I am not sure why anyone puts MT and WY in the same category other then they are close geographically.  Montana has re-elected Max Baucus four times and before Burns there were democratic senators for years.  True the GOP had the Gov. Mansion for 16 years; however, two of those three (Stan Stevens and Judy Martz) only served one term and could not have been re-elected.  Marc Racecot (SP?) may be a big GW friend; however, he governed as a moderate.  Burns can and most likely will be beat in Montana. I hope Craig goes as well; however, WY is deep red at most levels; Montana is purple and maybe even going blue except at the Presidential level.

Sorry..you are correct.  I forgot about Rick Hill. He had some Health issues (eyes I think).

I am not all that sure that Rehberg is as popular as that.  He has faced only token opposition since getting elected to the house.  Granted he might be in a little better shape then Burns at this point; however, they both could be beat in a Senate race if Morrison/Tester keep up the GOP corruption theme.  If former Gov Mark Racecot (spelling?) gets talked into running- its all over for the Dems- they would have to bring Mansfield back to life to beat him.

What is the basis for the other comment?  I can not even remember any other GOP senator from Montana other then Burns.  Baucus has been there forever.  Before that, Mansfield and Melcher (and another Dem that was in office forever before Baucus took over for him).  Montana has a proud tradition of Democratic Senators (Melcher had his issues which is why Burns beat him).

As for the house, when Montana had two.  The western disctrict always went Dem and the eastern GOP.  When one district was lost, Williams (DEM) beat Marlene (GOP).  Then Rehburg got the seat when Montana migrated toward the GOP when Williams retired.  

I pretty much agree.  However in regard to Edwards; being imcompetent never hurt Bush (maybe the people just demand that Dems elected President are competent as many of the Republicans elected to that office are suspect)

If they do not return to New Orleans and vote, they can will live in some state and be able to vote in that state.  Since many ended up in Texas, that state could tilt a little more Blue.  Granted the impact may not be seen as quickly as in LA.  However, Texas is trending more democratic in long term (with Hispanic voters increasing).  Add thousdands of diplaced New Orleans voters and GOP corruption in Texas... the tilt towards blue could speed up a bit.

Well.. if this is what they are going to try- good luck.

At work today, more then one Bush voter(White; male, older then 40) wished they could take the vote back- mad as hell (like most everyone else).

Of course, he and the other 70 million or so can not take their votes back. However, the Dems have a rare opportunity to frame the debate as I do not see this GOP crap flying very far.  I hate to tell Barb Bush, but many people liked New Orleans and it could just as well be Houston some nut case blows up as any where else.  (Thank goodness for her secret Service as I am not sure her son would save her).

The point may be that this time Burns will NOT have republican presidential coattails to help pull him over the top as he did in 2000.  

I really think the key to this race is the rural vote which I think can be turned especially by tester.  Except for Billings, population centers tend to go dem.

Lets not forget Montana.. either of the two main Dem contenders should give Burns a good race.

I agree.. of course Bush doesn't have alot of Charisma either; just got lucky that Gore and Kerry have less.

I agree; I think it is high time that the dems stand up to Bush on the war and everthing else.  However, except for maybe stem-cells, the GOP seems unwilling to stand up to the president on anything.  Can you find a high profile republican in CA or any place else that is against the war and wants to withdrawl troops? (if so, Karl Rove will quickly be rid of him/her especially as a Senate candidate)

While Feinstein is not ideal on this issue; it is the GOP that needs to be held to the fire regarding the mess in Iraq.  Lets get to 51, then pressure can be placed on Feinstein and similar moderates.  Until the dems have control, its pretty pointless to defeat our own.

Well...least I know that the GOP will have to grasp at straws.

Uebberoth did nothing in the recall.

What the heck..run Selleck; at least he has good name ID (then again he might have the same problem as Uebberoth.. the Magnum PI crowd is getting a little up there in age).

None of these will touch her.

I thought he knew almost everyone in the state personally- LOL

I think as long as the dems to not run anyone to split the vote, Sanders will win; do not see VT voters giving Bush another ally in the Senate.

While I agree that Schwarzenegger is not dead in the water yet, I personally do not think he will run unless he is almost certian of re-election (big ego may not be able to take being voted out).  His re-election gets less certain everyday; however, I admit the dem field does not capture the imagination.

I just do not see anyone from the GOP getting close to DiFi for two reasons:

1. there is NO one to challenge (give me some names that are NOT closely tied to Bush- see #2).

2.  Bush Bush Bush.  CA is not golden for him

The recall election was about an unpopular Gray Davis; after having lived the past six years in CA, I see NO evidence that the GOP is making any kind of great comeback.  In fact, I am not even sure Arnold can be re-elected (think he will not even run).

What is Ken Mahlman going to do... say vote for "whoever' because we need him to help the Bush revolution along?   Let him try... Let him throw a ton of money into the state... Feinstein will have NO problem holding this seat in the 6th year of a Bush white-house.  

Feinstein???  Who could challenge her?  Arnold is going down in flames, and taking what remains of the GOP in CA with him.

She has as much chance as being beeten as Snowe does in Maine.