Go to the Cook Report: Cook is generous but he has 10 solidly Dem to 12 solidly Rep.....then 2 each likely for each party....meaning 12-14....then the divide comes

Rep have 2 leaning (Oregon in play and Maine probably a lock for Collins) while the Dems have one leaning, LA and Landrieu as the incumbent.

The gains will be where Cook has the toss ups....
CO, this should go Udall's way
MN, incumbent Coleman only has a 50% poll...could we see MN elect another complete political novice in Franken? I say yes.
NM, Domenici is scandal ridden with the US Attny...a purple state that is almost blue...say good bye Pete.
NH, Sununu and the old party name and loyalist is only at 51% REFORM REFORM!
ALASKA, talking about scandal and reform....got a bridge to nowhere Ted?

This is outside the wild card possibles of NC and Ms. Dole going down, or the replacement to Hagel or ID's "I am not Gay" Senator Craig.

The thing is the Dem's conceivably could pick up between 6-8 Senate seats and if the landscape changes or Obama forges in a Tsunami 8-10.

But understand that now they have 51-49 with Lieberman who is not really a Democrat anymore. Picking up 6 seats puts them at 56-44 with Joe going to the Red-Side permanently, 8 is 58-42 making things dangerous for the GOP.

The thing is whether the Dem's pick up another 30 plus seats in the Congres.....going above 260 where the GOP falls to below 170 is almost impossible to put in a monkey wretch in the process.

Posted at June 30, 2008 5:11 PM in response to Top GOPer Admits It's "Impossible" For Party To Take Back Senate

Sergeant First Class Wallace:

You are utterly "Nuts" (to quote Gen McAuliffe (of the 101st fame) regarding T-Givings pagents in "blue States" or "Red States" or even attempting to bait and chastise others from your keyboard with your highly prejudicial worldview. Ironically I have lived in all state categories----the deep Crimson Red of Indiana, the Lake Michigan Blue of Illinois, the perpetual battleground gray state of Wisconsin and now the Color Purple turning deep sky blue State of Colorado. Everyone has a T-Giving pagent or play---all use the theme of the Pilgrims lore---Christmas is celebrated by the dominant and majority throughout America, as is GOOD FRIDAY and the Christian Family Day known as New Years.

You are lost in your own cultural bias' as this nation moves on from the great divides of the 20th Century. We have no time this anymore, our problems are far more severe, where are looking at future famine, climate disasters like floods & great storms of our own makings, economics that are unstable because of outdated understandings and last the remnants of a bygone Oil-Economic Global Empire which you were a servant.

This is not a counter-culture schtick----it is a truth to be told. By the way....there is no universal Red or Blue State....just ask the folks in IN or IL who sit side by side....or NC & VA or CO & NM, but the blue tide of change is a coming and even you will be washed clean of that red stain of dividing.

Posted at June 30, 2008 4:27 PM in response to Obama's Patriotism Speech Stresses Life Story, Criticizes MoveOn

I watched David Inglisas (SIC) former US Attorney from NM on the Daily Show promoting his new book. The salient question Stewart asked was whether the higher ups were going to get their due? The former US Attorney said that a process will have to be employed not unlike how they busted up the MOB, (interesting metaphor) first going after the little fish and flipping them with serious prosecution and the working up the food chain.

Fitzgerald did this effectively in IL with the corrupt GOP and Gov Ryan's Governorship. Maybe we need to appoint Fitzgerald as a special prosecutor during the next Obama Administration to go through the entire Bush Presidency and find all the prosecutions to be had.

It might be appalling and politically disheartening to the Conservatives who have no Conscience, but it might be necessary to put America back on the high moral ground in the Global Community.

Posted at June 18, 2008 12:00 PM in response to Today's Must Read

More like when you had a group project in elementary school and it didn't go well...."I wanted to do it my way but the group didn't do it my way so we got a C. It was not my fault that I couldn't get along and figure out how to help the group do better."

Listen the bottom line is that results...Penn you admitted you didn't know the Party nomination rules on how delegates were earned, you didn't understand nor build caucus state strategies, you didn't have Plan B or C after Iowa or Super Tuesday.

We laughed at your organization in CO, now a top tier battleground state where you lost 70% to 30% with all your insiders.

Posted at June 12, 2008 11:35 AM in response to Mark Penn: I Wanted To Attack Obama More Aggressively, But Others On Campaign Held Me Back

It is more about timing and less about the delegate math right now. Obama is at 2071 (46 short), conceivably he will gain 19 delegates in Tuesday's primaries, leaving him 27 short. The Add-On superdelegates which are 35 remaining appear to conservatively fall 20-15 Obama's way (but that might mean waiting all the way to June 21st.

I say tomorrow 30 superdelegates line up, (6 from the Pelosi Club) and the 24 coming from the remaining 15.5 Senators and 49.5 Congressional delegates making MT and SD the crowning ending to the contest.

Furthermore the remaining 97 DNC and DPL's (and 6 Governors) will fold in with almost lock step between now and June 21st giving Obama an insurmountable majority at the Convention leaving Clinton nothing but a microphone.

Posted at June 1, 2008 11:33 PM in response to After Tuesday's Voting, Obama May Be Only 20 Delegates From Clinching Nomination

LisB:

I come from an almost homogeneous Republican family where I am the "Black Sheep" going back to my high school days. In fact my father will often describe me a "Demoooocrat" sarcastically as if whatever I say it is to be discounted. That even though some of his most respected friends and former colleagues are Democrats. My grandfather's were so rightwing that one truly said Roosevelt was a profane word and the other was so anti union that he equated any union member as a card carrying Soviet spy.

My six siblings are Republicans ranging from an independent leaning GOP'er to reactionary Texan Republican. That said this year my folks are voting for Obama. Why, because my father has stated that this Republican Party is not anything of his former Party. My mother says she too can trust Obama, is it his parent given name? Is it his biracial skin color? Is it that he has come up from the bootstraps of society to ascend to the top position in our society? Is it that he is a Democrat? All of the above.

When I challenged her what is it that you don't trust--she cannot or will not answer. My father says it is lack-of-admitting racism in this new era of anti racism, for trusting a black-american is tough, but your mother can't admit it.

My siblings don't like talking about politics for to them it is like talking about buying a lemon car, purchasing a home in the wrong school district, taking the wrong job or supporting the wrong sports team. They believed the Republican nonsense, the idea that the private sector will take care of healthcare benefits---then two of them lost their health coverage because of job loss. COBRA was more expensive than a house payment they couldn't afford. Another who is a public school teacher, but sent her children to parochial schools until her son needed special ed and the school said they couldn't take him.

They like what they hear, but now they don't like the exploitation. And that is what I tell them, feel and see the exploitation. What they finally don't like is the label, a label they have been fighting for years.

Posted at May 26, 2008 4:27 PM in response to A Day With My Republican Family

Could be, but if it was deliberate it was a worse calculation than the inevitable campaign strategy. Ironically I think her supporters are almost akin to loyalists in other countries.

Finally this morning I pinned the whole thing, Clinton and her coalition is always looking back and not forward.

Posted at May 24, 2008 2:25 PM in response to Assasination gaffe(?) or more like 'Freudian Slip' a peak into the soul of the Clinton campaign

Well here the deal as to one-sided, you want to join me, than it is under these terms. That is how things are chosen, they become part of a team.

Reports in the press (CNN)is now saying that if they don't get on the ticket they will split the party. This on top of using the assassination word as justification to stay in the race.

I think the Gov of NY is correct, Hillary campaign has befallen desperate land.

Posted at May 23, 2008 5:13 PM in response to Purely speculation but things making sense why SUPERS remain on the sidelines (Clinton VP negotiations)

I think that has played out to max. Political reality, MT and SD are going Obama, small states with few delegates. Puerto Rico although represented in the party does not vote in the general so there is no political consequence to making it an inconsequential beauty contest.

Sitting on the sidelines with the threat to Hillary that the 60 some in the Congress will endorse Obama in mass forces Hillary to the table. The thing is I bet the negotiations are almost all one-sided---these are terms take it or leave it.

Posted at May 23, 2008 11:20 AM in response to Purely speculation but things making sense why SUPERS remain on the sidelines (Clinton VP negotiations)

The war in Iraq is a great benchmark and highlights why 40 odd years ago how the Vietnam War was that generations flash point. The war (or invasion and overt conquering of Iraq) demonstrated clearly how the current Establishment (powers that be) had lost their relevancy, their legitimacy to rule effectively---and illustrated clearly the need for the 21st Century Conscience to come forward. This war of conquest is and was all about oil, a 20th century power commodity and core element in the 20th century industrial and financial society. Yet going forward when, not if, but when the new energy economy emerges, one that is decentralized and quite varied, oil will be greatly reduced as a critical commodity. Thus the cost to society, the human, financial, social and moral costs are being rejected for this kind of decision and demonstrated clearly that those who either allowed or promoted this war are irrelevant to leading the new century.

Clinton represented a tactical person who came forward saying she could best manage and lead the still 20th Century ways, while Obama has come forward---no we reject the 20th Century paradigm and think, it is done, it is not working and we have to find a new way, new paradigm, new worldview, new cooperative model domestically and abroad.

This stuff does not come easily or over night. The American Revolution did not come easily or overnight, it was seeded well before the French Indian Wars, it was seeded as the American Colonies became self-reliant and self-governing. The same came true with Lincoln and the Civil War, which was much more than merely saving the Union but reforming the Union into a new society. FDR's "New Deal" was not just a cabinet strategy or a catch phrase like a "thousand points of light", it was a pragmatic review of how the Federal Government was to be relevant in the 20th Century.

This is a big change year. And yes there are still those who are saying what about us. Appalachia is saying we were left behind in the 20th Century and we will not be left behind again. They look at a biracial considered Black American candidate as bring up the other left behinds, and not them as a tribal competitor. The issue is that the 21st Century cannot leave those left behind.

Posted at May 21, 2008 12:24 PM in response to How come Obama is actually winning.