I actually think the 44% Hispanic figure for Bush comes from The Almanac of American Politics, a published source.

What?  After sixteen straight years of GOP control?  And, with Taft's approval rating?  I will lose faith in the Democrats' ability to perform as a national party if they lose this race.  Its not that is meant to be a landslide just that there is no good reason for them to lose it.

I think the worse case scenario would be a loss of three seats in Maryland, Minnesota and New Jersey.  Best scenario: pickups in Arizona, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Virginia.  I feel the most likely scenario will be a gain of 4 seats in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Tennessee.  At the moment and at best I am only sure of one seat: Pennsylvania, and then that is only in my more upbeat periods.

Anyway, back to Lott and MS; I feel that Lott has been persuaded by the NRSC and other GOP Senators mindful of their prospects in 2006.  I think his feelings of disillusionment will return, however, once he runs against Mitch McConnell for the top spot and loses badly I think he will resign his seat allowing Haley Barbour to appoint Chip Pickering.  Then they will hold an election for it in 2008 and with a Republican at the top of the ticket if Moore runs he will lose badly and the GOP will have manipulated the whole situation and I will hate them for it.  In any case, I just don't think that Lott will remain in Washington until 2013 if he doesn't get his old position back.

I've heard that Democratic Representative Ted Strickland is unopposed for the nomination while Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is the most likely Republican to win the primary.

Does anyone care to predict how Blackwell's candidacy would affect the GOP performance amongst African Americans in Ohio?  Most polls show Strickland with a narrow lead but would say Blackwell getting 10%-20% of the black vote result in his victory?

Seconded.

Jesse Jackson all the way!

From The Hill -

Rep. Harris lent $250,000 to sagging Senate bid in Fla.
By Peter Savodnik

Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) lent $250,000 of her own money late last year to her sagging Senate campaign, a Republican familiar with campaign operations said.

The congresswoman is expected to announce next week that she raised roughly $1 million in the final quarter of 2005, said former Florida GOP Executive Director Geoffrey Becker. That total will include Harris’s personal contribution.

Many other Florida Republicans confirmed the $1 million fundraising figure but declined to speak publicly about the Harris campaign.

How much cash Harris has in her campaign coffers will have a direct impact on her ability to wage a competitive race, according to Becker.

Campaign spokeswoman Morgan Dobbs would say only that the campaign is extremely pleased with its support and that it exceeded its fundraising goal for the quarter. Campaign consultant Ed Rollins said the campaign’s financial outlook has improved.

“If her cash on hand is below a million dollars, if it’s anywhere in that neighborhood, that’s just not good news,” said Becker, who now runs a GOP consulting firm, Vantage Point Strategies, in Tallahassee. “Florida is simply too expensive, and she’s got too much work to do. She’s got a lot of image building and image rebuilding to do to get to a general-election competitiveness.”

Harris is the only Republican seeking her party’s nomination to challenge Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) in November.

While the congresswoman, now in her second term, outpolls all other possible Republican contenders in a potential primary contest, she also performs the worst among the same Republicans in a match-up against Nelson, according to polls.

For that reason, Republican strategists say, other Republicans, such as Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and state House Speaker Allan Bense, have been reluctant to jump into the primary, leaving the GOP, they say, without a viable contender to take on Nelson.

Tony Marsh, a GOP consultant at the Washington-based Marsh Copsey & Associates who has worked for Foley and the Florida Republican Party, said beating Harris in a primary “will be a battle up a very steep hill.”

J. Patrick Michaels, a prominent GOP fundraiser backing Harris, said that he was unaware of the $250,000 loan but that it makes sense.

“She’s got the money, and her family’s got the money, and her husband certainly has the money,” Michaels said.

Since entering the Senate race last summer, Harris has faced several hurdles: opposition from the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee; lackluster third-quarter fundraising that campaign aides attributed to Hurricane Katrina; and staff shakeups, including Campaign Manager Jim Dornan’s resignation.

What’s more, were Harris to win the nomination, she would have to compete with many other Senate battlegrounds for support from donors and the national party, including Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, where Republican incumbents face tough reelections, and potentially competitive races in Michigan, Nebraska, Washington, West Virginia and elsewhere.

Moreover, Harris would not have President Bush at the top of the ballot to help in a general election, as freshmen Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) did. Martinez eked out a win against Democrat Betty Castor in 2004 with critical, grassroots support care of the Bush-Cheney campaign.

A Florida Republican official who worked on the 72-hour voter-mobilization drive in November 2004 said the president’s campaign drove up turnout in 64 out of 67 counties in the state.

“If she has any pride, she’ll be out in a month,” said a Republican with close ties to Harris campaign officials. “If she cares about her party, she’ll be out in a month. Otherwise, the Senatorial Committee won’t do a thing and she’ll get beat by 15 points.”

Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the committee isn’t actively recruiting any candidates at this time.

Republicans have called Nelson, a former state insurance commissioner now wrapping up his first term, a blank page who has yet to define himself in Washington. And they insist that the president’s improved performance in Florida in 2004 — the president received 52 percent of the vote last time around versus 49 percent in 2000 — shows the state is trending Republican, particularly along the crucial I-4 corridor linking St. Petersburg and Daytona.

But Republicans concede that Nelson will have a huge war chest by the time the GOP primary rolls around, Sept. 5. Republicans expect him to have as much as $20 million in the bank.

At the end of the third quarter, Sept. 30, Nelson had $6.5 million on hand, having raised $1.9 million during that time. In contrast, Harris had $470,000, having raised just less than $500,000.

Nelson pollster David Beattie has called the senator a results-oriented Democrat with experience campaigning in turf normally hostile to members of his party.

Far from squandering his time in Washington, as Republicans maintain, Nelson has opposed oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and fought to extend the enrollment deadline for the prescription-drug benefit, among other issues, spokesman Bryan Gulley said.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/011106.html

OurSenate today reports that the RNC and NRSC are lobbying state media mogul and former Chairman of the West Virginia Republican Party John Raese to run against the veteran Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.

Rase ran for the Senate in 1984 against Jay Rockefeller and lost narrowly, 51% to 47%.  He also had an unsuccessful run for Governor in 1988.  Raese owns several radio stations and a newspaper in West Virginia. 

A spokesman for the NRSC said: "We're really excited about this guy, and we hope he gets in".  Raese had met with NRSC chairwoman Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina as well as White House and RNC officials. 

GOP fears grow about West Virginia; earlier in the year Dole made a strenuous effort to enlist 2nd District Representative Shelley Moore Capito to run against Byrd, who at 87 has served in the U.S. Senate since 1959.  The Republicans had become optimistic as one poll showed Byrd, who won re-election in 2000 with 78% of the vote, leading Capito by just 46%-43%.  But in the end Capito chose to run again for the House, another potentially close contest.

With the filing deadline three weeks away, can the GOP persuade Raese to "get in" or will they be left without a challenger in a state George W. Bush carried 56%-43% in 2004?

http://www.oursenate.com/

You're probably right: in a Pickering-Moore contest I'd expect the deciding edge to be with Pickering.  However, I think Democrats would be just as happy to make the GOP have to spend time and money in a Red State where the result was in doubt.  I don't think Pickering would win by more than 52%-47% as well.

Delaware would be interesting.  I think that it could become more of a bellwether, like a mini Pennsylvania, but I don't think that it is suddenly going to vote 60%-40% for whoever the GOP nominee is in 2008.  Kent and Sussex counties, which Kerry lost in 2004, account for 37% of the vote.  In 2000, they accounted for 33%.  New Castle county is obviously what keeps the state Democratic. 

Actually the largest margin of victory of West Virginia since 1964 was Jimmy Carter's 1976 win over Gerald Ford, he carried it 58.07%-41.93%.

We have seen most polls lean towards Democratic candidates in 2006.  This is why I am sceptical about Steele's chances in Maryland; a blue state in a blue year electing a Republican?  I can envisage Ehrlich holding on in a close race; he then could conceivably run for the Senate in 2010 if Mikulski retires. 

Someone made a point about North Dakota, but I think the difference between ND and MD is that the former is a local state; every candidate is well known there and people are generally re-elected by large margins.  MD's African American and white liberal Democratic base mean it is harder for generic Republicans to win here.  Much like in the South, where Democrats can win Governor's races but often fall short in Senate races, i.e. Inez Tenenbaum (SC 2004) 44%; and Erskine Bowles (NC 2004) 47%.  2004 was clearly a Republican year, probably unlike this one.  Therefore, I feel that Cardin, who is a generic establishment Democratic candidate, can defeat Steele in 2006.  Steele may well get between 44% and 47% in MD, but that is why I feel he is unlikely to win.

Also, at one point wasn't Rep. Chris Van Hollen meant to be running in the Democratic primary also?

Sharpton in a heartbeat.

Why?  Do you think VT is safe Democrat?

Isn't it a little like Virginia and the Democrats?  I think MD will at least go Democrat in 2008; but after that, who knows?

I think I said that as well.  The important thing to remember is that, in any poll in January of election year, you can depend that the result in November will be different.  I predict that Cardin will defeat Steele in the Senate race at least.  I think the GOP's zenith has come: 2006 will be our year on the Congressional level.

If you've seen the latest Rasmussen polls then there could be some credence to the GOP's plan to flip MD.

Perhaps the GOP strategy to turn Maryland into a Republican state is working?  I have to say I'm horrified; if the Democrats can't retain open Senate seats in MN, MD and NJ, then we won't gain at all.

According to Politics1...
'If there was ever any wonder if the Republican Party was behind all those state ballot campaigns to ban same-sex marriage, just check out this item. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported the Florida Republican Party gave $150,000 to the group that is trying to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to ban same-sex marriage (and seemingly ban local governments from giving domestic partner benefits to employees). In fact, the GOP's donation comprises more than 75% of the total the group has raised to date. To place the question on the ballot, the group must collect and get certified 611,009 valid voter signatures by February 1. The group say they've collected 250,000 thus far. The GOP contributions kicked the drive back into high-gear this month. Both GOP candidates for Governor, along with the State GOP Chair, endorsed the proposal. A spokeswoman for the Florida Republican Party said they are involved in the effort "solely because we support the issue ... [but] it happens to be beneficial to have initiatives on the ballot that Republicans feel strongly about."'

So, clearly, the intimation here is obviously that they want to put Same-Sex Marriage on the ballot in order to bring up turnout among conservative evangelicals, which will help Harris' campaign.  They must have seen the new Rasmussen poll which shows her losing 54%-31% to Nelson and drawing only 59% of Republican voters.

It also made me think: does anyone know of any other ballot measures in November in any of the states?  I suppose in close races things like Same-Sex Marriage or Stem Cell Research could make the difference.

I dunno I think the GOP expected her to rally Republicans at least.  She only wins 59% of them in her latest matchup with Nelson.

You could be right about a potentially close campaign.  Bouchard is doing better than Harris' fundraising in FL, and that was expected to be close.  Similarly, in Florida Nelson is not extremely popular as in Michigan, where Stabenow could have expected a tough battle against a good opponent.

Senator Joe Lieberman seems in good shape for re-election.  In a matchup with the liberal Republican he defeated in 1988, Lowell Weicker, now an Independent, he receives 65% of the vote to Weicker's, who served as Governor of Connecticut between 1991 and 1995, 21%.

Connecticut voters believe 62%-24% that Lieberman should be re-elected.  Republicans believe in the moderate more strongly than members of his own party do; GOP voters go 75%-18% in saying Lieberman should be re-elected, compared to 59%-29% of Democrats and 61%-24% of Independents.

When matched against Weicker, Lieberman receives 72% of Republicans; 67% of Democrats and 60% of Independents.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=863

Basically, Morris has identified what has already been stated in this thread: the GOP controls Congress and the Presidency, therefore its certain that the 'swing of pendulum' will go towards the Democrats. 

I think that the next realignment of the electorate, not just in America but in Britain also, will be towards the left.  The Reagan-Thatcherite agenda still dominates, meaning that the left-wing had to accept the changes of the 1980s in order to get back into power during the 1990s.  Much like conservatives after Roosevelt in America, Atlee in Britain and the creation of the welfare state, the opposition has to move with the times and accept social change brought on by political events. 

I think we will see a resurgence of more liberal idealism in America, or at least a libertarian attitude.  2004 was the year of the evangelical, 'moral issues' voter, that was the apogee, but we know that once things reach a peak, they tend to decline.  I think those people had been building up since around 1998 during the Clinton scandals and their moralist outrage at society had gathered momentum by 2002 and 2004.  I think that this group has at times been angry with the President and Congress, due to their legislative inaction on a number of conservative issues.  They could well neglect to turnout in 2006 for several GOP incumbents.

The average American voter, always moderate, experiences shifts during their lifetime between the left and the right.  'Average Americans' supported the Republicans in 1980, 1984 and 1988; they swung towards the Democrats in 1992 and 1996, and even in 2000.  America has fundamentally changed since then.  I don't think the GOP can stop the 'shifting leftward' because I think its a natural social and political event that has occured numerous times before.
 

Didn't Bush win New Mexico because in 2004, 44% of Hispanics voted for him; whereas in in 2000, 32% did?  In Iowa, I thought the case was simply that between 2000 and 2004 Republican overtook Democratic voter registration.

Not very good.  He's never been as popular as his colleague Max Baucus.  In 1988 he defeated incumbent John Melcher 51%-48%.  In the Republican Revolution of 1994 he won 62%-38%.  In 2000, when Brian Schweitzer challenged him he won by only 51%-47%, despite the fact that Bush was carrying Montana 58%-33% over Al Gore.  His approval has never been excellent.  I believe Burns is definitely one of the most vulnerable incumbents up for re-election this year.