This is similar to what has happened with the Republicans who challenged Ted Kennedy in Massachusets.  None of them won, but one of them, Mitt Romney, is now the governor.  Before him, Joe Malone ran for Treasurer and won after losing to Kennedy.  There's a lot to be gained in running against a heavyweight and very little to lose, except the election, which no one expects you to win anyway.

Obviously there're some things to be 'worked out' with those people.  Add that to the fact the Rep contender is running a reform platform.  Now you have a chunk of Rep voters convinced that Orrin should go becuase he's been in DC too long... then Orrin wins the nod, but these people still think that.  They have a bad taste in their mouth from all the scandal and slash-and-burn politics by Rove and Bush.

If the Dem can do and say the right things, appeal to the right aspects of GOP voters who might not normally be swing voters, but may be in THIS election.

Well who knows... what's obvious is that Hatch simply is physically incapable of removing his lips from Bush's ass.  That was probably a strength in '04.  In '06 that could be fatal.

Also, I think that the pace of events in London shows that the next 1.5 years could be a bumpy ride for everyone, and we're past the knee-jerk phase a little.  It's a little harder to say who benefits politically when stuff goes down, but clearly the administration is going to look incompetent if something happens here, especially if its something that Dems and Rep's have been clamorring about, likea port breach or a chem/nuke plant getting tagged.

Pete Ashdown seems like a good guy, but "bringing the rave scene and electronic music" to Utah is not going to get him to 50%. For the love of God, there are Utahns who think pop-tinged country like Shania Twain is an abomination against the lord. Being the King of the Utah Rave Scene is a bigger detriment than benefit to his campaign.

Plus, and I know there are a lot of liberal net-activists who hate this to be brought up, he has raised squat for money, according to the latest figures I could find.

Aside from that, Hatch is sitting on a 74% approval rating, according to a Deseret News Poll released this week.

If you want to jump on a "dark horse candidate", try Pederson in Arizona, or Radnofsky in Texas. Maybe Whitehouse in RI (although I don't know how dark that particular horse is).

There is a tendency I have noticed to focus on well-meaning candidates who raise about 1/5th the money of their opponents in uphill districts, and then lose their districts by thirty points.

I can see it in a special election (like Hackett), but in a general election like 2006, we will have plenty of good targets.

If we don't do anything about races like this, we're like that guy.

The point is to be able to someday win some of those currently-red states.  And we really don't know which states will suddenly become within reach in 15 years unless we start building towards that now.

And the way we do that is by running viable candidates for every Congressional seat, and as close to every state legislature seat as possible, and getting our message out to the people.  If we don't do this - and that involves ensuring that dark horses like Ashdown have enough money to be visible - then we'll never be in position to take advantage of the breaks when they come.

That said, I think the rave community can offer many useful suggestions on how to run our nation:

1. Chill-out rooms for when things get too heated on the main senate floor featuring free water, fruit, trippy visuals and downtempo and ambient beats.

2. Fostering bipartisanship by having senate leaders from opposing parties take ecstasy together, producing greater empathy, understanding and mutual back-rubs.

3. Improving voter turnout by converting ballots to highly successful rave flyer format with psychedelic graphics.