All past elections are relevant to what will happen in the future. That's not to say that they are reliable predictors of what can happen in the future, but you can't intelligently judge what's happening now without knowledge of what happened in the past.
That's not the point I was trying to make. MikeyCNY seems to be under the notion that the Democrats' losses through the 1980s have an effect on the 2008 election. They don't. The circumstances under which those past elections occurred are very different from the circumstances under which the 2008 election will occur. Not to mention the political landscape has changed significantly since then.
Due to the fact that public opinion tends to sway rather quickly, those who say the Democrats are either guaranteed to win or lose the 2008 election are delusional. It can still easily go both ways.
Incumbent Senators are what, one for five since 1960? Not a good percentage, but you're examining the correlation between being a senator and losing on a very superficial level. Three of those times (1964, 1972, maybe 1996), the losing party would have lost regardless of who they nominated. That leaves 1960 and 2004 as the only 'winnable' scenarios for senator nominees, and they're one for two.
The biggest problem senators have with running for senators, is, of course, defending their voting record. If Clinton, like Kerry, cannot adequately do this, she will most likely lose. If she can successfully defend herself against the GOP attack machine, then she stands a chance. But either way, making an adamant statement that candidate A will beat candidate B (given that both candidates are top-tier candidates) a year away from a general election is stupid and naive.
Poll
