No, it's not Sunday.  And this isn't the Senate 2008 Guru's Week in the Senate Races.  It's been over nine months since Election Day 2006; and it's less than fifteen months until Election Day 2008.  In other words, the 2008 election cycle is more than one-third over already.  With all of the discussion about vulnerable Republican-held Senate seats taking place, I thought it might be useful to take a look at how the races are shaping up for the twelve Democratic-held Senate seats in 2008.  Soak it in:

So what do we see here?

First and foremost, we see that (unless Tom Latham challenges Tom Harkin or Bobby Jindal unexpectedly loses the LA-Gov race and opts for a Senate bid) Republicans don't have a single top choice challenging a Democratic incumbent.  Keep in mind, this is not a comparison to Democrats, who have had ups and downs with recruiting (though, with 22 Republican-held seats up compared with only 12 Democratic seats up, that is to be expected).  Simply put, I don't know how much time NRSC Chair John Ensign spends recruiting, but if it's more than zero, it may be wasted time.  Certainly, there is still plenty of time for candidates to enter a Senate race, as Senators Claire McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, and Jim Webb will tell you (all officially entered their races after August 2005), but, after this point in the 2006, only one single Republican entered a Senate race: Michigan loser Mike Bouchard.  If 2006 is at all indicative, the NRSC should be just about done recruiting by now, not just starting.

You'll also note two asterisks, in Louisiana and South Dakota.  In Louisiana, statewide elections occur later this year.  While several Republican Congressmen have announced that they will be opting against a 2008 Senate challenge to Mary Landrieu, it is not unreasonable that other potential candidates would wait until after the 2007 state election before making any decisions, particularly in the case of statewide officeholders Secretary of State Jay Dardenne and currently-Democratic Treasurer John N. Kennedy.  In South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson is, of course, still recuperating from illness.  If he feels able to run for re-election, it is reasonable to assume that he will, and that Gov. Mike Rounds is unlikely to challenge him.  However, if Johnson opts against a re-election bid, that changes the entire dynamic, which could lead to a top-tier battle between Gov. Rounds and possibly Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth.

We also see a lot of previously unheard-of names.  Jeffrey Beattie in Massachusetts and Jon Scott in Rhode Island are both Congressional race losers, I suppose looking for a promotion to losing Senate races.  The announced challengers in Illinois and Iowa are all unknown political entities, charitably considered third-tier opponents.  As it currently stands, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota feature a smattering of second- and third-tier opposition.  Assuming both that Joe Biden drops his Presidential bid and runs for re-election and that Iowa's Republican Congressional delegation all opt to take a pass on a 2008 Senate bid, it is not unreasonable to expect (barring out-of-the blue surprises) that incumbent Democratic Senators will face no more than token opposition in Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.  (At the same time, it wouldn't be wildly shocking if: Tom Latham did enter the race in Iowa; Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land did enter the race in Michigan; Joe Biden did retire from the Senate; and the AR-GOP did find somebody to offer Mark Pryor at least minimal opposition.)

Further, assuming that Senator Tim Johnson is up for a re-election campaign, it is not unreasonable to expect that incumbent Democratic Senators will face no more than second-tier opposition (and thus be strong favorites) in Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota.  Now, I recognize that I'm suggesting that, given a few reasonable caveats, eleven of twelve Democratic Senate seats are fairly to very safe (though it is also, in part, due to the hurting Democrats took in the Senate in 2002, losing close races in Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, which in turn thinned out Democratic vulnerabilities and created pick-up opportunities for 2008).  That is pretty close to a "best case scenario." But it is also a fairly reasonable scenario.  The catch is that Republicans, wanting to avoid a repeat of 2006 when they failed to turn a single Democratic-held Senate seat (or House seat or Governor's office) Republican, may pour relatively large sums of money into Louisiana once they have a candidate.  With the DSCC trouncing the NRSC in fundraising, Democrats can counteract that, but it could be very expensive.

What do you think?

For daily news and updates on the U.S. Senate races around the country in 2008, check out Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races.

There's more...

[Cross-posted at my blog Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races.]

A little over two months ago, I took a look at the state of NRSC recruiting in the one open seat (Colorado) and the twelve states with Democratic incumbents, concluding, up to that point in time, that the NRSC was 0-for-13 in recruiting so far.  Keep in mind that we're approaching the dog days of summer, not a heavy recruitment period.  (Note that during June-August of 2005, only five Senate candidates announced, all five of whom were Republican losers.)  So where does the state of NRSC recruitment stand, and what has changed in the last two months?

(Much more below the fold.)

There's more...

Lincoln Chafee has done a great job portraying himself both to the media and to voters as a consummate moderate, proudly announcing his vote for the 41st, rather than 43rd President during the 2004 election, voting against the nomination of Samuel Alito, opposing opening the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to drilling. Yet when push comes to shove and the conservative and highly-partisan Republican leadership needs him on their side, whether it is on the vote for Majority Leader or cloture on the Alito nomination, Chafee consistently puts party ahead of conviction. And when faced with prospect of very possible defeat, Chafee lets slip harsh partisan rhetoric even as he goes on the air proclaiming his independence from party. Elana Schor has the details for The Hill.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), whose collegial personality has bolstered his appeal in an otherwise blue state, took an indirect shot at Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) during a debate Monday night with his Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse.

When Whitehouse blasted Chafee for failing to push for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation in the wake of escalating chaos in Iraq, the incumbent -- trailing his foe by as many as eight points in recent polls -- asked Whitehouse why he has failed to question Reid's amended reports to the Senate ethics committee clarifying the details of a $1.1 million land deal.

"Whitehouse is talking about, `you should call for this, you should call for that,' and the senator is putting out that the current Democratic minority leader, Harry Reid, has got some ethics questions surrounding his conduct and Whitehouse has stayed silent," Chafee campaign manager Ian Lang said. "Does [he] believe that this disqualifies Reid as minority leader?"

Sen. Chafee, like just about everyone else inside the Beltway (or who follows what happens around Capitol Hill), knows that there is no "there" in the Harry Reid land deal story. While Reid was excessively sloppy in detailing his holdings, failing to report that he formed an LLC to better facilitate his properties, he did not, as many Republican members of Congress have (including Speaker Denny Hastert), use federal appropriations to enrich himself (by, for instance, allocating federal funds for a highway near his land holdings as did Hastert and others).

But that's largely beside the point. Trailing badly in the polls (pollster.com shows him down six points), Chafee is going to great lengths to publicly distance himself from the partisan excesses of his own Republican Party. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Lincoln Chafee is a Republican who votes the party line when ultimately necessary and supports an extreme GOP majority in the Senate. And no ad ought to blind Rhode Island voters -- particularly independents and loosely-affiliated Democrats -- to this fact.

There's more...

Ok, so now it's Cardin v. Steele in MD and Whitehouse v. Chafee in RI.  Both Steele and Chafee have crossover appeal.  Don't underestimate the work that Steele has been doing to appeal to Democrats and independents.  Don't be fooled by the large Democratic registration advantage and disaffection with Bush in both of those states.  This is where the campaigns should listen to the advice of Stoller and Bowers.  Both Senate seats depend fundamentally on the campaign strategies and are ours to lose.

There's more...

Per TPMCafe, looks like there's 'extremely high turnout' in Rhode Island today. This means 'independents may be coming out to prevent defeat at the hands of conservative primary challenger Steve Laffey.'

Ah... but the first (and only, at this point) comment on that thread reads: "Well here's one independent ... who voted in the Republican primary to cast a vote for Laffey."

So. Are these Independents coming out in force to help Chafee or to sink him? I've read more than once, here on MyDD, that Independents are hewing much more closely to Democrats this year than previously: with the RI primary tell us how closely, in fact, they are? If Independents want to save Chafee, what does that mean for our changes in November?

There's more...