Why I'm not worried about Obama (part 2)

From the now-famous "A More Perfect Union" speech delivered last Tuesday:

We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

This passage is nothing short of kryptonite for conservatives. There's a reason I turned to my co-worker right after watching Obama's post-Iowa speech and said, "this man is our next president." The rhetorical tactics he uses are utterly brilliant, in polar opposition to the bland old talking points of other Democratic leaders. He manages to speak controversial truths while maintaining his low-key, folksy tone, and this enables him to subtly pull down the curtain of the conservative worldview, exposing the inherent inconsistencies of the Reagan/Bush coalition.

Here are a few of the main points that do so:

1) You can be patriotic and still wish to improve upon the status quo.

This is a crucial frame to advance in legitimizing progressive ideology to the country as a whole. It is the initial step in obliterating the "liberals hate America" smear, and makes people look past knee-jerk partisan identification to evaluate proposals. As many of my readers will agree, progressives have better proposals on most issues.

2) Regulating large corporations in the public interest is necessary to make capitalism function smoothly.

This is an extremely tough argument to make in today's political climate, and I'm not sure Obama is fully prepared to make it a central campaign issue. However, he is heading in the right direction by placing the blame for many of America's problems where it belongs: the overreach of unchecked corporate greed. In enumerating the things he believes we should focus on "this time", he is implying that his administration will not value the "profits over all" mentality over the public interest. Hence the heartfelt anger emanating from the Limbaugh faction following the speech.

3) Hate is not an acceptable campaign tactic.

By appealing directly to the more benign aspects of human nature, Obama is regaining the upper hand in the national debate. He knows that the ugly smears will come, even nastier than we have already seen. By preemptively defining all such attacks (especially coded racism) as dirty politics compensating for a lack of effective policy ideas, he will be then able to deflect them with a simple "here we go again." Not this time. Almost effortlessly, he jumps back in control of the conversation.

4) Faith does not belong exclusively to the merchants of hate.

While not directly mentioned in the above passage, Obama addresses the issue of faith in this speech with a sophistication unique to modern American politicians. In discussing his connection to Rev. Wright, he implies, "Sure my pastor said some things I disagree with, but hasn't yours?". First, kiss goodbye to the Muslim smear. Second, and more subtly, he is driving a neat wedge into the Christian community, isolating the fundies from the more moderate churchgoers that represent a vast majority of the Christian faith. If Obama and his ideological allies can neutralize the party identification gap among non-extremist churchgoers, the GOP is dead meat for a generation.

Update (sunday evening): Sure enough, the Yahoo front page features this headline: Religious vote fragmenting in U.S. presidential election. The fourth point that I mentioned may already be proving important to the dynamics of this election season.

Fatcat executives - at nonprofits?!

The health care industry is a lucrative one. The stories about the massive profits at insurance and drug companies have piled up in recent years. Companies like Aetna, Merck, Hospital Corporation of America, HealthSouth, etc have done exceedingly well, in part by denying people care and thus limiting costs. It makes for a lousy health care system, but an excellent profit-generating business. If you've seen Sicko, I need not explain further. If you haven't, I'll just mention that about 15% of a normal insurance company's budget goes toward finding reasons to deny people coverage while still taking their money.

As with any smart business, the industry has attracted executives skilled at maximizing profits, and many of these executives are rewarded with lavish pay packages. For example, health care CEO Cliff Killingsworth made off with a cool $3.6 million in 2007, including a $1.8M performance bonus.

Mr. Killingsworth runs Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield. A nonprofit company.

A recent Boston Herald article shone the spotlight on the outrageous executive pay practices of Blue Cross and other nonprofit health care providers in the state. It wasn't just Mr. Killingsworth that made a tidy sum as a Blue Cross executive; the politically connected conglomerate paid million dollar packages to nine employees and two other nonprofit health care CEOs in the state were paid over $1M. Furthermore, a few of the Blue Cross board members were paid around $50,000 last year. For seven board meetings.

What, exactly, did all of these folks do to deserve their salaries? This is actually a legitimate question, not rhetorical, because I'm truly perplexed. They didn't have dividend-seeking shareholders to please. They didn't have to outperform much competition in the marketplace.... many Blue Cross customers are locked into the program through their government or union jobs.

I hate to say this, but could it be that the culture of executive excess has gotten so extreme that executive pay packages are no longer tied to any measure of productivity? Rather, are bosses determining their own salaries simply based on what they can paying themselves without inciting an uproar? If so, whose responsibility is it to do something about this?

Well, according to the Herald article linked above, state legislators are starting to ask these kinds of questions:

The pay packages are drawing increasing scrutiny on Beacon Hill as lawmakers debate ways to curb the exponential growth in health-care costs. Legislation being considered today would force insurers and health providers to publicly document reasons for increasing costs of insurance and medical procedures.
----
“These salaries are out of control,” said state Sen. Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford). “They don’t pass the smell test or the laugh test. These insurers are hiding behind the veil of their not-for-profit status.”
----
“It’s egregious,” said state Sen. Steve Baddour (D-Methuen). “Here we are, fighting to keep down costs amid double-digit increases, and how many millions are these nonprofits giving out? They should add it all up and return it in rate relief.”

What to do, in that case? This is where it gets quite tricky. Does it make sense for the government to place strict salary caps on compensation for nonprofit CEOs? Would it even be deemed constitutional by the courts in today's pro-business climate? Could we place limits on the amount executive salaries can grow from year-to-year in a tax-exempt organization, as is often proposed with state government budgets? These are all legitimate questions to consider.

That said, my personal proposal, while certainly not borne of expert knowledge on the subject, arises from some past work on income inequality and CEO pay research. A bill has existed for some time now in Congress, recently introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), that would limit tax deductability of CEO pay in a given company to 25 times the pay of that company's lowest-paid worker. This is a good step in the right direction.

Taking that premise to the next level and applying it to nonprofits, it seems reasonable that a nonprofit working to uphold the public good should see more wage parity than for-profit corporations now do. Thus, for an organization to receive tax-exempt status, it should not be able to pay anyone on its staff or board more than, say, 8 times the amount of its lowest paid worker (including benefits). Considering many nonprofits pay entry-level salaries of around $25,000, that means that no person in that typical organization could earn more than $200,000. About the salary of a military General, member of Congress or cabinet-level executive branch official. If that salary is sufficient for some of the most powerful people in society who shoulder an immense amount of responsibility, it should be sufficient for nonprofit leaders of any ilk.

Eliot Spitzer: A Greek Playwright's Dream

It's one of the oldest stories known to humanity: the classic tragedy. Man rises to power, accomplishes a few great things, gets lost in his own hubris, and proceeds to bring about his own downfall by clouding good judgment with excessive arrogance. Usually, lack of respect for tradition plays a role as well. A couple millennia ago, Euripides perfected this storyline in the Bacchae among other works. It is incredible how aptly this model of tragedy serves in summing up Eliot Spitzer's public life.

Eliot Spitzer's life has not been a rags-to-riches story. His father's, however, was. A New York real estate tycoon living in Riverdale whose parents were Jewish immigrants from Austria, Bernard Spitzer raised his son to be a leader. The beneficiary of an Ivy League education, Eliot was smart as a whip and seemed to have a disdain for entrenched wealth. Within a few years out of law school, he had successfully brought leaders of the notorious Gambino crime family to justice.

Soon afterward, Spitzer became New York's Attorney General with a track record for busting corporate crime. It is in this role that he developed into the man we know, a modern-day Elliot Ness with little respect for authority, a mean streak and sky-high personal aspirations. He quickly became a top nemesis of Wall Street executives and other fatcats extraordinaire. At the same time, he was able to tap into a sense of public frustration with widening income inequality and the extreme excess at the top of the economic scale. As the newfound champion of the little guy, Spitzer was poised to achieve greatness.

However, the attributes which served him so well as a prosecutor have proven to be ill-suited for the executive branch. Being elected in a historic landslide with nearly 70% 0f the vote, Spitzer might have thought he didn't owe anyone any favors. Nevertheless, a cardinal rule of maintaining political power is "don't piss off your allies!". The moment I knew he might be over his head was when he chose to directly butt heads with the most powerful union in the state, SEIU1199, by proposing to cut over $1 billion from Medicaid and hospitals in his first budget recommendation. Immediately before that he had deeply upset Assembly Democrats by failing to support the appointment of one of their own, Assemblyman Tom DiNapoli (D-Long Island), to the open Comptroller's job. As with most other instances where Spitzer quixotically attempted to ramrod controversial proposals through the political process, he lost both of these battles. Following another highly contentious fight over driver's license for undocumented immigrants (he backed off of that proposal with his tail between his legs), the Governor's approval/disapproval rating had just about flipped in less than a year.

Ultimately, Eliot Spitzer was so weakened that this week's revelations proved an almost fitting end to his spectacular flameout. He was already a lame duck just a year into his term, had made enemies of nearly everybody in Albany, and Wall Street had a virtual bounty on his head. It was very difficult to see how Spitzer would have made it through his term even if his "Mr. Clean" image had held up. What better way for him to depart the scene than with the revelation of a perfectly insidious behavioral streak borne of pure hubris?

Somewhere, an ancient Greek tragedian is smiling.

Note: Dan Cantor of the Working Families Party just wrote an excellent review of the Spitzer regime and its implications for the economic justice movement, and I encourage you to take a look at that for a better idea of the NY activists' perspective.

Cutting through the Hillary-induced mayhem

There seem to be an awful lot of polemics floating around following last Tuesday's elections. Among my favorites:
-The race is thrown wide open! Anybody could win!
-Obama is in deep trouble!
-Hillary might steal the election with the superdelegates!
-A prolonged election will tear the party apart and deliver it to McCain!
-And my personal favorite: Hillary Clinton WON HUGE on Tuesday!

I have one simple reaction to all of the Chicken-Little reactionaries: PLEASE. CALM. DOWN.

Thankfully, every single one of these arguments is complete hooey. It'll take a couple posts to fully explain why, but this one will elucidate why Obama is still holding a commanding and likely insurmountable lead.

First off, I do give the Clinton campaign credit for keeping up the fight and staying alive with a big win in Ohio (notwithstanding some potential funny business in Cleveland). Yet Clinton by no means cleaned up overall that night, and as we shall soon see, is actually worse off now than she was on March 3rd.

Regardless of what the Very Serious talking heads would like you to think, math matters. Ultimately, this is a delegate race, and Obama has actually gained 13 delegates overall since last Monday. Let's break it down.

First, the big 3/4 elections (plus Wyoming):
OH - O66, C75
RI - O8, C13
VT - O9, C6
TX - O99, C94
WY O7, C5
Total - O189, C193

Next, the superdelegate endorsements:

Obama

1. DNC Carol Fowler (SC), 3-4-08
2. Mary Long (GA), 3-4-08
3. Roy LaVerne Brooks (TX), 3-4-08
4. Rhine McLin (OH), 3-5-08
5. DNC Jane Kidd (GA), 3-5-08
6. DNC Darlena Williams-Burnett (IL), 3-5-08
7. DNC Connie Thurman (IN), 3-6-08
8. Rep. Nick Rahall (WV), 3-6-08
9. DNC Teresa Benitez-Thompson (NV), 3-6-08
10. DNC Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker (CA), 3-7-08
11. Rep. Bill Foster (IL), 3-9-08
12. DNC Mary Jo Neville (OH), 3-9-08

Clinton

1. Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), 3-6-08
2. DNC Mona Mohib (DC), 3-6-08
3. DNC Aleita Huguenin (CA), 3-7-08
4. DNC Mary Lou Winters (LA), 3-8-08

Total - O12, C4

So far, Obama has gained four delegates since the sky has fallen on him. Then, factor in the fact that the certification of the California results transferred four delegates from Clinton to Obama, netting him eight more in the process (he gains four, Clinton loses four). Finally, odd caucus rules dictate that Wyoming pledged delegates select another at-large delegate who will almost certainly support Obama, bringing his total gain up to 13 during the period in question.

So Hillary has lost ground where it counts, in the delegate race. Meanwhile about a third of the remaining pledged delegates were selected last Tuesday. With Obama expected to win big tomorrow in Mississippi, she faces an extremely difficult uphill battle where she must win close to 70% of remaining delegates to catch Obama. Given the makeup of the delegate selection process, this is just about impossible. Even if Obama somehow implodes and she wins by 25% in all the remaining elections, she will gain a mere 40-50 delegates. More likely, things will remain about even or Obama will slightly expand his lead.

But wait, Pennsylvania is huge and a Clinton stronghold! Even if she wins comfortably, it's not big enough to overpower Obama's significant advantages in North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and perhaps Indiana.

But wait, what about Michigan and Florida? First of all, there is no way the Michigan delegation is seated as is. The accusations that Clinton is cheating would be deafening. With Florida, at least Obama was on the ballot, but it still was not a fair and representative election. Expect a re-vote, where Clinton gains maybe 15-20 net delegates between the two states. Expect Obama to actually pick up a few delegates in Michigan unless state party leaders execute a solid GOTV operation for Clinton like in Ohio (her campaign simply can't do it on its own).

But wait, what about the superdelegates?! She might "steal the election from the voters" there, her campaign is openly supporting their goal of doing so. Well last time I checked, superdelegates are elected officials and party loyalists. Whether or not they support Clinton or think she's more electable (assumptions for which there's absolutely no evidence), they will not destroy the long-term health of the party and their own careers by alienating passionate young voters, subverting what passes for a democratic process in the state primaries and caucuses, and rewarding Clinton's snakelike campaign tactics that reinforce right-wing frames of politics-as-usual. Not a chance.

To sum all this up, for all the smoke screens the formidable Clinton PR machine has emitted in recent weeks, time will prove the current haze over the status of Obama's nomination to be nothing but hot air. I implore you, please don't waste your energy fretting over the last throes of a Clinton campaign unwilling to accept the inevitable.

March Senate Rankings and race updates

With all the hubbub about the presidential contest, I'd like to point out that the shape of Congress will determine how effective the next president will be. Dems are just about guaranteed to keep control of both chambers, but the question is whether or not they will have a working majority, especially in the Senate where a vigilant minority can stop legislation in its tracks. Thus it is worth tracking the Senate landscape. Things have crystallized in a few races, but not much has changed on the overall board. The story is still an abject failure of Republican leadership to recruit top-tier candidates, while Democrats have done moderately well on that front. It also seems many of the Dem challengers could benefit from an electorate fed up with the GOP as well as Obama's potential coattails. Here are the updated rankings for the 2008 Senate races.

Other places to obtain info about the 2008 Senate picture:
http://www.senateguru.com/
Wikipedia entry on the elections
CQPolitics ratings page
Chris Cilizza's The Fix top ten senate races

The rankings this time will still be arranged by party, but this time the order will be based on the chance of flipping parties.
Current breakdown: 49D, 49R, 2I


Democratic-held Seats (12)

Louisiana (Mary Landrieu): 6 (Barely D)
Key Challenger: State Treasurer John Kennedy
A few months ago, Karl Rove convinced Kennedy to switch parties for this race. It takes a special kind of stupid to switch to this GOP at a time when they're in free fall. Nevertheless he is a top-tier candidate and this will be by far the toughest seat for Dems to hold. I think Landrieu will ultimately win, mostly because she will outspend Kennedy, perhaps significantly so including help from the national parties. Much hinges on how effectively Kennedy can campaign on a message of reform.

South Dakota (Tim Johnson): 8 (Favored D)
Key Challenger: ex-Lt. Gov. Steve Kirby (considering), ???
Boy, has this been an embarrassment for the GOP Senate campaign committee (NRSC). Kirby is their eleventh choice, after the first ten declined to run. Kirby has been defeated easily in two past statewide elections, and he owned a business that scraped skin off cadavers for elective surgery (eg penis enlargements). I REALLY hope he does decide to run, he will make for great comedic material. A recent poll has Sen. Johnson beating him 70-19, so, yeah. If nobody else steps up soon Johnson will run away with a race in which he was previously in serious jeopardy.

New Jersey (Frank Lautenberg): 9 (Probable D)
Key Challengers: Real estate developer Anne Evans Estabrook, others
Amazingly, this is the only other state with a legitimate challenger and a somewhat vulnerable incumbent. That said, Estabrook has never run for political office and Dirty Jerz has showed no signs of supporting a Republican at the national level. Lautenberg's approval ratings are pretty weak, somewhere in the mid-40s, but that's actually better than just about every other politician in Jersey.

Arkansas (Mark Pryor): 9 (Probable D)
Key Challenger: US Attorney Chuck Banks (considering)
Via Wikipedia -

Mike Huckabee ruled out a run on February 23, 2008, saying, "It's more likely I'll dye my hair green, get a bunch of tattoos and go on tour with Amy Winehouse."

HAHA. Considering he was basically their only chance, it looks like smooth sailing for the savvy Pryor.

Montana (Max Baucus): 9 (Probable D)
Key Challenger: none of note
As most people who follow politics closely know by now, Montana is becoming a purplish-blue state. Baucus was a popular senator even when the state was deep red, so there is no reason to believe he'd be in any trouble now. Yet again, no legitimate challenger has emerged for the GOP.

Iowa (Tom Harkin): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challengers: TBD
Harkin has proven to be a consistently solid progressive voice during his years in the senate, and is pretty popular in IA (approval ratings around 58%). A couple GOP congressmen have expressed vague interest in a run, but nothing definitive is on the rumor mill at the moment. Even if one were to step up, they would be very unlikely to keep Harkin below 53%.

Michigan (Carl Levin): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challenger: none of note
Levin, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has become one of the most powerful people in Washington. It is not surprising that he has not drawn a significant challenge. A couple state Reps. will vie for the right to get clobbered in November.

West Virginia (Jay Rockefeller): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challenger: none of note
Needless to say, Rockefeller is a pretty esteemed name in WV. He is expected to win easily.

Massachusetts (John Kerry): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challenger: Jim Ogonowski
Republicans think Iraq vet Ogonowski could be a formidable candidate. He did come close in a recent special congressional election, but against a very weak Democrat in a relatively conservative district. I'm hoping the NRSC backs up their words and wastes some money in the expensive Boston media market.

Illinois (Dick Durbin): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challenger: Steve Sauerberg, MD
Majority Whip Durbin should win handily this November. At least give the GOP credit for fielding a respectable candidate with personal wealth to put into the race.

Delaware (Joe Biden): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challenger: none
After Biden dropped his presidential bid, he settled back to the Senate knowing he will be there as long as he wants. Nothing to see here.

Rhode Island (Jack Reed): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challenger: none
Reed is a very popular senator in probably the bluest state in the country. You do the math.


Republican-Held Seats (23)

Virginia (OPEN - John Warner): 9 (Probable D)
Key Democrat: Former Gov. Mark Warner
Key Republican: Former Gov. Jim Gilmore
It looks like a Warner will remain in this seat. Mark Warner remains incredibly popular while Gilmore, well, isn't. The VA-GOP made a big mistake in leaning towards the more conservative Gilmore over moderate Rep. Tom Davis, who is now retiring. Meanwhile, Warner would be the odds-on favorite to be Obama's running mate if he weren't a virtual shoo-in for this seat.

New Mexico (OPEN - Pete Domenici): 8 (Favored D)
Key Democrat: Rep. Tom Udall
Key Republicans: Reps. Heather Wilson, Steve Pearce
This is a wild one; all three of NM's sitting congresspeople are in this race. Sen. Domenici was an icon in the state but retired due to declining mental health and involvement in the US Attorney scandal, which also hurt Heather Wilson. Udall has a clear path to the nomination, while Wilson and Pearce are locked in an ugly primary battle. Polls have Udall consistently beating either one by double digits. Things could change, but at this point Udall seems relatively safe.

New Hampshire (John Sununu): 7 (Leans D)
Key Challenger: Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen
This is a rematch of the 2002 contest, where Sununu won narrowly. He is facing a much different political environment this time around, and his unwavering support for the Iraq War will hurt him badly in a fiercely anti-war state. Shaheen is a very savvy politician and should win rather comfortably unless somehow McCain wins the state and delivers Independent voters to Sununu in droves.

Colorado (OPEN - Wayne Allard): 6 (Barely D)
Key Democrat: Rep. Mark Udall
Key Republican: Former Rep. Bob Schaffer
Udall seemed to have an early lead, but recent polls have showed a tight race. Schaffer might be a little too conservative for what is now considered a swing state, and Udall is quite popular. As well, the financial states of the national parties and the potential for Obama coattails suggest Udall is in a good situation here.

Minnesota (Norm Coleman): 6 (Barely D)
Key Challengers: Al Franken, Mike Ciresi
I am very pleased to say Franken is gaining momentum and becoming more and more formidable as the race progresses. He has shown he can be taken seriously and is building an effective grassroots operation. The state party has been gradually lining up behind him. A recent string of polls has him beating Coleman in a head-to-head matchup, and it seems he is pulling away from Ciresi in the primary race. However, Coleman is an extremely talented politician and will definitely not go down without an ugly fight. Whatever happens, this will be one of the highest-profile races of 2008.

Alaska (Ted Stevens): 5 (Barely R)
Key Challenger: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich
Stevens is the elder statesman of the Senate GOP caucus, and at 85 he has filed to run for re-election. He is also incredibly arrogant and openly corrupt, digging in his heels to secure the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" and getting caught in a major bribery scandal. Voters in Alaska are starting to turn on him, and he has drawn a very tough challenger in the popular mayor Mark Begich, who already has solid name recognition statewide and just announced his long-rumored candidacy. This used to be a darkhorse race, but now it is simply a top-tier one. Alaska could undergo a blue tidal wave in 2008.

Maine (Susan Collins): 4 (Leans R)
Key Challenger: Rep. Tom Allen
This is one of the two key bellwether races of the 2008 cycle. If Allen defeats Collins, the Democrats will come very close to, and perhaps reach, the magical 60-seat threshold. Allen is a top-tier challenger, but Collins has a very moderate image and is popular. Then again, so was Lincoln Chafee. If Allen can tie Collins to Bush and make the election a referendum on the Iraq war (easier with McCain on the presidential ticket), he can pull it off.

Oregon (Gordon Smith): 4 (Leans R)
Key Challengers: State House Speaker Jeff Merkley, activist Steve Novick
See above. This is the other key bellwether race. Merkley will likely be the Democratic nominee and give Smith a run for his money if he can challenge the incumbent's moderate image. In this case, Merkley's hot button issues will be more focused on economic and environmental policy than the Iraq war, as ol' Gordo has been a key ally of polluters and mining/logging interests. Time will tell on this one, and it will not fully heat up until the Dem primary.

Mississippi-B (Roger Wicker - formerly Trent Lott): 3 (Favored R)
Key Challenger: Former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove
If this wasn't a deeply Republican state, the race would be labeled at least a toss-up. Musgrove has much higher name recognition than Wicker and remains somewhat popular. Yet a controversy over the special election date has yielded a date the same as the general election. Things are still in flux and much may depend on Wicker's performance as a first-year senator.

Idaho (OPEN - Larry Craig): 3 (Favored R)
Key Democrat: Former Rep. Larry LaRocco
Key Republican: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, many challenger candidates
Democrats shouldn't have any chance here, right? I mean, it's freakin' Idaho! Well, happenings in a Minnesota airport bathroom changed all that. With Larry "wide stance" Craig retiring, Risch has become the frontrunner in a wild GOP primary. Larry LaRocco was already in the race, and has been campaigning fiercely for a year now. He has been championing a libertarian populist message similar to the kind that worked so well for Brian Schweitzer in Montana. Meanwhile, Risch's naked personal ambition has alienated a lot of people within the ID GOP. Many commentators have this as an easy Risch win, but don't be surprised if it turns out to be close. With the x-factor of Obama coattails thrown in, this could turn out to be a major sleeper race of 2008.

Texas (John Cornyn): 3 (Favored R)
Key Democrat: State Rep. Rick Noriega
Democrats shouldn't have any chance here, right? I mean, it's freakin' Texas! However, Cornyn is one of the least popular sitting senators with approval ratings in the low 40s, and can be tied to Bush more closely than almost any other person in Congress. Noriega, an Iraq war vet, is well-situated to attack Cornyn's chickenhawk foreign policy and has proven himself to handle attacks well. Last month, when the Texas GOP publicly demanded that Noriega release his military service records to them (presumably for Swiftboating material), he responded as such:

The Republican Party of Texas, and by extension, Senator John Cornyn, has requested that I release my military records to them. I am astounded and outraged at the implications of this request. Over the past few years, some Republicans have conducted the most dishonest and disreputable attacks on veterans that our nation has ever seen.

Then he released his records to the public to show the contrast with Sen. Chickenhawk. This episode shows that this should be a very fun race to watch, and has great sleeper potential.

North Carolina (Elizabeth Dole): 3 (Favored R)
Key Challengers: State Sen. Kay Hagan, Businessman Jim Neal
The DSCC has made clear that they consider Dole a vulnerable candidate, and while neither of the leading candidates for the Dem nomination are of the top-tier variety, either could still keep it close. The primary race seems to have an insider-outsider dynamic, with Hagan representing the party insiders and Neal more of the activist variety. It remains to be seen who emerges from the primary contest, so a more clear analysis of the race should develop once there is a nominee. Either way, Dole will likely have a sizable money advantage, so she has to be the clear favorite at this point.

Nebraska (OPEN - Chuck Hagel): 2 (Probable R)
Key Democrats: Scott Kleeb, Businessman Tony Raimondo
Key Republican: Fmr Gov. & Sec. of Agriculture Mike Johanns
This race showed a flash of top-tier potential at one point; right after Hagel announced his retirement, Former Gov. Bob Kerrey seriously considered entering the race and would have been an early favorite. However, he decided against a run, as did popular Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey. Yet many party activists view Kleeb as a rising star and were excited when he recently decided to jump in. His primary opposition, Raimondo, is basically a wealthy Republican who decided he'd have a better shot to win as a Democrat. Ugh. Methinks Kleeb could make it somewhat close if he gets out of the primary, he's a fiery young outsider who seems to have a finger on the pulse of the Cornhusker State, whereas Johanns has spent recent years engaged in Beltway politics. For now, Johanns is a heavy favorite.

Oklahoma (James Inhofe): 2 (Probable R)
Key Challenger: State Sen. Andrew Rice
Inhofe is the prime exemplar of the Republican head-in-the-sand approach to climate change. He is somewhat of a joke, dumb as a rock and has approval ratings under 50%. The 32-year-old Andrew Rice is definitely a rising star in the state and has consolidated support among party leaders and national activist groups. If he can capitalize on the backlash against two certifiably crazy Sooner senators and gets some support from the national party, it could become very interesting. Nevertheless, it is Oklahoma so Inhofe will likely retain his seat.

Kentucky (Mitch McConnell): 2 (Probable R)
Key Challengers: Businessmen Bruce Lunsford, Greg Fischer
In an otherwise successful year for the DSCC, Kentucky has been a major recruiting disappointment. A few strong challengers declined to run, even when polling had them competitive with the Senate Minority Leader. Instead, KY Dems get to choose between a couple of businessmen, and the frontrunner Lunsford has personal wealth but a truckload of baggage. National Dems will invest moderately in the race but the ruthless tactician McConnell will likely spend over $10 million to defend his seat, and barring some sort of scandal it is hard to see how he loses.

Tennessee (Lamar Alexander): 2 (Probable R)
Key Challenger: Former TN-Dems Chair Bob Tuke (considering)
After the top Dem choice, Mike McWherter, declined a run, it looked like Alexander might go without a serious challenge in his first re-election bid. He is also the #3 ranking member in the Senate GOP caucus and appears to be a formidable candidate. But it looks like Dem party insider Bob Tuke will run for the seat. We don't know what kind of candidate Tuke will be, but chances are Alexander wins easily.

Alabama (Jeff Sessions): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challenger: State Sen. Vivian Figures
There was hope of a serious challenge to Sessions in state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, but Sparks decided to avoid a bruising primary fight with Figures and bowed out. Figures is a smart campaigner and solid Democrat, but unfortunately cannot win a statewide election as an African-American progressive woman. She may hold Sessions below 60%, however, which positions this seat as the least guaranteed among the "sure thing" list.

Wyoming-B (John Barasso): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challenger: Fmr State Sen. Keith Goodenough, Atty Nick Carter (considering)
Barasso was appointed last year by Gov. Dave Freudenthal after Craig Thomas passed away, and he has not drawn significant opposition for November's special election. At least he will have some Dem opposition. The only chance this gets interesting is if Freudenthal decides to run, which is extremely unlikely.

Kansas (Pat Roberts): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challenger: none of note
Roberts is not particularly popular with approval ratings hanging in the upper 40s, but no viable Democrat has stepped to to challenge him. It looks like he will coast to re-election.

Georgia (Saxby Chambliss): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challengers: Vernon Jones, Dale Cardwell, Josh Lanier
Democrats truly despise Chambliss for the loathsome smears he launched against former Sen. Max Cleland last time around, questioning the patriotism of a Vietnam Vet and triple amputee. However, Georgia is one of the few states still trending towards the GOP and no top-tier or even second-tier challenger has emerged. Whomever emerges from the Dem primary, expect Chambliss to win by a 2:1 margin.

South Carolina (Lindsey Graham): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challengers: Attorney Michael Cone, many angry Republicans
Graham is in no danger whatsoever of being defeated by a Democrat. He may be challenged from the right, however, as he has a horde of primary opponents including RNC member Buddy Witherspoon. He should be fine, although it'll be fun to watch the fireworks attacking Graham for not being crazy enough.

Mississippi-A (Thad Cochran): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challengers: Former State Rep. Erik Fleming
Cochran, the Appropriations Committee Ranking Member and former Chair and a long-time Senate veteran, will coast to another easy victory.

Wyoming-A (Michael Enzi): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challengers: none
Enzi, unless he unexpectedly retires, will likely go unopposed in his run for re-election.


Whew! So there you have it. The totals:
(Republican seats bolded)
Definite Dem: DE, IL, IA, MA, MI, RI, WV
Probable Dem: AR, MT, NJ, VA
Favored Dem: NM, SD
Leans Dem: NH
Barely Dem: CO, LA, MN
Barely GOP: AK
Leans GOP: ME, OR
Favored GOP: ID, MS, NC, TX
Probable GOP: KY, NE, OK, TN
Definite GOP: AL, GA, KS, MS, SC, WY, WY

Prediction: 7 Dem Pickups and Lieberman caucuses with Republicans.
Final result: 56D, 42R, 2I