Redstate

8.  The problem here are the undecideds (14%) which tend to always break Democrat in New Jersey.

The bigger problem are the dead, who tend to always break Democrat in New Jersey.

I forgot, excellent analysis.

This is an interesting read, but you're using enough qualifiers that at least I find it hard to tell just how you feel about this.  Are you just trying to keep from being overly optimistic, or what?

Right now I'm confidently guessing that we'll lose 2 seats in the Senate, and that's pretty much based on the observation that dice have no memory.

I disagree with regard to Maryland. I think Steele would have a major advantage against Mfume, who would play very poorly in the suburbs. Against Cardin, Steele's chances hinge completely on Democratic infighting, as the analysis notes.

The overall landscape is not really that great for Democrats, though obviously they have an edge in general terms. Santorum is probably done because of overall Republican malaise but Chafee is a strong favorite.

My guess is that Democrats take out 2 GOP incumbents, a pretty decent performance. But they really aren't that strong in the open races-- they'll lose in Tennessee, New Jersey and Minnesota are competitive, and Maryland is not a done deal for them.

The GOP should really put some resources into Washington. It's risky but the payoff could be significant.

Claire McCaskill has been successful at making hay out of Talent's stance on involuntary human experimentation

Is that.....stem cell research?  Or does Missouri have some David Lynch thing going on?

but I might just write a clause into my will saying that I will never vote for a Democrat after my death.

"If Kweisi Mfume gets the Democratic nod, Steele is likely DOA."

Steele has consistently polled better against Mfume.  This is probably due to Mfume's checkered personal life including the allegations of sexual harassment at the NAACP.  Steele would be able to win over the moderate independents if Mfume wins the primary.  I am still cheering for that result.

If Cardin does win, Steele really needs a major portion of the black vote to prevail.  I'd guess he would need over 35% against Cardin and about 20% against Mfume.  He could win against Cardin if Mfume feels upset enough to blow his Democratic bone fidas and either endorse Steele or even refuse to endorse Cardin.

Otherwise, all the analysis is about the same as mine at this point.  I think leaving off NE and MI is a good call right now.  They are the mirror image of AZ right now.

Allen isn't unpopular, it's a Republican state, and Allen is an incumbent. Will he be held under 60%? Probably, but Webb would do well to keep Allen under 55%, let alone beat him.

I don't think the coming months will be kind to Amy Klobuchar. As a candidate, she's just a run-of-the-mill talking-point-reciter, deadly dull, and seems to be among the lightest of the lightweights in anything related to foreign policy. Her talent, so far, is being in the right place at the right time with the right last name (daughter of locally-famous newspaper columnist, Jim Klobuchar.) Not much else. In a free-wheeling foreign policy debate she'd get clobbered. I suppose she can promise the voters more goodies than Mark Kennedy will promise, but that's about it.

1. I say we win Tennessee by 5 to 10 points if our guy doesn't screw up.
   
2. Talent edges McCaskill by 2 points. I don't think it will come down to stem cell, which would kill him.
   
3. Brown beats DeWine by 1 point, and that will be the "OMGOSH BELLWEATHER" moment.
   
4. Steele beats Mfume, Steele beats Cardin with Mfume's endorsement. I'm betting on Cardin beating Steele while Mfume shuts up.
   
5. Chaffee wins by those same two points.
   
6. Klouchbar wins by close to nothing.
   
7. Tester nails Burns by 5 points, easy.
   
8. Kean loses a tight race to Menendez, which will only hurt Roberto in the long run.
   
9. I feel Cantwell will win, but I could see her losing. I'll say Cantwell wins for now.
   
10. Santorum is D-O-Freaking-A. Sorry.

So I say Democrat +3. DeWine could win, as could Kean and McGavick and maybe Steele, but I think the combined odds of those balances against McCaskill winning.

52-48, which doesn't let Chafee be a Democrat hero if he jumps.

besides, Virginians would love to have the next president, and why not split the odds with him and Warner?

Yet Corker has sunk lots of money into television and his East Tennessee roots might give Ford some room with the West Tennessee Blue Dogs.

I think Santorum is toast - unfortunate because he has been one of the most conservative senators there is.  I guess some consevratives have decided to sit on their hands and let Casey win because Santorum supported Specter in 2004 - and supported other Republican incumbents who crossed the purists.

It's going to come back to bite them.  Not only will there be a Senator who is going to get pulled to the left when in Washington (between the party leadership and the Democratic netroots), but seeing one of the most conservative Senators go down due is going to cause the GOP to move a little more to the center in Pennsylvania.

Oh, and every Republican senator lost is one more vote for the filibuster.

That said, I don't think that Burns and DeWine are doomed.  They're going to have to work hard, but if the Democrats keep having weeks like this one so far, then they will probably make it.  I think that Minnesota and Washington will be pickups, and Maryland will also go Republican if Cardin wins the primary. Mfume won't have to endorse Steele - there will just be a diminished black turnout, and that will not be as heavily Democratic as Cardin will need.

Webb, well, let's just say I will be voting for Allen, but it's going to be a close race (probably a 53-47 race) - and George Allen's presidential campaign is going to be damaged by it.  By dealing with Webb's populist campaign, Allen is going to make himself too unpalatable for a national campaign.  But he'll be a Senator for a long time.

And one of them isn't that he supported Spector.

Here's how I see it.

#1) The residency issue. At best he's been deft, at worst, completely ignorent to the complaints that he just doesn't live here anymore. Add to that his leaving the Penn Hills cyberschool holding the bill for schooling his kids and it's a huge talking point in every newspaper editorial, or democratic talking point.

#2) Where the majority of the voters are, Pennsylvania isn't just that conservative. Santorum is going to have to campaign as a centrist in the Philly suburbs where Republicans are simply more moderate than in other parts of the state.

#3) Casey is Pro-Life. Let's say you're a strong Republican in central PA (where I live) who's a little disenchanted with the GOP over immigration, spending, whatever. But you would throw your support to Santorum because Democrats generally support choice. Casey takes that off the table. In counties where Santorum would take 75-80% of the vote, now maybe he only takes 65-70% and that could be enough to put Casey over the top.

I don't think Santorum is completly out of it yet. He's going to have money and all the national political backing, including the strategery of Karl Rove, no doubt, at his back.

I still predict a 51-49 race, but can't predict a winner just yet.

that Santorum gets as much support from Bush/Rove as Mr. Specter did.

You are neglecting to take into consideration that Rick Santorum has a war chest three times the size of Bob Casey.

Yes there is an anti-Santorum sentiment that has extended to the moderate wing of the GOP, here in PA.

Yes, Rick is number 1 on the Dems hit list (Conrad Burns is number 2).

But my friend, this campaign can and will be turning around....I was at a fundraiser for Rick just the other day with Laura Bush, and things are turning around.  

When I shook his hand I told him "thanks for defending life" I saw an energized politician.  To me that is the universal principle that makes him a strong candidate.

I concede with the others a close race, probably 51-49.  

But it's gonna be Rick.  People dont like his principles, but at least Rick has principles.  Don't count him out yet.

in so much as Santorum wants Bush/Cheney around. I know he had the First Lady in yesterday for a fundraiser and I think she was able to pull in almost half a million dollars.

I think Spector will benefit Santorum the most, particulary in the aforementioned Philly suburbs.

Fact is, PA is not a majority conservative state; a conservative needs the base but also needs moderates and independents.  I think Santorum just made himself too much of a lightning rod on too many hot social issues.

The national media wants Ford to win so bad that they'll do anything, which is one of the major reasons Ford will tank.  They look at Ford as articulate and photogenic.  Tennesseans look at him as slick and a con artist, like a used car salesman.

His political family is blister on the you know what of Tennessee.  His father has the record of having the most kited checks during the House bank scandal as well as getting indicted in the Butcher bank collaspe.  His uncle is under indictment for accepting bribes in the Tennessee Waltz sting (trial begins in Oct...as a reminder to the rest of TN about the Ford family).  His aunt has just be removed from office for voter fraud.  He helped run the Kerry campaign...and the list just keeps on coming.  

Tenneesseans are not stupid. Fool me once shame on you.  Fool me twice and so on (that is except for the African American voting block).  TN found out what Gore was and he lost by 13% on 2000. TN kicked out Sasser by 10%.

Ford winning in Tennesees is a joke.  He may win the the Black community in Memphis and Nashville, but as they say down here that dog don't hunt in the rest of TN.

Bob Corker, who is a very conservative GOPer, will probably get the nod just because he can out spend the rest and is a fresh face without the national baggage of various House votes to defend.  Bryant is a good candidate as is Hillary, but both need to stay in their district and keep their seats.  They can do a lot better in the House than they can in the Senate.  TN is redder than a sunburn on a baby's behind.  

I think the one to watch in the future is the rerun of Alexander.  I believe that he is going to have a real up hill battle winning the GOP primary.  It's a bit early to predict who will win that, but he's got a real fight coming up when he runs again.

talking about Weather Bureau sale of data. Durgan was being the village idiot and Santorum was making him look smart. Bush made a big, big support not staying out of PA last time. This time it will just be wasted, not misdirected.

What Steele loses in the black vote if Mfume gets the nod he should more than make up for among moderates who tend to see Mfume as an extremist.  Cardin plays better in the population as a whole.  

undecideds are a tough read in NJ. Kean (at least the name) is very different from Schundler. Consider the Franks/Corzine race, where Franks came on strong at the end, presumably because of undecideds breaking for him. That may be because NJ voters had simply had enough of Corzine's multi-month media blitz, and decided voting against him.

NJ may be a bit bluer than it used to be, but I still wouldn't be shocked if Kean wins.

The GOP would lose Ohio, Montana, Pennsylvania for sure and win Tennessee, Virginia, Rhode Island and Missouri. Minnesota and New Jersey would be a toss-up and the Dems would probably hold Washington and Maryland.

But obviously alot can change in five months. As of now ANYTHING that is or is perceived as "bad" is blamed on the GOP. And, that makes sense, the GOP controls the House, Senate & White House so if you are "mad" about Iraq, "mad" about gas prices or "mad" because you just lost your job, obviously the object of your anger and disdain is going to be the party (GOP) "in-charge".

What the GOP candidates have to do is make the argument that voters need to look at the alternative(s). I believe the driving factor behind nominal Republican voters and independent voters anger is gas prices. Does anyone believe the Dems policies are going to lower gas prices? LOL Far from it, the Dems policies are designed to RAISE gas prices, "invest" in alternative fuels solely and limit production of gasoline as much as possible. So, do voters "throw out the bums" based on perceived high gas prices in favor of highER gas prices?

Do votes in Pennsylvania who are pro-life throw out Santorum in favor of alleged pro-life Casey who has made who knows what promises to Schumer in terms of judicial nominees? Do folks in Montana throw out Burns in favor of "progressive" Tester who doesn't want to talk about "homosexual marriage" because their are "more important issues" (read: I (Tester) strongly support homosexual marriage, but let's not talk about that ok?). Do voters in Ohio throw out DeWine in favor of an anti-hunter, pro-homosexual marriage, far left-wing Brown solely on the basis that they are angry at Gov. Taft (or do they split their ticket and support Dem Strickland and re-elect DeWine?). The answers to all of those question may be YES! to the detriment of the GOP, but certainly it is up to the GOP incumbents to properly frame that question for the voters.

if Casey has made any judicial "promises". But Casey is very liberal, and will probably not vote based on one issue. He'll have no qualms voting down a very conservative pro-lifer or voting for a liberal pro-choicer. (Though his dad may not have done the second.)

And we'd lose Tennessee if the election was held tomorrow, since we don't have a candidate. DUH. ;-)

Debbie Stabenow...

Michgan is NOT a blue state...purple at best. The GOP controls both state houses and the state's delegation in Washington, as well as most state offices below that of governor.

With Zandstra now having graciously bowed out, the senate candidate from the GOP will come from the Detroit metro area...either Butler or Bouchard.

DeVos for Governor will do a lot at the top of the ticket to bring out GOP voters, sentiment against Granholm is major, even in her own party. A big DeVos win has coattails, even in a state like Michigan with a history of split balloting.

Bouchard as a candidate brings out a strong law-and-order vote, has strong name recognition and is popular. He is a proven winner!

Butler has strong community ties, wins a significant portion of the minority vote, and has strong conservative credentials.

Stabenow's lackluster record, Michigan's one-state recession, which she has done NOTHING to help alleviate... and with support from the national party the GOP could pick up this purple state!

I think Democrats would pick up Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio, Missouri, and MAYBE Rhode Island

Reason why I think Missouri is the polling has been so close in poll numbers for Congress has been low so Independents would swing Democrat.

Rhode Island would be a tougher call.  Independents wouldn't be as likely to swing to Democrats because Chafee is basically liberal.

I agree with Ford losing so unless the winner for the Republican does something incredibly stupid like hire an illegal for their campaign staff.

Lieberman quitting the Democratic party and winning as an Independent is something to consider with as hard as Connecticut Liberals are charging for Ned Lamont.

When's the last time the Senate had two Independents? That's, of course, presuming that Bernie Sanders wins in Vermont, which I think is a safe bet, and presuming that he doesn't officially join the Communist Party USA before assuming office.

I don't think we'd have to worry about Lieberman voting to filibuster anymore judicial candidates if he weren't a D anymore.

I'm saying in Tennessee, the GOP will win if the nominee was a "candidate to be named later" or "other", no way Ford, Jr. wins Tennessee.

You are correct about Casey & judicial nominees however. He can claim to not-not vote for a nominee on the basis of Roe v. Wade, but still reject them on "other" grounds. I am confident that is the deal he has struck with Schumer and Schumer has given guarantees and winks-and-nods to the NOW crowd that Sen. Casey will vote the "right way" on judicial nominees.

Since the month or two before the general is when most of the serious campaigning occurs - and especially the last week or two - that's kind of like saying, "If the election were held without a campaign and instead voters made decisions based simply on the headlines they see in their local liberal tabloid..."

It's a good barometer of the work that needs to be done going into that season - and you certainly don't want to get too far behind - but if a candidate is in striking distance, it's hard to predict. And in those instances, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

I'll concede that things look bleak in PA. In Ohio and Montana, Democrats have blessed the GOP by putting up borderline socialist, radical left-wing liberals that should go down like the flaming liberals they are once the electorate is exposed to it. Missouri leans GOP, so I expect the race to lean GOP in the end as well.

It's hard to say at this point, but I really don't expect the GOP to be much than a seat less at worse, and depending on how things go in Iraq and the economy running up to the election - possibly even make - gasp! - gains just like they have for the past 6 years.

An interesting point, whether Senator Lieberman would filibuster judicial nominees if re-elected as an Independent. He is already a member of the Gang of 14, so if he was Independent, he wouldn't have to toe the Dem party line for 6 years, then could see which way the wind is blowing in 2012.

Lieberman is still rather liberal on social/family issues (he voted against banning partial-birth abortion), so he might still filibuster an openly anti-Roe judicial nominee.

Somehow, it doesn't seem like Lamont could win the Dem primary here in CT, so Lieberman will probably coast to re-election as a Democrat.

Begins and ends with Iraq. That is why the leftwingers are furious with him. They see Iraq as a divisive issue in their favor that will allow leftwing social Democrats to logroll on that issue and push for their agenda that otherwise is not popular. Clearly the strategy is to smokescreen the gas price issue (hide behind the fact they are in fact in favor of HIGHER gas prices) and ride the wave of anti-Iraq War sentiment. Lieberman frustrates the latter.

On social issues, Lieberman is strictly a "talker", he'll talk about violent video games or "sexy" tv/movie programs, but when it comes to the KEY social issue for the leftwingers, homosexual marriage, he properly plays the game insofar as supporting the homosexual agenda 100%. He's also a safe vote for abortion rights, although he does the dog and pony show of having pangs of conscience about the issue.

But then again neither is his opponent.

http://www.buckeyesenateblog.com/2005/10/2nd_amendment_i.html

If Casey was the incumbent, ahead 23 points in the polls it wouldn't even be on the radar as competitive. If we put ones that far out as competitive we have lots of other races to watch as well..

I have a lot of Democrat friends and the reason they are mad at Lieberman isn't because of his support of the Iraq war it is because they feel like he actively works against the Democratic Party.  Kind of like how Republicans feel Spector does.

Democratic Party besides supporting the war?

Saying it doesn't make it true.

...with the exception of the Iraq War.

But Ned Lamont is much, much more liberal - and he's racking up union endorsements and other endorsements that I would have expected Lieberman to sew up (which seem to have little to nothing to do with the war in Iraq), according to the moonbats over at DailyKos. Add to it that Ned Lamont got twice as much support as he needed to get on the ballot. I still don't think that Lieberman would actually lose the primary, but for a Senator with his seniority and popularity in the state to have to eek out a primary victory might be more embarassment than he wishes to endure. I think it depends on just how close things get as the primary approaches.

If Lieberman ran as an independent, he'd have the added ability to run against "partisan rancour" as an official non-partisan in Washington, which may play well in Connecticut.

What Lieberman could do is use the threat to leave and run as an independent who would easily crush Lamont and the GOP candidate (Scheslinger?) in the general in order to get the entire Democratic machine behind him and put down the Lamont uprising.

I would expect his positions to get much more moderate, like Ben Nelson territory. He would be freed up from the Democrat party line and could pretty much take any position on anything he wanted. Sort of the opposite of what happened when he became Gore's running mate in 2000. There he had to adopt a lot of hard left stances overnight just to jive with the Gore campaign.

Are much less tolerant of their elected officials going off the reservation. Almost every issue is a litmus test issue with them. Lieberman is more like a Coleman than a Specter. Reliable on most issues. The only Democrat Senator that really enters Specter territory is Ben Nelson. They don't have anybody in Chafee territory. I guess that would've been Zell Miller.

Remember, they are also pretty angry with Hillary and it's not because she is a DINO or actively works against the Democrat party. It's because of her position on the war.

Actually, Corker is the moderate in the race, although he has done his best to run very conservative.  He ran against Frist in 1994 as the pro-choice candidate, and raised taxes as Mayor of Chattanooga.  In that regard, he has the baggage in the primary that Bryant and Hilleary don't.

Also, Bryant and Hilleary don't have seats anymore, as they both ran for Senator and Governor respectively in 2002.

Bryant and Hilleary each have the money to win this primary, as they have just started running ads, and they have money to do that through early August.  They also have the advantage of Corker's record, which they will exploit to the fullest.  Whoever wins the primary will see money pour in to defeat Ford.

(And I'm coming from across the aisle.)

Here's one way to look at it:

In 2004, John Kerry took 27% of PA's pro-life vote and 67% of the pro-choicers against Bush.

I saw a poll about two months ago with Bob Casey getting 43% of PA's pro-life vote and 67% of the pro-choicers against Santorum.  

When you are young and full of idealism you vote Democrat

When you are older and wiser you vote republican,

And when you are dead you go back to the Democratic party.

Even though I'm from TN I have not kept up with Bryant or Hilleary.  Too bad they gave up sure seats.  Corker is running a very conservative campaign with his Mom cutting spots for him. (How can you beat that...that's how Gore won remember?) He's running pro-life, pro Bush, pro-business, anti-amnesty.  Bryant is running referral ads from various conservative groups that no one recognizes.  Coker got out of the gate first and fast.  If he ran as pro-choice before (and he doesn't say he had a born again conversion to become pro-life) he may have trouble but I still think that he will be the one. Alexander is pro-choice. Hilleary is invisible right now.   Either way...Ford is toast.

on 2 a bit.  It seems that the general populace, to include the critical moderate voters in PA, views Santorum as something of a theocratic social conservative without corresponding economic conservative stances.  As examples

• I suspect that however you feel about gay marriage, the general populace does not have Snatorum's oft stated objection to all things gay.  
  
• Same goes for contraception, with Santorum on the record as decrying its ready availability (eg, his comments on Griswold vs)
  
• Regarding the economic thing, unless I am recalling incorrectly, Santorum hasn't exactly been leading the way for fiscal responsibility and small government.  Indeed, his book suggests to me something along the lines of conservative populism, with goevernment intervention in all aspects of society.
  

Help me out here, my Santorum knowledge is a bit weak... Am I off base re the popular perception?

Back during the 2000 election, there were several issues where Lieberman was supposed to hold more 'moderate' views than the Democratic party, yet once selected by Gore, he quickly changed course and towed the party line on all of them.  One I remember was the issue of affirmative action (i.e. racial preferences), where Lieberman had once spoke of being wary of how it was carried out, but that faded as soon as Jesse Jackson demanded he pledge fealty to preferences.  

Lieberman will talk the thoughtful moderate-conservative line when it comes to social issues, but his VOTES are consistently liberal. And despite what "Democratic voters" say about him bucking the part as if in the plural, the fact is the issue is solo: The Iraq War.

Losing just two of the highly threatened 3 -- Santorum, Burns, and Talent -- would prove disastrous if Bush were to get another SCOTUS appointment.  The only way it wouldn't be is if the GOP picked up Minnesota and Washington, but that seems unlikely if they lose in red states like Montana and Missouri.  Kean Jr would of course be higly preferable to Menendez, but he would probably not be a vote for the nuclear/constititional option.  

Burns probably has gotten an unfair rap, but its a shame he didn't bow out and let the much more popular House member from Montana, Rehberg, run instead, as he polled much better against any Dem opponent.  

Webb could be trouble in Virgina, because he'll probably fool a lot of normally-GOP voters into thinking he is a populist champion of Scots-Irish values.  He may have been so at one time, but he's already backed away from his opposition to racial preferences (screw poor whites I guess), and he opposes the Virginia marriage initiative on the ballot this fall.  

I can understand if Webb has become disillusioned about the GOP, especially with regards to the Iraq war which he opposed from the beginning, but I wonder how he feels now running in a party where he actually has to defend himself for (formerly???) believing that racial preferences are wrong, and that front-line combat units should not be open to women -- two mainstream views that most Americans would either agree with or find reasonable, yet are seen as heresy w/in the far-left Democratic party?

I should have also mentioned that even before being brought to book by the demands of being the VP candidate, his moderate talk was really just that -- talk, and nothing else.

but can anyone shed some light on who I can vote for Senate in NY?  Will

there even be a candidate against Billary? (and I mean besides the

marijuana party candidate!) Or is this a repeat of the effort against

Schumer?  

Overall, interesting analysis that I generally agree with. I might move Washington and Minnesota up a little and Ohio down a notch or two, but those are minor quibbles. Also, I think VA is going to be a lot closer than you're giving credit, though Allen will very likely retain his seat. Likewise, I agree with the others that MI seems like it should be on the list though I doubt, ultimately, if the seat will change hands.

My main note is about Lieberman running as an Independent. To do so, he would need to file 7500 signatures by the day after the primary. Now 7500 sigs isn't all that many... unless you're trying to get them in 24 hours. To do so he would actually need to start before the primary; word of which would virtually guarantee the primary loss. Personally, I think Joe's too proud to admit defeat before the primary. In that case, if he loses, he's gone, though that's still a long shot (but getting shorter every day it seems)...

[sadly, the best analysis I've seen on this eventuality is over at Kos: so click at your own risk; you've been warned]

but I'm not sure it works in this instance. I just watched a segment of his victory speech on Fox and he was playing up being an indpendent thinker. A democrat who left the party with Reagan because the party had left him, who is now moving back home. I think Allen makes minced meat of that argument in the race. If Webb wins and goes to DC as a Dem, he has to vote to support the Pelosi-Reid-Murtha leadership, which ain't gonna play well with the very voters Webb is trying to attract. Not really sure support from Chuck Schumer is going to help him on this count either.

The wild card is the effect of the chnaging population in VA. Northern VA is growing in size, and seems to consist mostly of libs who can't bear to be in the city any more.

Particularly among men- they may say they have no problem with gays, but alot of them still squirm when the subject comes up.  Men still are horrified if mistaken for being gay.  In many ways, Santorum is just saying what they are feeling.  That sodomy is icky and not normal.  Sure, Santorum has offended the city of Brotherly Love, but they weren't going to vote for him anyways.

Not that straight men want to go beat up gays (which by the way Santorum is on the record as opposing), rather they just don't see gayness as a thing to celebrate.

Secondly, I think you are misrepresenting Santorum's comments about contraception.  Many people feel Griswald was poorly decided, even if they agree with the result.  You can do that.

Finally, I think Santorum has always had abit of a blue collar tinge to his economic conservatism- but he does support lower taxes, and lower spending.  (I might be wrong, since I'm not from Pennsylvannia). If anything this will be a plus for him- it might help gain support with the Pittsburg area.

Finally, Casey's pro-life stance is a double edged sword.  As more independents become aware that Casey is pro-life, serveral swing voters who previously voted pro-choice, will switch to Santorum on economic issues.

We will see who wins/  I think it will have alot to do with Iraq.

was very well decided if you happened to be an aging man with a taste for PYTs who'd just taken a much younger, and presumably fertile, wife, and you just happened to be a Supreme Court justice.  What amazes me is that he got others to see his penumbras and emanations.  Well, at least judicial activism has been put to worse uses.

in that the his comments re gays will probably not resonate with moderate voters.  And to clarify, I see Santorum's comments, as a whole, essentially saying that individual states should have the right to outlaw homosexual acts conducted in private, and this is one indicator of the moral decline of our society.  Broad brush, I know, just trying to keep it short.  

My question has more to do with perceptions, specifically what Santorum's statements re Griswold say about his overarching views regarding privacy and the Government's authority to regulate such things.  I suspect that part of Santorum's problems have to do with his being SEEN as an extremist, and his public quotes re gays, Griswold, etc are example of a wider extremist viewpoint.   I suspect he has alienated a pretty strong percentage of libertarian oriented voters who would normally vote GOP.  

Things haven't picked up yet.  I'll be happy with Corker as long as he sticks to what he's been saying during the campaign.  And as for Alexander, hehe, well, I'm from Maryville (his hometown), and we only claim him sometimes. ;)

Used to live in Sevier Co.  We used to say that if you're a republican, don't let the sun go done on you in Oak Ridge.  Everywhere else you're welcomed.

Ditto on Alexander, but at least he knows how to wear a flannel shirt (Remember Gore and the canoe photo op?).

"DeWine should have been able to win this election with relative ease, but for undiscernible reasons, he has dropped bombshell after bombshell on his most fervent voters on esoteric issues that swing voters could probably care less about.>

ANWR.  Incompetence and corruption.  Spending and earmarks.  The Gang of Fourteen.  Amnesty for illegal aliens.  All of the above are hot-button topics here in Ohio and the combination will hopefully combine to defeat DeWine in the fall.  I certainly will not vote for him, although I consider myself to be a member of the Republican base and I literally do not know one other party member who supports his re-election.  Not one.

<Thus, while Republicans would still generally rather have him than Sherrod Brown, they're not exactly pumped up about sending DeWine back to Washington.>

Those whom I know -- and including myself -- have no great love for Brown, either.  But we do have other options, one of which I plan to exercise in November:  that spot on my ballot will remain blank.  

<This is the sort of race where a guy like DeWine could really use some motivated help, and come November, he probably won't have any.>

If a minority of voters in his own party do not support him, DeWine will be re-elected because of the close division between parties in Ohio.  

If that minority either votes for Brown or, like me, leaves that slot unmarked, DeWine will be defeated.  Mr. Suck-up-to-the-Democrats has spent the last six years pandering to them, and now he thinks that a few pseudo-conservatives votes in the Senate will make up for that?  I don't think so, at least, not when it comes to MY vote.