Skelton, Taylor, Edwards, and Matheson are safe.  Even with R+11 to R+18 districts they win again and again, with average margins around 20% over their hapless R challengers.

The problem will be the R+4 to R+10 districts represented by freshmen.  We'll lose some of those in '08.  TX22 will be hard, too.

And Ike Skelton is getting old;  when he retires it will be hard to succeed him with a Dem.

Let's hope Senator Thomas is okay.  We'd like to win that seat, but we don't want a human being to get sick or die so we can have it.

Can we have a printable copy of the forecast Monday so that we can print it out and carry it with us?

I want mine Tuesday so that after a long day of GOTV I can relax at the local Democratic victory party and check off the dominoes as they fall across the country.

Thanks, Mr. Thompson, for telling us that the Honorable Jim Matheson (D-UT2) hasn't been able to hold his 73%-for-Bush district for three terms as he coasts to an easy reelection.  

And that the Honorable Bill Orton (D-UT3) never actually held Utah's Third, the single most Republican district in the nation at the time for any congressman from either party, a Bush 80+% district.  In fact, Orton never held it for three straight terms.

And thank you for explaining why The Honorable Chet Edwards (D-TX17) hasn't been able to survive in the 75%-for-Bush district where he resides and why he can't win again this year over his opponent whom he leads by almost twenty percent in polls.

And Wyomingites will be especially interested to know that they aren't really going to reelect Governor Dave (Freudenthal) who leads two-to-one in polling.  Even though Wyoming is 'only' a 69%-for-Bush state.

That explains why Larry Grant surely can't hold ID-1 (where we also need to work still to win) for more than a term or two even though Bush won there with only 68%.

Yes, Mr. Thompson, you have explained it all.

how one can have this discussion without understanding that christians who hate gays do exist.

Christians who hate gays don't exist, by definition.  What we're talking about is 'christians' who hate gays.  

And there are a whole lot of those.

Please have some mercy on the Spanish speaking population.  The word is cojones.

Cajones are furniture drawers.

And try mixing heuvos in there from times to time.

t's not about having the votes for a filibuster. It's about getting the votes for a filibuster. Use a little political capital

But at least our powder is dry.  When we lose another election this fall because the voters don't think we have any guts, we'll have lots and lots of dry powder to keep us company and ease the pain.

Lieberman votes "yes" for torture.  Just as you would expect.

This wasn't even a cloture-vote dodge.  It was an outright vote for passage.

Thirty two out of forty three (32/43) Senate Dems voted no.

We once appointed The Honorable Rep. Ron V. Dellums (D-CA), who made half-serious comments about supporting the Soviets during the Cold War during his terms in Congress, to run the Armed Services committee.  Then 1994 came.

Why not put a disgraced corrupt impeached judge in charge of the Intelligence committee in wartime?  It fits right in with Congressional Dems massive support for Lieberman and lining up behind Hillary in '08.  For them, rank hath its privileges and keeping the insiders in power is more important than doing good things for the country.

If the Republicans weren't even worse, we'd be losing the election even in this year's climate.

Ooh, you're the Frist one who posted that possibility.

I'd be very happy to believe that Democrats have any kind of spine on the Disney issues.

We don't much like extreme copyright claims says the main article here, so maybe we should take a look at the vote on CTEA, the Copyright Term Extension Act that effectively requires any works created since 1923 to be under copyright forever.

Here's a list of every Dem who voted "no,"

---begin list
---end list

That's right, every Dem in both houses of Congress was just as eager as could be to become Disney's butt monkey.

Obviously, because now Chris Shays has the de facto endorsement of the second most popular Republican in the state — Joe Lieberman.

And because the Lieberman media blitz will suck the oxygen out of the media that the Farrel campaign needs to make its case to voters.  Of course Lieberman's field operation will also be turning out his most reliable supporters, those being Republicans.

Joe wags his fanger at you and says you "should have thought of that before you had a primary."

Only because having Hadassah work as a lobbyist and take money directly from corporations with an interest in senate votes and then share that money with Joe in a joint account is still somehow considered an exception to the bribery statutes.

An oversight we should demand our Senate to correct...

How much does it cost to sponsor a forecast?

So The Honorable Senator Lieberman (con-lie) showed up at a campaign stop in Groton.

A lot of employees of federal contractors are very interested in what pols have to say.  When there's a public event for campaigns we expect just about everyone to show up.  

And now we're supposed to be upset that Joe is actually getting out to see the people.  

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Simons and Rell will also be at the event.  That doesn't prove that Lieberman (con-lie) is campaigning for them.

Even a bad senator wouldn't campaign for Simmons in the one seat we still have a pretty good chance at (CT-2) in spite of the Lieberman campaign's work to turn out Republicans in the other two races.  He couldn't expect to hold on to any of his Dem support if he were really working with Simmons.