Lots of movement in the Senate picture over the last two weeks. Oklahoma joins the competitive race chart, something that I wasn't sure would ever happen. Hagen has taken the lead in the last two polls out of North Carolina, even though the 30-day average still shows a dead heat. She now appears poised for victory in the state, which makes eight pickups for Democrats start to seem very realistic:
Colorado. While this campaign consistently polls within 10% or less, Mark Udall still leads by 6.8% across six polls, including an internal Republican poll, and also maintains a significant monetary advantage. It would be stunning if Udall did not win this seat.
New Hampshire: While Democratic challenger Jean Shaheen does not hold a monetary advantage here, she does lead by 10% in the polls. Incumbents almost never come back from 10% deficits, so this victory looks very likely.
Alaska: This seat was an apparent lock after Stevens was indicted, but won the Republican primary anyway. The Palin selection seems to have given Stevens new life, but Democrat Mark Begich still leads anyway. If Stevens is still losing, even in this favorable moment for Alaska Republicans, victory still appears likely here.
North Carolina: As I already mentioned, Hagen has moved into the lead here, and now seems poised for victory.
Minnesota: Al Franken is really on a roll now, and the most recent poll out of Minnesota actually shows him ahead. This state is now a toss-up, but the trend is fantastic. Franken has made up a lot of ground quickly, and still has a ton of cash to dump on Coleman.
One more: With seven excellent pickup opportunities already listed, and with no serious Republican opportunities now that Landrieu looks safe in Louisiana, we only need to find one more pickup in order to reach the very important eight seat pickup number (I'll explain why a net of eight is so important below).
In order to find the eighth, we actually have eight good options to look. My favorite option, and I believe the most likely option, is Oregon. Of the eight options, only Oregon and Kentucky have previously shown Democratic leads this year. If I have to choose between Senator Jeff Merkley and Senator Bruce Lundsford, Merkley is both the far more likely and far preferable choice. Granted, I'd like to see Mitch McConnell lose a lot more than I would like to see Gordon Smith lose, but you can't always get what you want.
So, eight is doable. While some focus on nine (because it will give us 60), and others focus on 10 (because it will give us 60 without Lieberman), I actually am targeting eight. The reason is that eight Senate seats, plus the White House, gives us a long list of legislation, perhaps the most important of which is the Employee Free Choice Act. This is an extremely important instance of "positive feedback loop" legislation, as making it easier to join a union will shift the political infrastructure of America to the left. By targeting one of the five major ideological institutions in this country (employment, media, education, family and religion) with fundamental, progressive, infrastructure change, we help build a long-term, progressive governing majority.
A pickup of eight seats also gives us some interesting and useful organizing opportunities for 2010 and 2012. When only two Republicans / Liebermans are needed to break a Republican filibuster, then it becomes much easier to target Republicans and wayward Democrats who stall progressive legislation. With such a narrow margin, every single Republican / Lieberman / Bush Dog can be held individually responsible for stalling popular, progressive legislation. Thus, coming close to 60 Senate seats, but just missing it, actually provides progressives with more organizing opportunities in 2010 and 2012.
Maybe that second reason is a bit off the wall, or even false, but eight seats are needed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. That is a hugely important piece of legislation, and it is why I think eight is enough.
STATE BLOGS
