Are the Democrats certain to tighten their hold on the Senate in 08?

[Verily]

North Dakota doesn't have an election in 2008. That thread was from 2005; Conrad was reelected in 2006 with almost 70% of the vote. Dorgan is up for reelection in 2010.

At this point, the Republicans really only have a shot at Louisiana, and only if they find a decent candidate. Their current candidate list in Louisiana is sorely lacking. The Republican bench in South Dakota is surprisingly shallow for such a red state; even if Johnson retires, I see no reason why Herseth wouldn't be easily elected into the Senate.

Colorado is a lost cause for the GOP (cue Rawlings), so, unless they gain Louisiana and stop any losses elsewhere, the Republicans can't break even in 2008.

New Hampshire is probably the Democrats' next best chance of a pickup, followed by Minnesota. Personally, I doubt Franken will end up being the candidate (losing to Ciresi or some more prominent DFLer who steps in), and don't think he'd do as poorly as the Republicans here seem to believe, anyway. (Those who hate him wouldn't be voting Democrat anyway.) The Democrats only have Marchand as a confirmed candidate in New Hampshire so far, but New Hampshire has undergone a dramatic shift to the left and to the Democrats, and a mayor is not a bad choice in a small state. Maine is the only other Democratic pick-up with serious potential, and that because of a high-profile candidate.

Elsewhere we get into unlikely shifts; Oregon looked like it would an interesting race , but, so far, the Democrats have come up short on a candidate (again, it's early). If Chuck Schumer convinces one of the Democrats declared for North Carolina Governor to run for Senate instead, Liddy Dole will be in serious danger in a state that leans Democrat at the state level though is solidly Republican presidentially.

If John Warner retires, which seems possible, popular governor Kaine may run for his Senate seat. (Mark Warner is possible but unlikely.) Warner seems to be leaning towards retirement, but we don't know anything for certain, and he has a long time to make a decision.

Texas and New Jersey both have incumbents of low popularity, though one must always temper Lautenberg's low popularity with the knowledge that NJ gives everyone low approval ratings. Neither is likely to change hands. After Kean failed to break through in New Jersey last year in what was thought to be the Republicans' best chance in New Jersey for decades, it will be very difficult to convince a well-known Republican to run. In Texas, there are few Democrats left who are not either Hispanic or liberal, neither of which can win statewide despite Cornyn's unpopularity.

Oklahoma is worth a mention for Inhofe's low approval rating, I suppose, as is Massachusetts for Kerry's. If either loses, it will be in the primary, not the general.

[Verily]

These will go Democrat:  CO, NH, MN.

How coudl you possibly think that either Franken or Ciresi could possibly beat Coleman?

Ciresi is at least 50-50 with Coleman. He's experienced and noncontroversial, a good speaker, well-liked for his crusade against Big Tobacco, and not too liberal. Coleman, on the other hand, is ill-liked, too conservative for Minnesota and was elected in a fluke. Ciresi isn't very well-known, but campaigns change that.