Updated Weekly Senate Rankings (Hello Democratic Senate)

OK, so the headline is clearly overly optimistic.  But the recent news is very good and seems to be getting better (a Laffey win and I would be dancing in the streets).

Following is my weekly updated ranking of all of the Senate races in 2006.  Included is a discussion on changes from last week and other notes from the last week of news for the Senate campaigns.  Last week's rankings are here.

Changes from last week:

Arizona and Nevada swap spots (with Arizona moving to the 8th most vulnerable Republican seat and Nevada now 9th).  Their doesn't seem to be much movement in the Nevada race and Rasmussen's poll a while back that had Carter within 7 looks more and more like an outlier.  The money race is more favorable in Arizona and the polling there generally has Kyl under 50.  Both of these races need a jolt to become truly competitive.

Connecticut (now the 6th most vulnerable Democratic seat).  This is obviously an odd race for these sort of rankings.  There is, of course, no chance whatsoever that the Republican candidate will win which would suggest that it should be ranked close to last among vulnerable Democratic seats.  However, I gave it some thought this week and I think it is properly placed as the 6th most vulnerable.  Other than the top 5 ranked Dem seats (which have, at one time or another, showed some level of competitiveness) the rest of the Democratic seats are not competitive races.  No chance that Dems lose those seats.  Although Lieberman has promised to caucus with the Dems if he wins, I would say that the off-chance that he ends up switching to caucus with the Republicans is greater than the off chance that a Republican in the races I rank 7-18 wins.

Close to changing:

Tennessee and Missouri.  It is hard to believe that Tennessee might actually become more of a pick up opportunity than Missouri which has been ultra-competitive since day one.  But that day may actually come.  Recent polls either have Ford in the lead or within the margin of error; Corker has a scandal to deal with; and, importantly, Ford has more cash on hand.  Missouri remains very tight, with the most recent polls showing McCaskill up within the margin of error.  Missouri will clearly go down to the wire and is the better pick up opportunity now.  But it's possible Ford may be able to upon a steady lead if the race in Tennessee continues on its current path.

Montana and Ohio.  Most prognosticators have Montana listed as a more likely pick up opportunity than Ohio.  I can definitely understand the thinking.  But I have had Ohio ranked as the more likely pick up lately because the polls in Ohio have been more consistently in favor of Brown than the polls in Montana have been in favor of Tester.  However, a yet to be released Rasmussen poll has Tester up 52-43 on Burns.  If other polls confirm that Tester leads Burns by that margin (especially if Tester starts polling over 50) then Montana will pass Ohio shortly (and may even pass Pennsylvania).

Other notes:

Yet to be released Rasmussen polls.  Some very interesting (and all good news!) Rasmussen polls that have yet to be released to non-subscribers:  Connecticut -- Lieberman only up 2 on Lamont; Montana -- Tester up 9 on Burns;  Ohio -- Brown up 6 on DeWine.  Specific numbers are in the chart.

Seven Republican seats seriously at risk.  There can be no question now that there are 7 Republican seats that have a serious chance of going Dem.  Pennsylvania, Ohio and Montana can actually be considered Leans Democratic races with the Dems consistently polling leads outside the margin of error.  Rhode Island is tight, but probably leans slightly Dem (too bad Laffey didn't win).  Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia are all basically toss-ups.  It's amazing that we have gotten to this point when only a month ago it was difficult to find magical 6th seat Dems needed to take control.

One Democratic seat seriously at risk.  New Jersey is really the only Dem seat that is in serious jeopardy at this point.  Kean has polled slight leads lately and Menendez has corruption issues.  Maryland and Minnesota are competitive, but clearly lean Dem (I would say more so than Tennessee or Virginia lean Republican at this point).  Michigan and Washington are looking safer and safer by the week.

If the election were held today.  I am going to go out on a limb and say that, as of today, I would project Democratic pick-ups in Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island, Missouri and Tennessee with no Republican pick ups.  This would give Democrats control of the Senate.  It's optimistic, but there is strong support for this outcome.  New Jersey and Virginia are the next most likely races to flip.

The races are ranked by most likely to switch parties and I have separate rankings for seats currently held by Democrats and seats currently held by Republicans.  The approval numbers are from SurveyUSA's most recent 50-state tracking poll and are as of August 17.  The polling numbers are the most recent from Rasmussen in addition to the most recent non-Rasmussen poll I could find (no partisan funded polls included and no online Zogby).  Also included is the composite numbers from the last 5 polls taken in the race according to Pollster.com.  Cash on hand numbers are the Second Quarter numbers filed with the FEC and are current as of June 30 unless otherwise noted.

Without further ado, my (somewhat subjective) rankings:

Republican-Held Seats

 

Rank	State	Seat	Approval Rating	Candidates	Rasmussen Poll	Other Poll	Pollster.com	Money Race (COH)
1	Pennsylvania	Rick Santorum	48 - 45	Republican Rick Santorum Democrat Bob Casey	Casey 48 Santorum 40 (8/22)	Casey 56 Santorum 38 (8/27)	Casey 51 Santorum 40	Santorum $9.4 million Casey $5.2 million
2	Ohio	Mike DeWine	42 - 48	Republican Mike DeWine Democrat Sherrod Brown	Brown 47 DeWine 41 (9/14)	Brown 46 DeWine 40 (8/27)	Brown 46 DeWine 40	DeWine $6.6 million Brown $3.7 million
3	Montana	Conrad Burns	39 - 55	Republican Conrad Burns Democrat Jon Tester	Tester 52 Burns 43 (9/13)	Tester 48 Burns 45 (8/27)	Tester 47 Burns 44	Burns $2.2 million Tester $0.5 million
4	Rhode Island	Lincoln Chafee	51 - 44	Republican Lincoln Chafee Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse	Whitehouse 44 Chafee 42 (8/23)	Chafee 43 Whitehouse 42 (8/21)	Whitehouse 43 Chafee 40	Whitehouse $1.5 million Chafee $0.8 million (Through 8/23)
5	Missouri	Jim Talent	52 - 41	Republican Jim Talent Democrat Claire McCaskill	McCaskill 45 Talent 42 (9/12)	McCaskill 48 Talent 47 (9/13)	Talent 48 McCaskill 45	Talent $6.9 million McCaskill $2.7 million (Through 7/19)
6	Tennessee	Bill Frist	Retiring	Republican Bob Corker Democrat Harold Ford	Corker 45 Ford 44 (9/5)	Ford 48 Corker 45 (9/11)	Ford 45 Corker 45	Ford $1.8 million Corker $1.2 million (Through 7/14)
7	Virginia	George Allen	51 - 38	Republican George Allen Democrat James Webb	Allen 50 Webb 43 (9/12)	Allen 48 Webb 45 (9/12)	Webb 46 Allen 46	Allen $6.6 million Webb $0.4 million
8	Arizona	Jon Kyl	53 - 36	Republican Jon Kyl Democrat Jim Pederson	Kyl 52 Pederson 35 (8/24)	Kyl 46 Pederson 36 (8/29)	Kyl 49 Pederson 40	Kyl $6.7 million Pederson $1.5 million (Through 8/23)
9	Nevada	John Ensign	50 - 38	Republican John Ensign Democrat Jack Carter	Ensign 46 Carter 39 (7/31)	Ensign 54 Carter 33 (8/12)	Ensign 50 Carter 38	Ensign $3.2 million Carter $0.4 million (Through 7/26)
10	Texas	Kay Bailey Hutchison	61 - 32	Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison Democrat Barbara Ann Radnofsky	Hutchison 58 Radnofsky 32 (8/31)	None	Hutchison 55 Radnofsky 35	Hutchison $9.2 million Radnofsky $0.3 million
11	Utah	Orrin Hatch	60 - 34	Republican Orrin Hatch Democrat Pete Ashdown	No Poll Available	Hatch 61 Ashdown 27 (8/28)	Hatch 63 Ashdown 21	Hatch $2.5 million Ashdown $13,000
12	Maine	Olympia Snowe	72 - 24	Republican Olympia Snowe Democrat Jean Hay Bright	Snowe 68 Bright 20 (8/17)	Snowe 68 Bright 10 (7/21)	Snowe 64 Bright 24	Snowe $2.2 million Bright $100
13	Wyoming	Craig Thomas	61 - 31	Republican Craig Thomas Democrat Dale Groutage	Thomas 59 Groutage 32 (7/6)	None	Thomas 62 Groutage 29	Thomas $1.0 million Groutage $4,000 (Through 8/2)
14	Mississippi	Trent Lott	66 - 31	Republican Trent Lott Democrat Erik Fleming	Lott 66 Fleming 29 (2/13)	None	N/A	Lott $2.0 million Fleming $600
15	Indiana	Dick Lugar	59 - 33	Republican Dick Lugar	No Opposition	No Opposition	N/A	Lugar $4.0 million

Democratic-Held Seats

 

Rank	State	Seat	Approval Rating	Candidates	Rasmussen Poll	Other Poll	Pollster.com	Money Race (COH)
1	New Jersey	Bob Menendez	42 - 43	Democrat Bob Menendez Republican Tom Kean	Kean 44 Menendez 39 (8/30)	Kean 43 Menendez 39 (8/27)	Kean 42 Menendez 40	Menendez $7.4 million Kean $2.3 million
2	Maryland	Paul Sarbanes	Retiring	Democrat Ben Cardin Republican Michael Steele	Cardin 47 Steele 42 (8/9)	Cardin 44 Steele 39 (8/25)	Cardin 47 Steele 40	Steele $3.1 million Cardin $1.6 million (Through 8/23)
3	Minnesota	Mark Dayton	Retiring	Democrat Amy Klobuchar Republican Mark Kennedy	Klobuchar 47 Kennedy 40 (8/28)	Klobuchar 50 Kennedy 40 (8/27)	Klobuchar 49 Kennedy 41	Kennedy $3.4 million Klobuchar $3.0 million (Through 8/23)
4	Michigan	Debbie Stabenow	51 - 42	Democrat Debbie Stabenow Republican Michael Bouchard	Stabenow 51 Bouchard 43 (8/31)	Stabenow 54 Bouchard 34 (9/12)	Stabenow 50 Bouchard 41	Stabenow $4.4 million Bouchard $0.5 million (Through 7/19)
5	Washington	Maria Cantwell	55 - 38	Democrat Maria Cantwell Republican Mike McGavick	Cantwell 52 McGavick 35 (9/6)	Cantwell 56 McGavick 39 (8/27)	Cantwell 52 McGavick 39	Cantwell $6.4 million McGavick $1.1 million
6	Connecticut	Joe Lieberman	53 - 43	Democrat Ned Lamont Republican Alan Schlesinger Independent Joe Lieberman	Lieberman 45 Lamont 43 Schlesinger 6 (9/14)	Lieberman 51 Lamont 38 Schlesinger 7 (9/11)	Lieberman 48 Lamont 39 Schlesinger 4	Lieberman $3.5 million Lamont $0.4 million Schlesinger $76,000 (Through 7/19)
7	Nebraska	Ben Nelson	67 - 27	Democrat Ben Nelson Republican Pete Ricketts	Nelson 55 Ricketts 32 (8/10)	None	Nelson 54 Ricketts 33	Nelson $2.1 million Ricketts $1.1 million
8	West Virginia	Robert Byrd	65 - 32	Democrat Robert Byrd Republican John Raese	Byrd 63 Raese 30 (9/5)	Byrd 59 Raese 30 (5/22)	Byrd 59 Raese 31	Byrd $2.6 million Raese $0.2 million
9	Vermont	Jim Jeffords	Retiring	Independent Bernie Sanders Republican Richard Tarrant	Sanders 62 Tarrant 34 (8/3)	Sanders 56 Tarrant 35 (7/27)	Sanders 63 Tarrant 29	Sanders $1.7 million Tarrant $0.5 million (Through 8/23)
10	Florida	Bill Nelson	47 - 38	Democrat Bill Nelson Republican Katherine Harris	Nelson 57 Harris 34 (8/28)	Nelson 53 Harris 38 (9/13)	Nelson 57 Harris 29	Nelson $12.1 million Harris $2.2 million (Through 8/16)
11	North Dakota	Kent Conrad	74 - 21	Democrat Kent Conrad Republican Dwight Grotberg	Conrad 57 Grotberg 35 (1/25)	None	N/A	Conrad $3.5 million Grotberg $19,000
12	California	Dianne Feinstein	53 - 42	Democrat Dianne Feinstein Republican Dick Mountjoy	Feinstein 58 Mountjoy 35 (9/7)	Feinstein 56 Mountjoy 34 (8/27)	Feinstein 54 Mountjoy 32	Feinstein $8.0 million Mountjoy $21,000
13	Wisconsin	Herb Kohl	56 - 37	Democrat Herb Kohl Republican Robert Lorge	Kohl 59 Lorge 31 (8/10)	Kohl 63 Lorge 14 (7/2)	Kohl 57 Lorge 30	Kohl $1.6 million Lorge $2,000 (Through 8/23)
14	New Mexico	Jeff Bingaman	57 - 33	Democrat Jeff Bingaman Republican Allen McCulloch	Bingaman 56 McCulloch 32 (9/12)	None	Bingaman 58 McCulloch 30	Bingaman $1.8 million McCulloch $2,000
15	New York	Hillary Clinton	61 - 35	Democrat Hillary Clinton Republican John Spencer	Clinton 61 Spencer 31 (7/31)	Clinton 62 Spencer 32 (9/7)	Clinton 58 Spencer 33	Clinton $22.2 million Spencer $0.8 million (Through 8/23)
16	Delaware	Tom Carper	59 - 30	Democrat Tom Carper Republican Jan Ting	No Polling Available	None	N/A	Carper $2.5 million Ting $53,000 (Through 8/23)
17	Hawaii	Daniel Akaka	51 - 40	Democrat Daniel Akaka or Ed Case Republican Jerry Coffee or Mark Beatty	Akaka 58 Coffee 30 (7/31)	None	Akaka 58 Coffee 30	Akaka $1.0 million Coffee (No Report)
18	Massachusetts	Ted Kennedy	56 - 40	Democrat Ted Kennedy Republican Kevin Scott or Kenneth Chase	No Polling Available	None	N/A	Kennedy $8.7 million Chase $34,000

•  Seven seat pick up?

  Who's with me?

  by DemUnity on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:31:40 AM PDT

  •  I am! woooWOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    And I would give you 30 rec's if I could, thanks!

    Go Jim Webb!

    by phriendlyjaime on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:45:00 AM PDT

  •  No way

    3 or 4 really. I don't foresee a "sweep". Most likely - Santorum, Burns and DeWine. Chafee, with "brand" name and unorthodox record, can (not neccessarily, but still can) prevail in even so Democratic state as Rhode Island. At least - the fight there will be fierce.. Talent, Allen and possibly Corker will survive. And it's quite possible, that Kean (another "brand" name and no ethical problems) can beat Menendez (absolutely "nonbrand name" and a lot of ethical problems as well). My prediction - about 3 seats Democratic gain

    by smmsmm57 on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:17:59 AM PDT

    •  I think most likely is 4 or 5

      In the end I think PA, OH and MT will go Dem.  RI I think leans Dem and we'll get it (Chafee was hurt by the primary because it just tied him more to the Republican party in people's minds).  I think we have a real good chance to get at least one of MO, TN and VA.

      If it were held today, as I said, I would predict 6.  But MO and TN will probably get more difficult as get closer to the election.

      I don't think we will lose any seats, but NJ is clearly the one at risk.

      by DemUnity on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:25:07 AM PDT

      •  Possible.

        But Chafee's (father and son) hold RI senate seat for 30 years. Both are typical NE "moderates" - may be even slightly to the left of center. As far as i see - the only real "qualm" about Linc Chafee is his party membership.... He proved in 2000, that he as able to attract a lot of Independents (like me) and even Democrats.. Whitehous can win, but it's absolutely not  assured

        by smmsmm57 on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:39:29 AM PDT

        •  That's a huge qualm

          in a state as Democratic as RI.  The difference this year compared to the last 30 is that Republicans control all of the government and are incredibly unpopular in RI.  That wasn't true in 2000 or before.  It actually matters now that Chafee caucuses with the Republicans.

          Anyway, all the polls show Chafee under 50 and most show Whitehouse in the lead.  Of course Chafee can win (it's a competitive race) but the odds are against him.

          by DemUnity on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:45:14 AM PDT

          •  On point

            The thing that Whitehouse needs to emphasize, and I think he will, is that a vote for Chaffee is a vote for Bush, and continued Republican control of the Senate, no oversight and no accountability. Don't forget that Bush has the lowest approval ratings in the nation in RI.

            No matter how liked Chafee is, nor how moderate, this is the big hook. This didn't matter in 2000, and wouldn't even be such a big deal now except for the makeup of the Senate and the nature of this year's race nationally. If RI voters are convinced that their vote could be pivotal in changing the Senate, Chaffee gets hurt. If Chaffee switched parties, and he'd be a moderate Dem if he did, he'd win in a walk.

            by mjshep on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:58:08 AM PDT

    •  Depends on whether its a wave or not.. (obviously

      But it's worth noting that when we've seen the phenomenom before -- 94, 86, 80, et al --

      The party riding the wave seems to win those cliffhangers at a rather extraordinary clip.

      Each race is, of course, an entity unto itself - but despite losses the last couple cycles, our losses weren't really of the blown out of the water variety.  

      Strictly speaking of senate races - at least 7 (RI, MT, OH, VA, MO, TN, and PA) have reliabale snapshots showing our guy or gal either leading or in the maring of error.

      In a tight race this cycle, I think we're enormously better positioned to squeak out that 1-2% where necessary than "they" are.

      What's more - the CW says the undecideds break for the challnger... so - if we're still seeing MOE spreads come election day, again... I like our chances a fair clip better than a 50/50 coin toss.

      Finally, I think several of these races have a sort of 'X' factor - with X being the disparity between candidate and operational competence.

      • In MT, Tester seems clearly to be the better campaigner than Burns (who frankly, is looking more and more lost).  
      • Ditto to an even greater degree in TN.  As much as I love Tester, it would seem that Ford is campaigning circles around Corker.  Good ads, he's staying on message, he's going after him all over the state, etc.  Still 2 months out - but I think any honest assessment would have to say Ford has probably run the best campaign of any senate candidate this cycle.
      • In VA - Allen is flailing, flailing, flailing.  He appears to be utterly incompetent and appears to have a knack for digging deeper holes (from Macaca to Reagan... he doesn't seem to quite "get" that it's a bad thing to keep these in the news).
      • In RI, you've got a seriously wounded (R) candidate - who granted, may be able to make up for that with his 'moderate' appeal, but I sure don't think his tightrope walking is over...
      • The same could be said of DeWine in OH, at least to some degree... the only difference seems to be that he didn't face a primary challenge.

      Those are factors that, it would appear to me -- are only going hurt the Repubs in question as the next 8 weeks play out...

      by zonk on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:57:27 AM PDT

    •  No ethical prroblems?

      Read Star Ledger article today about his campaign contributors and votes before believing Republican spin.

      by ann stone on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 12:11:07 PM PDT

      •  Well, it's nothing

        compared to Menendez - product of corrupt Democratic New Jersey machine. He has no place on his body to place a seal - "corrupt". One of the few Democratic politicians i really despise...

        by smmsmm57 on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 11:46:08 PM PDT

•  Good job

  The chart took lots of work, obviously.

  The funniest one to me is Nelson vs Harris in Florida.  Cruella is running a terrible campaign!

  by wildcat6 on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:34:40 AM PDT

  •  Really

    How often do you see an incumbent with sub-50% approval ratings consistently polling 25-30 point leads?  It's a beautiful thing.

    by DemUnity on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:39:20 AM PDT

•  New Jersey

  I'm starting to get very worried about Menendez.

  Voters in that state have been very generous to Democrats over the years -- particularly when it comes to Governors and Senators.

  Eventually, they're going to stop giving us the benefit of the doubt.

  by IndyScott on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:43:57 AM PDT

  •  I wouldn't worry

    There hasn't been a Repub senator in something like 30 years.  Menendez doesn't have corruption issues.  Kean jr has been trying to paint him as such for months and most of it simply isn't sticking.  Menendez has a good ad out about him saving the ports, which is a big issue in NJ.  Plus Kean jr is really a moron.  A few more debates and this race will be over.  Bob took jr to the woodshed the first time.  No reason to expect any other outcome in other debates.

    by DisNoir36 on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:55:41 AM PDT

    •  I'd say Jr has corruption issues

      Today's, from the Star Ledger posted on nj.com, for instance:

      The same day state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. voted twice to let Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey keep a $40 million tax exemption, he collected $13,300 in contributions for his U.S. Senate race from 17 company executives and their family members.

      snip

      The donations fit a pattern, said Miller, citing previous reports that Kean had received $62,500 in contributions from members of corporate boards on which his father, former Gov. Tom Kean Sr., served. That includes $21,000 contributed by United Health Group executives at a fundraiser held the same day as a board meeting. Kean said the event was organized by Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and the timing was a coincidence.

      Link

      by Lovo on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:47:24 AM PDT

  •  New Jersey is that way

    It gives Republicans more chances than they deserve and polls run even until late September or very early October when the two candidates have said their bit and start repeating themselves.  If the Republican candidate is the usual crap, the undecideds go over to the Democratic candidate en masse at that point- around October 5-10 the Democrat tends to go over 50% in polling and stays there.  The Republican stays stuck around 40%.

    New Jersey splits about 55/45 this year and this is an election in which Republican will apparently get that straight partisan split in Blue States.  Not because Blue State Democrats can't get more, it's because they won't need more and won't make the efforts compromises of years past to get Republican-leaning votes that end up diminishing their mandate.

    by killjoy on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:14:18 AM PDT

•  Beginning to think

  We might get Senate and not get House.

  Which is probably for the best (Reid vs. Pelosi).

  by Jim J on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:50:31 AM PDT

  •  Oh, man, do I disagree

    Lessee, another middle-of-the-road Red State 'pro life' Dem, or a honest-to-goodness San Fransisco liberal who would, as an added bonus, be the first female Speaker of the House?

    While I like Reid's blunt kick-ass style, many of his votes and positions have me holding my nose. Pelosi I just love :-).

    Of course, my preference is for both of them to lead their respective chambers come January.

    by ChurchofBruce on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:56:33 AM PDT

  •  Gimme the Senate

    For 3 Words:

    SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS!

    by marcvstraianvs on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:42:35 AM PDT

•  Great Diary...

  lots of thought and work went into this.

  I'm mayan...and I recommend this diary.

  by mayan on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:07:06 AM PDT

•  Recomended

  A lot of work went into this, great job. Now if it will only come true.

  by high uintas on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:19:53 AM PDT

•  CT is in a different catagory

  First of all if we assume a Joe win is a Dem loss than it should be our most endagered seat. It's not a Dem loss either way though. A progressive loss sure, but not a Dem loss. There's a better chance of Chafee wining and switching to the Dem party than it is Joe wining and switch GOP. I want Lemont to pull it off but that comes a distant want from winning seats in Ohio, Montana, Tennessee and in other potential pickups.

  by Christopher Liberal on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:43:53 AM PDT

  •  I don't know

    There's a better chance of Chafee wining and switching to the Dem party than it is Joe wining and switch GOP.

    I don't know about that.  First of all, Republicans are still likely to hold the Senate.  It would be very unlikely (not to mention make no sense) for Chafee to switch into the minority party.  Anyway, the RNC just doled out millions for him to keep his seat.  I just don't see the possibility of him saying "thanks for the cash, but see you later."

    Granted I think the odds of Lieberman switching parties are very small.  But he would have far more incentive to do so than Chafee.  I'm sure he feels betrayed by many Dems, plus, if he did switch, he would likely switch into the majority party.

    No need to put the race in another category though.  My rankings are solely concerned with who will have control of the Senate.  CT is pretty safe Dem in that regard (same as Sanders in VT), but I do think it is more likely that Lieberman would switch parties if he wins than that Nelson will lose in NE for example.

    by DemUnity on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:51:57 AM PDT

•  Well done

  Have a recommend.

  Hey, above you on the list I did a really thorough and detailed House rundown. I really put a lot of work into it, please take a look.

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:58:40 AM PDT

  •  Nice analysis

    Great post on the House races.  I wish these election breakdown diaries got more attention -- I guess there aren't enough election nerds out there.

    by DemUnity on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 11:08:57 AM PDT

•  Washington note

  It does seem that Mike! McGavick is having money troubles on top of his increasing difficulties over selective truthiness and his continuing refusal to engage on any issues whatsoever.

  However, there's still the threat that he can self-finance using his $28 million windfall severance package from Safeco Insurance.  As I understand it, he's already lent $2 million to the campaign, but there's lots more where that came from.

  by N in Seattle on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 11:48:12 AM PDT

  •  Let him

    I say let him waste his own cash on his campaign.  I really don't see him pulling this one out.  Cantwell has plenty of cash herself to counter anything McGavick can come up with.

    by DemUnity on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 11:52:35 AM PDT

    •  oh, I agree

      And also remind the electorate that he pocketed the big bucks while cutting jobs, decreasing service and coverage, using credit scores to drop subscribers, and served only the corporate bigwigs (and maybe the shareholders) instead of the people that Safeco was supposedly insuring.

      by N in Seattle on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 12:10:42 PM PDT