If All Goes Well, Control of the Senate Rests On Missouri

I kind of saw the campaign breaking this way last week when I last made a Senate Update, and it holds true today as well: the path toward Missouri as the deciding state in the Senate continues right on schedule. Webb continues to rise in Virginia, and Menendez has seized the lead in New Jersey as well. Tester continues to hang on in Montana, as does Cardin in Maryland. With Ford struggling a bit in Tennessee, despite internals showing him up five, the Senate thus comes down to one race: Missouri.

The last two phone polls from Missouri show the race exactly tied, 49-49 and 47-47. You have to like Democratic chances to scoop up the final undecideds in a friendly election such as this, and with Jim Talent's re-elect and job approval both below 45%. Then again, you have to wonder about the Republican "firewall" of resources in Missouri, Talent's huge cash edge, and Republican turnout operations in red states. Not to mention that this race could hardly have been any closer from start to finish.

Watch Missouri, and watch it closely. For a campaign this important, it is stunning how little press coverage it has received outside of Michael J. Fox. I'm not saying that there couldn't be some surprises on Election Day that would shift Missouri's position as the deciding factor, but I am saying that it currently strikes me as impossible for Democrats to win the Senate if we don't win Missouri. I am also not saying that we have a good chance to retake the Senate--I still think the odds are against us. However, with surges by Webb and Menendez, the brass ring is within our grasp once again. Right now, I'd peg our odds for Senate control at around 10-20%, because we do have to sweep all of the close races in New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland and Montana for Missouri to be the deciding factor.

On the web: Claire McCaskill for Senate.

Tags: Claire McCaskill, MO-Sen, Senate 2006 (all tags)

Comments

14 Comments

If we may or may not be down in Tenn.

and Missouri is tied - I'd have to put our odds at 60% - 65% to take the Senate.

by Cleveland John 2006-10-31 08:01AM | 0 recs
Don't Forget Maryland

You guys are ignoring Maryland, where African American Republican Michael Steele just got a bunch of Democrats to endorse him. Maryland Dems are blowing it.

"Black Democrats Cross Party Lines To Back Steele For U.S. Senate"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001057. html

by Mister Go 2006-10-31 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Forget Maryland

since when is 5 or 6 in one county "a bunch?" And why does it carry more weight than recent polling?

by torridjoe 2006-10-31 10:47AM | 0 recs
Control of the Senate Rests On Missouri

If the House and Senate end up closely divided, I wonder how much post-election manuevering there will be to try to convince individual Congresspeople to switch their allegiance ala Jeffords?  I've got a feeling the months just after this election are going to be a lot more interesting than the months that preceded it.

by global yokel 2006-10-31 08:08AM | 0 recs
Lieberman

We have to assume that Lieberman is going to switch parties if he wins.

If he does, we need to win all the close races to have a majority.

I like what I'm seeing in Arizona too.

by magster 2006-10-31 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman

I hope AZ is possible.

by robliberal 2006-10-31 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman

Two scenarios that I find interesting.

One, the Dems pull of a major upset and win a senate majority by winning the close races in MT, MD, NJ, TN, VA and MO. Joe wins in CT and plans to caucus with the Dems. Now what does the Dem senate caucus do - give Joe a chairmanship?

Two, its a 50-50 senate and Joe wins CT and plays footsie with both Repubs and Dems? What does the senate Dem caucus do - give Joe whatever he wants?

by ab initio 2006-10-31 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman
He's not going to switch I guarentee it.
by blueryan 2006-10-31 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: If All Goes Well, Control of the Senate Rests
This is why the info in my recent diary entry on MO GOP voter suppression of progressive voters is so timely. It all comes down to MO, just like it all came down to OH in 2004. You can read about the GOP's dirty tricks in MO here: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/30/195 410/27
by nathanhj 2006-10-31 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: If All Goes Well, Control of the Senate Rests

Link broken - you should remove the whitespace in 195 410.

by nstrauss 2006-10-31 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: If All Goes Well, Control of the Senate Rests

When does the MO race results start to trickle out? I agree that MO senate will be the bellwether if there is a Dem wave or not.

by ab initio 2006-10-31 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: If All Goes Well, Control of the Senate Rests
McCaskill picked up 48% of the vote in 2004. Since then the environment has obviously become much better for her and she's run a more effective campaign focusing on the rural areas she previously did so poorly in. The GOP have more money and a better GOTV operation, but McCaskill has the best GOTV in the state for a dem and the stem sell resourch ballot initiative can only help her. Whether she wins or loses it's going to be by a razor thin margin. If anyone lives in MO please, please make this happen, control of the Senate probably depends on it.
by blueryan 2006-10-31 10:24AM | 0 recs
McCaskill

McCaskill's campaign is the most organized I have seen this cycle.  Her campaign called me not once, but twice to ask if I could phone-bank for them, despite my protestations that I was sick and didn't have the time.  That kind of organization is going to win it for them on the ground.

by Nonpartisan 2006-10-31 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Missouri

I assume McCaskill and Fox will be highlighting yesterday's news from the UK that stem cells have lead to growth of significant chunks of liver tissue.

by Bob H 2006-11-01 01:38AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------