Max Cleland.  I doubt any other Democrat there would have a chance, but a Cleland/Chambliss rematch without the 9/11 smears could be very competitive.

What about the other Udall?

Ford won't beat Alexander... if he couldn't even beat Corker (a terrible Republican candidate) he has no chance against Alexander.  Unfortunately, I can't think of a better candidate against him... ugh.

Seconded on the Virginia situation. Warner's rumored to retire, and the current frontrunner for the Republicans is popular moderate republican from the North, Tom Davis VA-11, who won reelection this year by double digits against a decent challenger.

Bill White! The Mayor of Houston, who in 2005 won reelection with 91% of the vote. He would certainly bring in the Big City vote, and his only major task would be to mobilize southern hispanic voters to finish the job.

Otherwise, I see Chet Edwards as a great candidate for the Senate, though we'd lose his house seat in the process... and after that, Barbara Radnofsky seems to be quickly falling down on that list... Possibly Charlie Gonzales, but rather unlikely.

As a New Jersian, I hope Lautenberg retires.  Ideally, I want to see Senator Rush Holt, but I don't know what his inclination to run is.  Also, I don't know if he's corrupt enough to win a statewide race in North Jersey.

Also, Dems should challenge more House seats in South Jersey in 08.  I think there's a lot of soft support in many of those GOP districts that could be turned vulnerable (did Carol Gay even spend $100 on her campaign?!?).  Holt himself won his seat with a populist grassroots campaign in a soft Republican district.  There are at least 2 or 3 more districts in South Jersey that should be challenged.  New Jersey should be a blue state, not a purple state.

Personally, I'd love to see Lautenberg retire (he'll be 84 in 2008), and Rush Holt run for the seat.  Aside from being a good progressive generally, Holt's one of the very few legislators with a hard science background; he taught physics at Swarthmore in the '80's and was Assistant Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab from 1989-1998, and in Congress has been one of the strongest advocates for sound science policies, both in terms of funding for research and honest use of science in shaping environmental and public health policies (two of the several policy areas in which this has been by far the worst administration in our history).  I'd like to see him continue that advocacy from the less crowded stage of the Senate.

Inhofe should be a priority target.  Even if we don't beat him, let's grind him down a bit.

Yeah... Inhofe is a terrible Senator, and I don't know why Oklahoma puts up with him.  He never wins with the kind of margins you think he would, but for some reason I never feel like we can beat him.  Anyway, he was swept into the Senate by the wave in '94 and won against weak competition in 1996 and 2002.

Would be cool to see Boren run for his dad's old seat... Carson might also make another run.

That's exactly right.

Lautenberg already retired once, and only ran in 2002 because Toricelli had to abandon his campaign late in the game.  I would think Lautenberg would retire again and a new, younger candidate could be found.

Even if Biden were to retire, I don't think we'd have much trouble holding the seat.  Republicans just don't have a candidate who can win the seat... Castle might, but he won't run because of his health (hell, he's older than Biden.)

It would be rather delicious of the senator who ranks dead last in the Progressive Punch ratings got dumped by his wing-nut constituents over rumors of homosexuality, wouldn't it?

Yeah, but absent a primary challenge, he's probably safe from a GOP opponent.  And you wouldn't want a primary because it would make it a lot easier to lose the seat.

Or running a Lieberman in Connecticut...

Don't write off states -- the Rethugs have managed to plant that heinous idiot Schwarzenegger in the California Governor's mansion -- if we can pick up Senate seats in TX or TN that would be a huge boon.

It would be particularly important if Texas sent a hispanic to the U.S. Senate. And hopefully one who's not a DINO like Salazar.

Markos, I'm gonna go with: many of these guys are in sufficiently conservative states that they'll survive ANY Dem attack.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't attack them anyway.  Part of the 50-state strategy is to show the flag, make our case, everywhere, so that our message starts sinking in with people who have only heard the other side for-freakin-ever.

In some parts of the country - especially the South - we may have to run and lose for 20 years before we win.  That's fine.  But if we don't run now, we won't eventually win.

George Allen was the perfect storm.  In four decades of watching politics, I've never seen such a multiplicity of self-inflicted wounds by a major candidate.  (Even Muskie in '72 had just the one big one.)  And we barely beat him, with a good candidate, in a state that was red but is trending purple.

So hit 'em hard and often, sure, but no illusions.   We might well be able to knock off Liddy Dole if there's a good Dem candidate in NC, because NC's less solidly red than people think, as Kissell showed this year.  But next door in SC, Huck Graham's gonna be re-elected, even if Jesus Christ is the Dem candidate.  Simply because it's SC, which would be happy to attack Fort Sumter all over again.

But in the states where we've got a chance, hitting them hard and often will increase that chance.  Gordon Smith, John Sununu, Wayne Allard, Norm Coleman - these guys have cast a LOT of votes that go against what most of the people in their states want.  The "liberal media" won't highlight that fact, so it's up to us to do so.  

And we should find a Dem who can run hard against Mitch McConnell, whether the odds are good or bad, because making life hard for a corporate pawn like McConnell is the right thing to do.

But in a lot of states, we don't know until we try, and this may be your point.  Two years ago, Kansas looked like a GOP stronghold.   Today, it's not exactly blue, but it's also very unenthusiastic about the GOP as it is.  We want to find someone to run hard against Roberts, make him defend his sorry-ass record before the people of Kansas, make sure he doesn't get a free pass.  (Nobody should get a free pass, not even Susan Collins!  Even if we don't beat them, they'll have to bring their records into line with their states' voters, if they know they won't be able to hide their votes.  When we challenge, all the outcomes are good.)

So yeah, find good candidates all over, run hard everywhere, make sure every GOP Senator's constituents know what they've supported and opposed.  But have no illusions about the terrain: some states are going to be far more difficult than others, and winning may take a generational effort.

But even though Webb was a good candidate (not great - he is not the most extroverted, comfortable-with-baby-kissing candidate) George Allen essentially imploded AND it was a Dem year in a state where the Dems have started to own a good portion of the population.  The Sun, Moon, Stars, Planets, Asteroids, Trans-Neptunian Kuiper Belt objects, and Pluto all lined up for Webb.  And he won by 9,300 votes.

That's not to say you CAN'T challenge a John Warner.  It just means you have to have great challengers who have everything cut their way.  But maybe some energy is better spent elsewhere until an opportunity arises.

That said, Warner and Domenici have raised no money this cycle.  We'll see if they retire.

Yeah... but I doubt 2008 will be the Democratic year that 2006 was.  Whitehouse's campaign had a very simple message: Chafee equals Republican equals Bush.  And that worked in Rhode Island.