Also, let's be clear that your definition of a "mega-gaffe" will likely differ from the types of mistakes that sunk Burns and Allen.

I don't have an agenda, other than promoting a realistic outlook on the Senate races. There is a diary currently on DKos, and I've seen similar sentiments on display (among other places) here on MyDD that state that as many as 14 GOP Senate seats "will be in play", as opposed to 2-to-none Democratic seats. I'm sorry, but that's not realistic.

Every single candidate that the Netroots fawn over gets the same treatment--they're a Webb/Tester-style candidate, and the incumbent is so gawdawful they can't possibly win. Let alone the top five vulnerable seats, you see that kind of language with Grier/Dole, with Sparks/Sessions, with LaRocco/Craig, with Noreiga/Cornyn, with Begich/Stevens, with Kleeb/Hagel, and so on. But this kind of logic isn't accurate, and it isn't particularly helpful. If given the choice between a rosy-colored glasses scenario and an accurate depiction of reality, the accurate depiction is going to be more useful to winning these races.

Aside from the fact that every GOP incumbent is considered worse than the next (who would've thought that, on a pro-Democrat site!) and therefore every Republican is considered "vulnerable" or at least "ripe for a challenge", people think that just by saying a candidate is in the mold of "Webb/Tester", that they are viable in a red state. That's not true, and it doesn't do the campaign any favors. Look at Virginia. Mark Warner won in 2001 in what was considered an upset (leaving Jim Gilmore's disasterous turn at the helm aside), and Jim Webb in 2006 in what was also considered an upset. Look at the differences in the style of campaign that they ran. Webb won with huge turnout in Northern Virginia, tied with Allen in Richmond and SE VA, and got mopped by Allen in rural Virginia. What put Webb over the edge is voters hesitation with Allen across the entire state due to his horrible candidacy. Warner won by reaching out to the SW part of the state and keeping a hold on other, more reliable Democratic parts. The two campaigns were hardly alike in any way. Which is a better blueprint for victory? In my opinion, its the one that doesn't rely on hoping your opponent makes a huge mistake.

So why aren't being shouting from the rooftops about a Warner-style candidate in Virginia? Because that requires a knowledge of the state and the campaign, and armchair cheerleaders don't have the time for that. If Mark Warner ran for Senate in 2008, rest assured, he wouldn't be a Jim Webb-style candidate. He'd be a Mark Warner-style candidate, and I think every candidate, red-state or not, should be the same way. For starters, there is no crossover comparison between Virginia and, say, Alabama. Why should Ron Sparks rely on an out-of-state playbook to run a campaign in Alabama?

In my opinion, the "Webb/Tester" label is simply bad. Its undeniably overused (how did Democrats possibly get elected to the Senate before Jim Webb and Jon Tester?) and its not terribly accurate or helpful. And it seems strange to me that the two people who (though they were good candidates) won only because of their opponents' mistakes are touted as particularly successful (looking at the razor-thin margin of error, its tough to make an argument otherwise).

Most of all, its just plain lazy. It requires little-to-know knowledge of what Webb and Tester did to win, and more than that, it requires little-to-no knowledge of the candidate assigned that label, and the campaign that they intend to run. The netroots simply stamps a giant "Webb/Tester" label on them, and assumes that they're on their way to running a successful red-state campaign. After all, the Republican elected official they're running against is so gawdawful, they can't possibly win an election. Right?