I think you are simply expressing frustration -- and disappointment -- that Obama has not run a true progressive movement-oriented campaign a la Howard Dean. I understand that, and I feel as frustrated as you do, but that hardly makes this race Hillary's to lose.

Obama is simply taking a different tack -- the "let's get past the partisan rancor" tack. I really wish he'd be more of a fighter (and I do not really have a horse in this race), but I think it is undeniable that this tack will appear to an awful lot of disgusted people. After all, the guy is outraising uber-machine-candidate Hillary Clinton in Q2, and drawing enormous crowds everywhere he goes to give a stump speech. Plus, her potential Achilles heel (not adequately exploited by anyone yet) happens to be the biggest issue in the race, across the political spectrum. How on earth can you say this race is hers to lose?

   I don't agree with everything you write, Matt (e.g. your misrepresentation of my fine rep Joe Sestak), but about 10% of what you post is absolutely brilliant & inspired, and this one is definitely in that 10%. (That's a high percentage for brilliance, BTW.)

I am pro-choice because if somebody else tried to tell me what to do with my own body I'd stick my finger is his fucking eye. So even though I do not have a uterus, I feel obliged to vigorously defend the rights of those who do to use them as they see fit.

And yeah, sure, it's not really all that simple -- the issue is fraught with such immense moral ambiguities, and that's obviously what makes for all the strong feelings. For me, though, it really is as simple as being sovereign over one's own body. Period. Everything else, morally fraught though it may be, is secondary to that principle. That's why I'm pro-choice.

A most interesting and excellent analysis.

The Arnold appears to have undergone a complete transformation (at least in terms of his public statements and image) since his Referenda Fiasco -- his contrition immediately after which was in such striking contrast to the behavior of our President.

BTW, that's another great lesson to take from Arnold: Americans don't view admission of wrong as weakness -- they LOVE to forgive and give people a second chance.

then he is full of shit.

There is no way Tim Johnson has consented to run again UNLESS it was before his hemorrhage, and that would simply not be applicable now. So either Schumer is lying, or he is misleading us.

I wrote an extensive diary regarding what can likely be inferred about Johnson's condition -- click on my username and you'll see it (it's my only diary on MyDD so far). Unless the reporting on the story is totally off base, I would be shocked if Johnson ran again.

Thanks!

I gotta say, it's a hell of a lot easier on dKos, though . . .

By the way, no matter where I looked I could not find instructions on how to do proper links, blockquotes, bold, italics, etc. on this site (for dKos it is all self-explanatory). If anyone could provide a link to the proper documentation I would be grateful.

I'm not from MN, so I don't claim any specialized knowledge, but from what I can tell MN is much like WI -- Midwestern populist, but with a large, liberal metropolitan area, and a large number of highly educated people and therefore a significant progressive streak (though obviously not overwhelmingly progressive).

Vwcat says that MN is trending conservative, but I don't really see that -- not only did the state go for Gore and Kerry, but Klobuchar just crushed the highly-touted Mark Kennedy ("Greatest. Candidate. Ever."). And Coleman is a totally undistinguished, rubber-stamp senator for a grossly failed administration. What's the guy got to run on?

And as for comedian Franken not being taken seriously -- this is the state that put Jesse "The Body" Ventura in the governor's mansion! Come on, people!  Granted Ventura's tenure as Gov didn't turn out all that well, but my point is that Minnesotans are obviously not averse to mavericks and entertainers.

I will certainly defer to local expertise, but could those who are pessimistic about Franken's chances (and there seem to be plenty) please give us some specific reasons for your pessimism?

Johnson won his last race (against John Thune) by the hair on his balls -- something like 500 votes.

Hey, I'm as psyched as anybody here about the repudiation of the Forced Childbirth law, but that don't exactly make SD a blue state.

I will also grant that we clearly can get Dems elected in the Dakotas, what with 2 Dem senators in ND and Stephanie Herseth as SD's House representative. But if Johnson draws any decent opponent then I think this race will be a dogfight -- winnable, but very close.

I would worry far more about him than about NJ. Jerseyites piss and moan and bitch and whine about their Democratic machine politicians -- and then decide that the alternative is even worse, every single time.

Anyway, while everything (obviously) depends on the particular candidates, the map certainly does make it look good for us to keep our hold on the Senate at the very least, if not expand it by 1 or 2 seats.

Look, I know we Dems have been shell-shocked for the last few elections, but that doesn't mean you ignore the obvious signs of an impending tsunami.

Excessive optimism is not warranted, but neither is excessive pessimism. Everybody was certain that Karl had some huge October Surprise on tap. Well, he did -- the surprise is that there was no surprise (other than pretending to be confident and hoping we'd fall for it).

Looking at the polls on Pollster.com, and making some educated/judicious "corrections" based on indivdual races (e.g. there is no way Sodrel is beating Hill this year -- the man barely won his seat in 2004, with GWB at the top of the ticket!!), I foresee +35 seats in the House for the Dems.

In the Senate, I see +6 seats and a 51-49 majority for us. PA and OH are gimmes, and I absolutely refuse to believe that the people of MT would send Corrupt Conrad back to the Senate in a year like this. I also refuse to believe that the people of the bluest state in the country (RI) want to send anybody with an R beside his name to the Senate either. (If on'y he'd switched parties . . .). VA and MO are tighter than hell, but we clearly have the (slight) upper hand in both. And while Chris Bowers may not believe in the "blowing breeze" theory, Charlie Cook and Chuck Todd do -- and so do I.

The bad news is that the 51-49 Senate is not as useful as we think, since one of the 51 is Lieberman.

Chris,

  Pollster.com is an awesome site, but I'm not sure this House Scorecard is useful. I just took a quick glance I my home district -- PA-07 -- and it is rated as a Toss-Up. Come again?! Does anybody with any sense actually believe that the Admiral vs. Crazy Curt is a Toss-Up at this point, what with the FBI hovering around his people like bees at a picnic?

  Well, they rate the race a toss-up because their polling average has Weldon with a 5% lead in the polling average over Sestak -- and that's because they average the last 5 polls, which go back to MAY, when Sestak had no name ID and Weldon was ahead 51-41!

   I think Blumenthal & Franklin have good polling & averaging methodology for big statewide races that are polled frequently, but they need some new ground rules to make a scorecard for the House.

   Not that I'm being pessimistic, by the way -- as the example above shows, the reall picture may well be even BETTER than they say!

I live in the district and have donated 3 times to Joe's campaign. I keep reading that this race is "tied in the polls," but I can't find that data anywhere. Was it an internal poll? Were the results ever publicly released? If not, why not? Has Weldon done any polls, and were they released? And has there been any independent poll in this district? I keep seeing polls for lots of other very competitive House races -- but Delaware County, PA seems to be getting short shrift.

I must disagree with some of what you imply in your post. As a Jew, I can tell you that the issue of Jewish identification is significantly more complex than you suggest.

First, by common usage, one is said to have been "raised Jewish", or even "born Jewish", if one was born & raised in a household in which Judaism was practiced. Thus, I would not describe George Felix Allen Jr. as "born Jewish," but based on reports it sounds like his mother was.

Second, to say that Judaism is a religion rather than an ethnic group, while technically accurate, is a significant oversimplification. Jews clearly have not only a common heritage but, thanks to centuries of marrying within the culture, a distinct ethnic identity that is obvious to anyone who has ever walked into a delicatessen. Even genetics reflects this: Jews get some diseases that other populations rarely get, and Jews score significantly differently on IQ tests than non-Jews. If Judaism were a missionary religion then these things would not have occurred, since people of other backgrounds would have "become" Jews. But as it happens, not that many people convert to Judaism. This is likely to change in the future due to intermarriage.

In fact, most Jews would consider the culture to be made up of 2 distinct ethnic identities: Ashkenazi (Eastern & Central European) and Sephardic (Southern European and North African). Those 2 groups of Jews have very different names, often look different, and have some different cultural and religious practices.

So I think one could appropriately view "Jewishness" as a religion AND an ethnic identity (or two), the relationship between which is complex. While talking about "Jewish blood" could possibly abet racist attitudes, there is certainly some accurate point to this -- even Jews speak this way oftentimes.

None of this really makes much difference in Allen's case, because the point is that he was angry and offended at the thought that he might be considered Jewish in any capacity. Whether you consider Jewishness primarily a religion or primarily an ethnic identity, that tells you all you need to know.

I don't know what makes you think that the Republican running in this race would get 40% of the vote. The latest polls show the hapless Schlessinger getting more like 20% of the vote.

Sure, they might replace him with someone who doesn't visit casinos with a fake ID, but even still, that person will be very late coming into a campaign in a very blue state, in a year when "Republican" has practically become a dirty word (even Tom Reynolds won't say he's a Republican on his campaign website!), to compete with 2 other candidates who've gotten tons of press for months.

If what you say is true, then why would all these Republicans be working so hard for Joe? They would be rooting for Lamont the same way that all of us on this site are rooting for Laffey in RI. I think a far more likely scenario is that CT Repubs abandon any Republican candidate and vote en masse for Lieberman, figuring that he's about as good as a Republican anyway and has a far better shot at winning than any registered R in the state.

...right now it would have to be Russ Feingold. He continually stands up for what he thinks is right (even if there is a risk to be taken), is a highly reliable supporter of progressive causes, and (as I've seen somebody mention on this blog in the past) has a remarkable way of making progressive values seem approachable and sensible.

All this, and it's not as though he hails from a Deep Blue state! That raises him even further in my esteem. In fact, I think Russ is one of the best examples to support the argument that the large majority  of the American public is not highly ideological. They want someone approachable who can make a case for something and is willing to stand up for it.

Spitzer the Giant Killer gets my runner-up vote.