GOPs stewardship on economic issues, nor their hard right values voting has done them any favors.

Steve

I have some advice for the new NRSC chair, there was an article in the NY MAG some time ago, how Chuck Schumer strategy works. The first thing he did was to minimize the retirements, and then he made sure that the incumbents that are in bad shape are out (like Dayton in MN). Sen. Ensign, go read it! Take some advice, make sure none of your safe incumbents are retiring, like Stevens did last week and announced that he is running again, thanks Senator; you took out another seat from the game. Now go raise some cash for your colleges!!!

There is a new battle between the republicans in the senate, Senator Warner wants to be ranking member on the EPW committee, and I think if he gets it (I don't think he will) he will not retire.

Time will tall!

While Murtha may be an imperfect individual, Hoyers imperfections are systemic. The Marylander who served as minority whip before the election is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the insider Democrats of Washington: He votes right on just enough issues to keep in the good graces of Democratic special-interest groups. But he votes wrong on just enough economic issues to keep the doors of corporate America open to his fund-raising appeals. The sly strategy has worked for Hoyer -- Public Citizen rated the Maryland congressman as the "most dependent on special-interest money" in the House and ranked him fifth out of the 433 members reviewed for contributions received from lobbyists.

In the critical measure of who gets money from corporate political action committees, Hoyer beats Murtha 2-1. Why?

Where Murtha could point to a consistent record of standing up to Wall Street on the most fundamental of economic issues, trade policy, Hoyer's record is one of abandoning the interests of workers, communities and the environment in order to meet the demands of multinational corporations and their lobbying groups. Even when human rights groups pleaded with Congress not to award permanent most-favored-nation trading status to China, Hoyer broke with most Democrats to back the move. In fact, Hoyer was the highest ranking Democrat in the House to support the shift. He also backed the North America Free Trade Act and other trade deals that most Democrats -- including Murtha -- opposed.

Where Murtha made his name by challenging the neo-conservative consensus on the war in Iraq in particular and foreign policy in general, Hoyer criticized his colleague for taking a stand, saying doing so "could lead to disaster."

Where Murtha defined the issues on which Democrats won in 2OO6, Hoyer was an anonymous backroom operative.

Nancy Pelosi knew that.

She backed the better contender for the majority leader post.

A blood-coagulating drug designed to treat rare forms of hemophilia is being used on critically wounded U.S. troops in Iraq despite evidence that it can cause clots that lead to strokes, heart attacks and death in other patients, The Baltimore Sun reported today.

Recombinant Activated Factor VII, which is made by Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk, is approved in the U.S. for treating forms of hemophilia that affect fewer than 3,000 Americans. It costs $6,000 a dose.

The Food and Drug Administration said in December that giving Factor VII to patients who don't have the blood disorder could cause strokes and heart attacks. Its researchers published a study in January blaming 43 deaths on clots that developed after injections of Factor VII.

"It's a completely irresponsible and inappropriate use of a very, very dangerous drug," said Dr. Jawed Fareed, director of the hemostasis and thrombosis research program at Loyola University in Chicago.

--hey, how much you want to bet Donald Rumsefeld has stock in this company, just like he does in the useless [and harmful] drug the military uses, Tamiflu, and the deadly and ineffective anthrax vaccine...remember, he was a pharmaceutical executive.

The media feeding frenzy to destroy nancy Pelosi happened at record speed. They couldn't even wait until she takes office. The 'libural media' hates Democrats so much they're all dizzy with being able to criticize them agian.

Remember how Bush and his minions made one club-footed blunder afther another, and the press still licked their boots? But let the Democrats have a debate over leadership and the press goes crazy...

'She followed up her victory with a self-defeating blunder. Now people are asking, Is Pelosi up to the job?�'

Bush kills 2000 of our own people in Iraq, in one of the stupidest, most malevolent mistakes in history, but the press never bothers to ask, is he up to the job, do they?

But then, what we have now is not journalism, but barnum and bailey entertainment. We live in the Age of Suckers.

Your fogot the most significant fact-- the death toll. The Vietnam War cost the United States 58,000 lives and 35,0000 casualties. It also resulted in between one and two million Vietnamese deaths.

And what did it change? Absoluutely nothing. As if it never haqppened. Same as Iraq. We got rid of one military strongman and in the end we'll bring in another. Yet another chapter in a long history of repeating the same mistakes, deja vu over an over agian.

Alan in Missoula: I agree with you, but just want to use two quotes from your post above: "Congress controlls the money, but no congress is going to cut funds to US troops in the field."

"But the Democrats can't impose a new Iraq strategy on Bush."

Pat Buchanan as a talking head on TV, and forever a Nixon apologist, regularly says that the reason we "lost" in VietNam was that the Democrat controlled Congress cut-off funding for the War there. Now I'm seeing others saying that also; without putting it into the larger context of that war.

The danger is that 30 years later, somebody who wouldn't know any better may actually believe that.

By the time that happened, we had been in VietNam for almost 20 years, had been there "in force" since 1965, and had drawn down U. S. forces beginning in July 1969 while Nixon was President. [Also, Nixon's Secretary of State had declared "Peace is at Hand!" just two weeks before the 1972 election.] Yet three years later we were still paying for the war.

That Democratic Congress simply said, "Enough is enough."

When that U. S. Congress cut funding it simply accellerated the inevitable fall of a corrupt government. Make that endless multiple corrupt governments.

Another thought on Baucus and the 2008 election. I predict Montana Senate GOP minority leader Dan Keenan will be Baucus' opponent in 2008.

Keenan challenged Burns in the 2006 Primary over the ethics issue. He's more doctrinaire conservative than Burns. He did get nearly a third of the Republican vote, which is rare in a primary against a sitting incumbant.

He then mended fences with the party by being prominent in two Burns ads in the general election, one a ringing endorsement of Burns and the other a caustic anti-Tester ad.

Keenan has the bug. He took on an impossible challenge to an incumbant fellow Republican this past election.

I believe he will be the GOP nominee for the Mopntana US Senate seat in 2008.

MikeB:

You show a fundamental misunderstanding of how US government works. Democrats might have taken responsibility for the things you say IF we had a parliamentary form of government. In that system, the legislative leadership and executive branch are one and the same.

But in the US, those branches are separate and distinct. You should know that from recent history. In the near 38 years since Nixon's presidency began in 1969 the President and Congress have been, for 20 years controlled by different parties. In eight years, the control of Congress was split between the parties. In only 10 of those years, four for Carter, two for Clinton and four for GW Bush, did one party control both branches.

The President is the commander in chief of the armed forces. A Democratic Congress can no more take over the management of the war from Bush than the Republican Congress could take over the running of Clinton's military initiatives in the Balkans.

We maintain a large standing military force. The President has the power to order them to go anywhere, and keep them anywhere. Congress controlls the money, but no congress is going to cut funds to US troops in the field.

At most Congress can provide the oversight the Republicans refused to do for some of the war spending, in particular those highly suspicious no-bid contracts to Halliburton and others. Are you aware the US government pays private security forces, with it's members drawing six-fiqure incomes, tax-free, to guard facilities in Iraq? Just compare that to the pay a soldier or marine gets to do the same work.

But the Democrats can't impose a new Iraq strategy on Bush.

Likewise the Democrats can take new economic initiatives, but they are subject to Bush's veto, which will be used often, I assume, now that the other party controls Congress.

Your statement that responsibility falls to the Democrats will be more appropriate after the 2008 election, when the Democrats will have the presidency and a much firmer control of Congress.

The GOP appears to have painted themselves into an ideological corner, quite literally, in the south eastern United States, the old Confederacy. They will be hard-pressed to hold on to the few seats left in New England, as well as many of those in the inland West.

In 70 percent GOP-registered Wyoming, GOP representative Barbara Cubin barely held on to her seat this year. The same was true in Idaho.

There is a strong move for the center in the Democratic Party. The Democratic left will not fight it this time, as they did against Carter and Clinton, because they finally believe that being in power is more important than being ideologically pure.

Odd we're already prepared for the 2008 elections. Doesn't our every-two-years fix last more than a week? Guess not.

I think the most interesting thing about this election was the decrease in Latino participation, which this paper has noted. But we shouldn't assume it's only because of the Republicans. The Democrats have to be careful to avoid turning off Latinos as well.

http://stevenwhite.typepad.com/steven_white/2006/11/2006_or_2008_2_.html

um Chris? what happened to the new hampshire race? you mentioned it in the introduction, why wasn't one of the races you analyzed? i mean, after republicans completely got wiped off the map in new hampshire 10 days ago.

Interesting speculation on Baucus in Montana. But, there is actually no sign at all that Baucus is considering retirment. He has the Senate Finance Chair. He's the fourth Democrat in seniority. He's ready to have some fun.

The hard greens in the state don't like Baucus. Of course they don't like anyone who is not a wilderness purist. They are sort of like pro-lifers in that respect. The left wing of the party didn't like Baucus' position as a pragmatist who cut deals with the GOP majority on key votes. Yet Baucus was easily reelected in 2002.

But there is no serious primary challenger in the wings. Montana Demopcrats are mostly centerists. The hard left wing in Montana is not strong enough to control a primary. Plus, with his party now in the majority, Baucus will not be cutting deals with Republicans any time soon. But he is well-liked and can be persuasive with the few Republicans still considered somewhat moderate. That may put his star even higher.

In a general election race, Baucus is the kind of left-center Democrat the independent voters like. He will win by a landslide.

Rahberg will not jump to the Senate race for a long shot at Baucus. He wouldn't risk giving up his house seat for that. Were the seat to be open, though, he would be the obvious front runner for the GOP nomination.

Racicot left Montana for Washington D.C. eight years ago. He turned down the AG position in the Bush administration for a chance to make money with a big law firm (his previous law experience was all in the public sector, mostly as a prosecutor) He makes a big income with a large D.C. Law firm and is a player in national GOP politics. As others point out, he does have some serious political liabilities should he run here. The utility degregulation debacle is on his head because it was he that championed it.
Racicot did run some endorsement adds for Burns. That obviously didn't do the trick to pull Burns' fat out of the fire.

None of the two congressional races in 08 appear to be vulnerable. Republican Denny Rehberg has a considerable war chest left over. His opposition this past election was so weak that he barely campaigned. Some of the Democrats who hold statewide elective offices, such as Attorney General or Auditor could produce viable challengers to Rehberg that wouldn't have the uphill name-recognition factor Democratic challenger Monica Lindeen had this year. She still had polls showing a significant number in late polls that did not recognize her hame. If the AG or Auditor are challengers, they wouldn't have that problem and already have proven thier ability to raise funds statewide. (Lindeen, legislator, was so fund-starved she didn't get on TV until the final week). But neither will jump in the race unless Rehberg appears vulnerable.

So far it's not. Rehberg doesn't have big negatives. Burns was so devisive that the was a stong core of visceral hate against him by Democrats. Rehberg, though a predictable conservative vote and certainly no moderate, is affable and does not generate the kind of anti-vote Burns did. It may be a cliche, but in Montana many vote just because they "like the man." As with everywhere else, the people that decide elections aren't the hard core ideologues left or right. Montana is an open primary state so we don't really have a count of who affiliates Democrat or Republican. Mt stricly anectdotal view is that most would call themselves independent.

Unless something bad happens to Baucus or Rehberg, I don't expect Montana to draw much national focus in the 08 congressional races.

Drindl, I thought Meese (now serving on the Iraq commission!) was about the worst AG ever, followed closely by Ashcroft.

But, with Gonzales shredding the Constitution, not enforcing selected laws.... unless they involve prosecuting our border guards trying to apprehand a drug runner, and formenting ways to legally torture his fellow man, I almost pine for Ashcroft and Meese.

The "grave threat" to our nation is the arrogant Bush administration.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

How you destroy the Constitution:

'Attorney General Alberto Gonzales contended Saturday that some critics of the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program were defining freedom in a way that presents a "grave threat" to U.S. security.'

Yes, freedom of speech is a 'grave threat' to U.S. security... I'm sure the Founders would agree, aren't you?

Perhaps if the 'librul media' could stop piling on Nancy Pelosi for 5 minutes [they are partying like it was 1999--isn't it funny how if Dems lose they beat up on them and fawn on R's, and if Dems win, they STILL beat up on them and fawn on R's]. The real story is that R's intend to continue doing exactly what they have been:

'After an electoral shellacking widely seen as a message for change in Washington, House Republicans on Friday decided to stick with much the same leadership team as they adjusted to becoming the chamber's minority.

The GOP lawmakers elected Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio as minority leader and Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri as minority whip, rejecting challenges to each by conservatives.'

And FYI Mike B, bush intends to send even more troops to Iraq--no matter what anybody says. He's won't ever leave. What do you think should be done about that?

If John Warner (R-VA) decides to retire isn't it a slam-dunk that Macaca Allen will be his annointed replacement. After all, Warner showed up and more than raised-the-flag for Allen at his concession speech, he made it clear that Allen was his political son.

"Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) is chomping at the bit to run but may not have the primary field to himself as a more conservative candidate could well jump in...." well, duh, Allen. He's toast nationally, but if he does a McCain-style mea culpa Allen might rise like Lazarus in 2008.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

If I were Chuck Schumer, I would recruit the strongest challengers (such as Mark Warner for VA and Bill Richardson for NM) quickly, and get them raising a lot of money quickly. I mean this especially in the seats with possible republican retirements. If these republicans are faced with strong, well funded challengers, and the likelihood of not being in the majority after the election, they may be more inclined to retire.

Tim Johnson "only" has $651,000 in campaign cash right now? Do you know how far $651,000 goes in South Dakota? TV time is incredibly cheap in SD. :-)

Wow! News to me in Montana.

I read that "Former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot is Republicans' dream candidate
(to challenge Max Baucus) but seems unlikely to rejoin the partisan fray."

I hate to intrude but Marc couldn't get elected to the local state legislature
in today's Big Sky. If he ran he would be
beaten in the Republican primary.

After his last public appearance in Montana
nearly a year ago, all Marc did was whine about the press picking on him.

But he did his crying after he ran home to D.C. and has not been back since.

And for good reason. Marc and the Montana calamity of utility regulation could be one word. And that Racicot sponsored disaster isn't getting any better.

Max Baucus would love to run against Racicot, a dream candidate but for Max and the Democrats.

Brian Schweitzer would also love to see Marc run. What a fertile field for Schweitzer one-liners would the hapless
Marc be for the guy that sets the tone in the state.

Anybody that knows anything about Montana knows that

Also - there is a first time for everything, like reading that Max is slightly too liberal for Montana
Democrats.

I am a Montana Democrat, have lived
here all my 66 years and smile when I
read humbug like that. It's alright to
miss but not by ten miles.

Jackie Corr, Butte, Montana

TWO WORDS AND A SUFFIX FOR 2008: Harold Ford, Jr.

With Lamar Alexander currently drawing approval ratings of 46% -- and minority status making it more difficult to bring home the bacon -- Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. might want to take another shot at the upper chamber.

Peter S. Cohl
The Political Brandwagon
http://www.politicalbrandwagon.com

If the Democratic wave continues Dan Mongiardo may have a shot at McConnell.

Rob
http://robwire.com

"That ugly little war in Iraq is now the property of the Democrats."

Bush is now a Democrat?

The '08 presidential race will be the major determining factor inSenate and House elections. Turnout is key. A McCain/Hillary battle will draw voters to GOP moderates, while a more conservative GOP nominee will, if the current moderate-friendly atmosphere holds until then, drive voters to the Dem candidate, surely more moderate than a Romney or Gingrich. Rudy shuffles all the cards.

Anyone hear the latest on Al Gore?
http://www.polibuzz.blogspot.com/
Dick Morris is seriously chatting up Al's 2008 chances. He does have his DVD release soon. Maybe that is the right platform to launch a bid.

There is a concerted effort to appear interested as they fix their sights on "what now,"

remember, they _are_ politicians, not leaders......

they don't have years of leading projects and getting things done, they have years of cutting deals, and getting paid.

you want them to lead correctly? You will have to feed them what they need to know... You are a cogent poster with a personal issue in Iraq. Talk to the crowd and tell your story....don't go off in a huff.

Repeat what has happened in your family regarding your child in Iraq. Do it here. Want to set the tone to get results, focus, and present.

Chris Cillizza, I watch you all the time on Hardball as well as other shows and you're a genious. I don't see Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) on here. Lautenberg doesn't seem very popular. I'm willing to bet State Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. will run again, and if Gov. Corzine loses yet more popularity, Kean can win. In '08, the GOP will fight for any potential pickup due to having so many seats to defend. Only the political landscape in '08 will likely be much more neutral than it was this year,especially after the Democrats get their chance to screw up a little(or a lot). I think this may one seat the GOP picks up, which I think will be counterbalanced by what I expect to be a likely Democratic pickup in Colorado.

THe '08 presidential race will be the major determining factor inSenate and House elections. Turnout is key. A McCain/Hillary battle will draw voters to GOP moderates, while a more conservative GOP nominee will, if the current moderate-friendly atmosphere holds until then, drive voters to the Dem candidate, surely more moderate than a Romney or Gingrich. Rudy shuffles all the cards.

Anyone hear the latest on Al Gore?
www.polibuzz.blogspot.com
Dick Morris is seriously chatting up his 2008 chances. He does have his DVD release soon. Maybe that is the right platform to launch a bid.

Rob, I agree with your points. Those stances are not popular with me, but I understand they are with many Americans. It will be interesting to see what happens after the implosion of the NH Republican party. My opinion is that they (especially Bass) ran poor campaigns and didn't talk at all (as most Republicans failed to do) about the fiscal conservativism thing. Running in a presidential year might be even harder for a Republican, although NH did vote for Bush in 2000 and he only lost it in 2004 by 1 percent.

It will really be interesting to see who the Republicans nominate and how this affects the Maine/NH Senate races and many House races where NE Republicans moderates lost. Out of Rudy, McCain and Romney, all are either moderates or represent the NE.

I have been off, surfing the news sites all day, and seeing what the newly elected Democratic majority is up to. Instead of working to get us out of Iraq and fix the offshoring-outsourcing mess, I see every sort of oddball group claiming that they are the reason for the victory. ANd the party leftists are going along with it. SO the Democratic agenda appears to be gay rights, abortion protections, legal status for the 24 million illegals, gun control, tax increases on *everybody* and a whole host of ill conceived and just plain nutty "goodies" for the left. This, of course, will guarrantee that they will not only loose the next Congressional elections but any Democratic candidate can kiss the Hitehouse good-bye. Leave it to the left wing nuts to hijack the votes of the majority of Americn's. *WE* voted for moderates, to get out of Iraq, to end outsourcing, and end "guest worker" programs. Instead, these twits appear to be doing everything but what they were elected to do. What a disappointment.

I pu it to the liberals here, start writing letters. That ugly little war in Iraq is now the property of the Democrats. So is the massive unemployment and certain economic mess resulting from any sort of amnesty, for not ending outsourcing, for not putting limits on guest workers. If the economy simply goes to hell, now it's THEIR FAULT.

that the WashingtonPost seems to put up articles that don't have comments sections after them regarding the Corrupt Executive Branch as in the Ann Flaherty articles about GATES, and the Iran Contra scandal attached to him,

as if they didn't want the publick to get wise.......

but I'm shure that is just my imagination, just like I'm shure that my werk probably doesn't irritate the spin casters...
.

washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog
About This Blog | Meet Chris Cillizza | RSS Feed (What's RSS?)
The Friday Line: A Way Early Look at the '08 Senate Races
The Fix is nothing if not forward-looking. With the 2006 election now 10 days past, it's time to begin handicapping the races to come in 2008.

We'll begin today by looking at the 10 most competitive Senate races, with a post next week on the 10 biggest House targets.

A cursory evaluation of the 2008 Senate playing field shows Democrats seemingly well-positioned to build on their 51-seat majority. Of the 33 seats up for reelection, just 12 are held by Democrats. And of those 12, only two Democratic incumbents received less than 54 percent of the vote in 2002 -- Sens. Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Mary Landrieu (La.). Johnson took 50 percent in his victory over John Thune (who went on to beat Tom Daschle two years later), while Landrieu won a December runoff against Republican Suzie Haik Terrell with 52 percent of the vote.

Republicans must defend 22 seats and have more obvious vulnerabilities. At first glance, just three GOP senators -- Norm Coleman (Minn.), John Sununu (N.H.) and Wayne Allard (Colo.) -- look vulnerable, as each won in 2002 with less than 54 percent of the vote. But the complicating factor for Republicans is that there are a number of rumored retirements that may come before 2008, creating more open-seat opportunities for Democrats. GOP incumbents on the retirement watch list include Allard, as well as Thad Cochran (Miss.), Pete Domenici (N.M.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Jim Inhofe (Okla.) and John Warner (Va.).

For the first Senate Line of the '08 cycle, we have decided not to rank the races from most likely to switch parties to least. With so many potential retirements and so few candidates actually declared for these races, it's too tough to rank vulnerability just yet. So the races are listed alphabetically -- for now.

To the Line!

Colorado -- Wayne Allard (R): Allard has yet to make a decision on whether he will run for a third term in 2006. He had previously pledged to serve just two terms, and his meager campaign cash balance -- $119,000 -- seems to suggest he will keep that oath. Regardless of whether Allard runs, Democratic Rep. Mark Udall is in the race and is the likely frontrunner; he showed more than $1.2 million on hand just prior to this month's election. Another name mentioned is Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, but after his long -- and ultimately unsatisfying -- flirtation with the 2006 governor's race, we aren't waiting with bated breath. Should Allard step aside, expect former GOP Reps. Scot McInnis and Bob Schaeffer to look seriously at running. Former Gov. Bill Owens's name will also be mentioned but that seems like a longshot at the moment. Given Democrats' gains in the last two cycles in Colorado -- picking up two House seats, a Senate seat and the governorship -- this will be one of the marquee races of the cycle.

Louisiana -- Mary Landrieu (D): For the next year, NO ONE in Louisiana will pay attention to this race. Why? Because all eyes will be focused on Gov. Kathleen Blanco's (D) reelection race, which is likely to wind up being a rematch against Rep. Bobby Jindal (R). Blanco eked out a win in 2003, but her handling of hurricane recovery has cast major doubts on her chances to win a second term. Once the governor's race concludes next November, the focus will finally turn to the Senate race. That delay should accrue to Landrieu's advantage, as she can spend this year stockpiling funds in hopes of scaring away a potential rival. Should Jindal lose to Blanco, he would be an obvious choice to challenge Landrieu. And Republican Reps. Jim McCrery and Richard Baker -- newly minted members of the House minority -- may also be more open to a statewide bid than in years past. Regardless of the Republican nominee, the demographics of Louisiana ensure this will be a very close contest.

Massachusetts -- John Kerry (D): "If" is the operative word in this race. IF Kerry decides to run for president in 2008 and IF he gives up his seat to do so, then we will see a historic free-for-all among Democrats for the right to replace him. Reps. Marty Meehan, Barney Frank, Stephen Lynch and Ed Markey have all made clear they are interest in a Senate bid and have been squirreling away hundreds of thousands of dollars in their House accounts to be used to jumpstart a Senate race. Meehan is the leader of that pack with nearly $5 million in the bank, but it's unlikely that even that large a warchest will scare away other potential competitors. No Republican names have been floated; outgoing Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey's (R) dismal showing this fall in the governor's race may serve as a deterrent to other ambitious GOPers in this ultimate blue state.

Minnesota -- Norm Coleman (R): Coleman is the Republican that Democrats love to hate. Maybe it's because he was a former Democrat, maybe because he pulled off an unlikely victory over Walter Mondale in 2002 following the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone (D). Whatever the reason, beating Coleman will be a high priority for Democrats in 2008. Comedian Al Franken (D) has long insisted he will challenge Coleman, but it remains to be seen whether the entertainer will follow through on his boast. National Democrats may be hoping that he stays out, as a figure as divisive as Franken could well ensure Coleman a second term. A number of other Democrats have been mentioned: Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, Rep. Betty McCollum, wealthy attorney Mike Ciresi and 2006 gubernatorial nominee Mike Hatch. Coleman is bracing for a fight; he had $1.8 million on hand at the end of September.

Mississippi -- Thad Cochran (R): This race is on the Line as long as Cochran continues to mull the possibility of retirement. No longer the chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, Cochran is not expected to make a decision any time soon. But the $351,000 in his campaign account should be somewhat worrisome for Senate GOPers. If Cochran does leave, Rep. Chip Pickering (R), who was ready to run in 2004 if Sen. Trent Lott (R) had stepped aside, would be the GOP frontrunner. Democrats' preferred candidate is former state Attorney General Mike Moore, who may be the only one who could win this seat in GOP-friendly Mississippi (Moore gained national prominence in the '90s for leading the fight against the tobacco companies). If Cochran decides to seek a 6th term, he wins.

Montana -- Max Baucus (D): Despite the recent Democratic gains in the state, Baucus will still likely be a marked man in 2008. Montana voters went for President Bush by 20 points in 2004 and nearly handed Sen. Conrad Burns (R) a win last week in spite of his numerous verbal gaffes. Democrats have always privately fretted that Baucus is slightly too liberal for the state, but he has managed to hold the seat for the past 28 years. Much of Baucus's vulnerability rests on whether or not Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) decides to run. Rehberg challenged Baucus in 1996 and lost 50 percent to 45 percent; he was elected to the state's at-large House seat four years later. Rehberg has said publicly that he will not challenge Baucus, but he is likely to come under considerable pressure to do so. And while he currently holds a seat on the Appropriations Committee, Rehberg may well lose it in the Democratic-controlled 110th Congress -- a potentially powerful impetus to take a flyer on a statewide bid. Former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot is Republicans' dream candidate but seems unlikely to rejoin the partisan fray.
___________________________________________
Democrats may fret MT is too republican but I have never heard any of them say that Max Baucus is too liberal. Frequently it's said that he is given too much power considering how he helped bush pass a lot of tax cuts and the faulty medicare benifit.

LA will definatly be the hardest seat for dems barring retirment. You left of NH and OR which will probably be among the most contested seats.

to the cogent observer is,

the terrorist threat isn't.

at least as far as the administration is concerned....

any ordinary citizen can reach that conclusion, or think about this, what were the presidential recommendations following 911 for personal security?

plastic sheeting and duct tape.

and the 911 Commision report said that there were no_real_security measures taken post 911, unless you call planes flying and code orange or red alerts measures, 12 to 20 Million Illegal aliens are further proof of no border protection.

.

Chris: Experts, at least those quoted for general public purposes, all say that there are gaping security weaknesses in our transportation systems beyond the just airlines; the ports being a prime example. As importantly, no experts were offering a counter opinion that the ports were indeed safe.

So, I don't think that it was Xenophobic to react. I've had a problem that port security wasn't being addressed anyway; and I wouldn't care if it was the Canadians who would be running the ports. Until some specific attention is paid to port security, even those run by U. S. companies are just as big a threat.

That's what bothers me.

Reducing a poor level of control when nothing was being done to mitigate the problems had me saying "Don't do it."

spinners don't want that exposed, that is tedious...donchoo think?

seems like labeling is easier than thinking, xenophobia...

and I gues s you spoke up in favor of homophobia too?.

I'm glad the Dubai ports deal went through. That xenophobia displayed by the country was absolutely horrible.

yes i know about reid. we've heard. dems are afraid of being labeled obstructionists. well, you know what? they should obstruct when it's stupid. but no. this is DC and everyone has to play their assigned kabuki roles. i give up.

Is that Rep. Chip Pickering the movie star of "Borat" ??
You bet your life it is...
In the scene at the Fundamentalist Revival meeting, there's Rep. Pickering up on the stage giving whitness, along with the ministers.

'stream of conciousness?' did the dam burst? you're condescension is rather tedious.

Reid told The Associated Press that a top priority for the remainder of the lame-duck session will be confirming Gates. "The sooner we can move it forward the sooner we can get rid of Rumsfeld," he said.

*sigh* Chris...I can't deal with this. I can't live in a perpetual campaign anymore. We have no idea what is going to happen in the next two years. We act like this all functions in a vacuum but it doesn't. I'm going back to sleep. Wake me up about all this 2008 business in, well, why not 2007 for starters????

I would not be so sure that Baucus will run again in 2008, nor would I count on his even being able to win a primary race against a decent candidate (not sure who at this point, but there is a vulnerability there...). In truth, many Montana Democrats have expressed discomfort for Senator Baucus's position on a number of issues in the last year and if something doesn't change, that dissatisfaction could easily translate into a vulnerability.

That said, Senator Baucus does enjoy a large general approval rating and with the loss of seniority of the defeated Burns, Seniority will definitely be a voting issue in 2008.

Guessing from the outside: I bet Tim Johnson will run again unless it looks like there will be another campaign against him like there was last time. If it's true that no one besides Thune would be as strong an opponent, then Johnson sounds likely to run again. But I wouldn't blame him for taking a pass on rerun of 2002--that was awful.

That said, it would be cool for Stephanie Herseth to get a promotion to Senator already--she's a total star in the making.

can't e en spell is more effective isn'tit?

This will make you ballistic -- Mikeb. Did you know tht the Dubai ports deal went through? That they run 22 of our ports? That they staff them with unscreened illegal immigrants?

this is your Repulican party, keeping you safe.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info

http://www.democrats.com/node/11065

Dodd Moves Quickly to Neuter Bush's Torture Bill

With talk of a rapid minimum wage increase and the beginning of real Congressional oversight of the White House already promised when Democrats take over the Senate in January, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) will take another step in the right direction today. Dodd will introduce legislation to amend the recently-passed Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- aka the Bush Torture Bill, because of the powers of detention and prisoner abuse it affords George W. Bush -- in an attempt to make it look like a law that actually represents the United States we all know and love.

"We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror," Dodd said yesterday.

Dodd, an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act, will go to the Senate floor today to introduce the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act which will, according to Dodd's office, "...ensure that U.S. servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for