Free Republic

Definitely. While I still think Murray's the favorite in WA, I'm much more optimistic than I was a couple months ago. I'd put our chances at 40%; maybe closer to 50% if Kerry implodes between now and November. Maybe there's a photo out there of Brezhnev giving him the Order of Lenin...

Anyway, winning NY and MD would be wonderful too, but we have about as much chance of doing that as Kerry does of carrying TX. Of course, ask me again in 2006, when Mrs. Clinton is due for an attitude adjustment.

I agree, Eisenhower.

Ryan's the odds-on favorite downstate, while (of course!) Daley will deliver big margins for Obama in the city. What else are Daleys good for, if not manipulating the urban vote?

In my opinion, the real fight will be in the suburbs. Sure, Ryan will win the collar counties, but by how much? If he gets (well) over 60% in DuPage close to 60% in Lake County, he has a chance.

Then again, if Obama doesn't get the Democratic nod, this discussion is moot.

Thanks for your thoughts, JohnnyZ.

You'll notice I put "squeaky clean" in quotes. Feingold feeds the egos of those who pride themselves on supporting "progressive, good-government." It's a matter of perception, yes, but it could be worth a point or two in WI.

As far as IL goes (by the way, thanks for the correction on Obama's name!), Moseley-Braun had the good fortune to run in 1992, when the national GOP was in full meltdown mode. Even then, she only got 53%. The Democrats may not be so lucky this time around. Again, if Obama's their nominee, I'll feel pretty good about this race.

Finally, as for MD, I knew Pipkin won the GOP nod, but perhaps out of respect for the drubbing he'll take in November, I felt he best was left unmentioned.

Thanks for the report. Perhaps Arkansans will give the GOP a surprise present this November.

It's too bad, though, that Huckabee decided against the race. As you point out, Lincoln has serious liabilities, particularly on the gun issue. A top-tier Republican could've given her heartburn.

I've no doubt Jim Holt's a great candidate, but I fear he just doesn't have the name ID necessary to knock off an incumbent Senator.

Still, though, your enthusiasm is gratifying. Here's hoping I'm completely wrong about this race!

Thanks. I agree, these races will be tight, but I still think the GOP has a slight advantage in FL and, particularly, in NC.

The latest poll I saw has Bowles up by six points. Of course, Bowles already has a state-wide run under his belt, while Burr is just a "local" Congressman. Right now, the polls probably reflect little more than name recognition.

Obviously, though, as Burr's name gets out there, he's likely to tighten up the race. Moreover, President Bush probably will carry NC without much trouble, giving Burr an additional boost.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting this in the "Win" column, but I do think Republican chances in NC are a little better than 50/50.

Ha! Fitting, indeed.

Has the IL Democratic establishment gone into panic mode yet, or do they think Obama will be stopped? I mean, until a few weeks ago, the Dems had this seat sewn up. With Obama, though, it becomes a longshot for them.

True. I suspect we've seen many of the same accounts.

To be honest, I still think it's something of a longshot for the GOP to get to sixty senators next November (or 59, plus Ben Nelson, who presumably still would vote to break the filibuster), but it's not unrealistic, either. Again, Howard Dean as the Dem nominee would bump up our numbers nicely.

Even if Republicans fall short of sixty, though, I'm pretty confident they will have enough to sustain the "nuclear option," if it comes to that.

Exactly! Let the the current situation run its course.

The Democratic party's obstructionism isn't doing its 2004 Senate candidates any favors. The filibuster has fired up GOP loyalists and, it seems, has begun to alienate some independents.

Besides, there's only so much Republicans can do with only 51 senators (including Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, Specter and McCain). Right now, it's not even clear if the "nuclear option" would garner the necessary 50 votes.

Next November, however, should bring the GOP some much-needed backup. Heck, if Dean ends up with the Democratic nomination, Republicans even might have the sixty votes necessary to break the filibuster. In any event, they definitely will be be in a much stronger position.

Forgive the cliche, but Democrats may be winning the battle, but they'll lose the war. The best they can hope for is to hold out for, maybe, another year.

To be honest, I haven't watched much of Crossfire (or CNN, for that matter) in years. Still, it's interesting to note what becomes of those the elite media chooses to represent the "conservative" side:

David Gergen left PBS to work for the Clinton administration.

Pat Buchanan splits his time between opposing the war in Iraq and pushing the AFL-CIO line on trade and economics.

Robert Novak is similarly skeptical of our efforts in Iraq, and seems particularly gloomy in his assessments of the Bush administration and of the Republican party in general.

Arianna Huffington has become, quite simply, a left-wing flake, driven by a personal desire to bring down the Bush administration. Good luck.

Tucker Carlson is, as noted above, a pushover. He's most famous for pulling a prank on Fox News (apparently at Paul Begala's urging).

Quite an impressive lineup, huh?

Yes!

The question is, does Bush make this a referendum on judicial nominees, or does he strike a conciliatory tone?

In my opinion, if Bush is comfortably ahead next summer (as I'm confident he will be), he should use his political capital to hammer away at the "Daschle obstructionists." Make it abundantly clear to the voters of SD, NV and AR (among others) that their senators are drastically out-of-step with the "folks back home."

I appreciate your comments.

Sure, I probably am being a bit pessimistic, but until I see who the Dems will run for president next year, I think it better to err on the side of caution (ugh -- a cliche!).

I hope you're right about IL, although it seems Republicans have a hard enough time overcoming Chicago's votes under ideal circumstances, and next year, alas, will be far from "ideal." (Thank you, George Ryan...)

As for SD, LA and WA, I certainly don't write them off, though I do think the GOP will need a strong showing nationally by Bush to boot Daschle, John and Murray from office. Very possible, but still way too early to say for sure.

Ha! That would be funny.

Better yet, maybe Bush should make Dennis Miller the reelection campaign's press secretary. Eviscerate Dean one day, skewer Rather the next. So many deserving targets!

Interesting.

To be honest, I never heard of Humphreys before a few days ago, but from what information I've received, he seems like a good guy and a formidable candidate.

You know, it's funny -- it seems as if in Oklahoma, the big cities actually are nearly as Republican and conservative as the surrounding suburbs. I don't know of anywhere else where that holds true.

No doubt, Dean will grasp for the center once (if) he's nominated, but he just has too rich a track record to ignore. Believe me, he already has generated enough material for 1,001 attack ads. ...and it's only October. Plus, I don't think a New England pol will be terribly well-received in flyover country, no matter how artfully he reinvents himself.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the insight.

By the way, any chance of giving Orleans parish back to the French? It would solve so many problems...

We seem to have reached many of the same conclusions.

All in all, I think the Democratic presidential nominee is the wild card in many of these races. If they go with Clark or Gephardt (whom the media will spin as "moderates"), then the Dems might do better than we expect.

If, on the other hand, Dean or Kerry gets the nod, the GOP very likely will pick up five or six seats, not the three I predicted.

By the way, Dan, I'm curious -- do you think Graham will seek reelection, or retire? My gut tells me he'll retire, though I'm going on little more than instinct and, well, hope.

Alas, I tend to agree.

However, I think a Jindal victory next month still keeps the door open for the GOP. For one thing, it prevents Breaux from pulling an early retirement trick. This would keep John from running as an incumbent.

Also, with a Republican administration in Baton Rouge, it's just a bit more difficult for Democratic vote-hustlers to do their thing. Oh, they'll still be out in force, but at least the governor's office won't abet their efforts.

Finally, if Bush runs well next fall, Democratic turnout might be depressed.

Of course, if Jindal loses, then I share your pessimism.

Frustrating, huh?

In my opinion, Nevada, North Dakota and Arkansas were ours for the taking, if only Gibbons, Schafer and Huckabee had run. These states still may be in play, but it won't be easy. Of course, a Bush tsunami would help...

Go Howard Dean!!!

I've heard this before, too. Of course, you actually were in California, so you probably have information a bit more dependable than the whispers and rumors that filter across to the East Coast, where I am.

The one "problem" I have with Grammer is that there may be a perception among the GOP faithful that he hasn't "paid his dues." That is, he hasn't put time in the trenches building the party the way Jones, Cox or McClintock have.