I did not know Corzine spent that much. By the way who is Bob Shrum helping this time? I have not seen him mentioned in the press in awhile.

<With Bob Shrum's help, Corzine blew the lead by spending <$50M on television (that's $7.5M for Shrum). </p>

It didn't know it was that close. In a blue state too? Bob Menendez has to get his act together. I'm not so sure the Democratic leanings of NJ is enough to save him as some folks casually say. Polling seems to close for comfort.

NJ is a must for us to hold on to.

That was the year I called the Senate races particularly well.

I had Schweitzer winning in MT and Carnahan losing in Missouri. I called all the others correctly. And my mistakes balanced each other out.

This is a really good, relevant, and helpful analysis.  What strikes me is how those of us working on campaigns/elections in DC at the time had slightly different CW than what's represented here.  Carper always had the edge over Roth (there was a clear age/generational dynamic there), Bill Nelson was always considered a favorite over Bill McCollum, and I was always more concerned with MO and WA than NY where I had little doubt Clinton would win.  Santorum should've been more vulnerable, but Klink pretty clearly benefitted from heavy Gore and Democratic GOTV efforts in PA.  He was left with little money after the three-way primary and never recovered.

The MO race got short shrift all cycle because of the media's drooling over Hillary.  Until Mel Carnahan tragically died, and all prognosticating rules flew out the window.  After the crash, CQ shifted the race every week--first to Republican Favored, then to Likely Republican, then to Lean Republican, and finally No Clear Favorite--as new Gov. Roger Wilson (D) announced he'd appoint Jean Carnahan to the seat if Mel won, then Jean announced she'd accept the appointment, and the Carnahan campaign waged a massive, unprecedented, and very successful "I'm Still with Mel" campaign.  (something MN Dems were unable to replicate in 2002 when Paul Wellstone died because unlike MO law, MN law requires the name taken off the ballot and replaced with a new nominee, although in a quirk of the law, absentee votes cast for Wellstone did not get credited to Mondale)  Carnahan's campaign managed to send letters or buttons to fully 1 out of every 5 Missourians over one weekend.

Similarly, there were lots of indications that Slade Gorton was vulnerable, but they went mostly ignored.  He'd only been reelected narrowly against African-American King County Executive Ron Sims in the 1994 Republican tidal wave, and WA was already trending Democratic.  In the September primary, Democrats Deborah Senn and Maria Cantwell together got more votes than Gorton.  In open primaries, that's a pretty reliable predictor of what will happen in the general.

Grams was clearly a dead man walking most of the year, and Stabenow did fall briefly and slightly behind Abraham before lots of groups like EMILY's List, NARAL, and the AFL-CIO spent heavily, and along with Gore campaign efforts in the state, put her just over the top in the end.  We knew both MT and VA would be close; unfortunately we narrowly lost both.  I worked the polls for Robb all day in Fairfax County.

Although it's the same cycle of seats up for election this year as in 2000, there are a some important differences.  This is a midterm year rather than a presidential one.  Turnout is bound to be not only lower, but more skewed in favor of the party out of power.  Congress' approval ratings are at their lowest levels since 1994 or earlier.  The Democratic advantage on the generic ballot is at its best since 1982 or earlier.  We have a major advantage in the reported excitement of our voters about casting their ballots this year.  Independents are breaking very clearly--2:1 in some polls--in our favor.  While 2000 was about electing a new president, this one is a referendum on Bush when his approval ratings are historically low--worse than Clinton's in 1994.

One thing I take from the 2000 election cycle is that we were SO close to taking the House, virtually all the focus and speculation was there.  Only a couple of random peeps were heard at the very end about the possibility of Democrats capturing the Senate.  Yet on Election Day, we gained only 2-3 House seats (we lost some Dems no one thought were in danger, and failed to pick up a bunch of seats we should have) and 4 Senate seats, putting it at 50-50.  This year, as always it seems, much more focus has been on the House than the Senate.  And again, I think that really misses the boat.  In the past 50 years, control of the House has changed once: in 1994.  On the other hand, Senate control has switched 5 times: 1980, 1986, 1994, 2000/01, and 2002.  Not since 1910, before direct election of senators, has the House changed without the Senate doing the same.  The Senate is the more volatile chamber.

Gary has a point on facial hair that should not be underestimated.  Except for the period when Wellstone had a beard and then a goatee, Corzine was the only member of the Senate with facial hair.  Now there are none.  We haven't had a president with facial hair since Taft (1909-13).  The truth is that in the TV era--maybe even in the radio era!--facial hair is a definite disadvantage.  I have no historical data on flat-top haircuts.  ;)

In 2006 the close races are MT, MD, MO, NJ, TN, VA. I believe we will win MT, MD, MO, NJ, VA. As far as TN goes Ford has run a good campaign and Corker is a  doltz. The question is TN ready for a Dem senator who is also black?

If there's going to be a surprise in this year's Senate election cycle, it could be Arizona where Pederson has (sshhh) very quietly cut Kyl's lead to mid single digits. Throw in a huge Latino population that is incensed with Kyl's immigration stance, the coattails of Napolitano, the blue wave, and Pederson's self-funding abilities and this is going to be a hell of a lot closer than everyone thinks.