Uh, you forgot Colorado, which is the most likely switch.

We would have to win the following, in the order of liklihood;

New Hampshire
Colorado
Virginia
Maine
Minnesota
Oregon
Kentucky
Nebraska
New Mexico

I still think there's an off chance at North Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas too. A perfect sweep would give us 63 seats.

Oh, and we would have to hold Louisiana, Iowa and South Dakota.

The biggest question is are we including Holy Joe as a Liebercrat or a Liebercan.

None of the potential freshmans in 2008 will be like Holy Joe.

1)Colorado
2)Virginia- assuming J. Warner is retiring and M. Warner is running.
3)New Hampshire- assuming J. Shaheen is running
4)Minnesota
5)Oregon
6)Maine
7)Kentucky- assuming G. Stumbo is running
8)North Carolina
9)Tennessee
10)Alaska or New Mexico- depends  of which incumbent is more vulnerable due to scandal.

Oklahoma and alaska are probally out of reach unless there is a landslide

I say we are very likely end up with around 54-55 seats.  We're going to need some strong candidates in states like North Carolina and Alaska if we are going to take a shot at 60.  Does anyone have any possible names out of Alaska?

I think we come up just short of the goal.

60 would be nice, but I reckon that 58 would be a bad enough bloodbath to make the Republican cohort due in 2010 plenty nervous.

It isn't realistic, but 54 seats is quite possible with the probable pickups of CO, NH, and possible pickups in VA and MN. The next opportunity is OR and ME and things would have to get perfect to win those two, because they coopted the Democratic agenda. 3-4 seats more probable.

We don't need 60 seats.  It is a nice and magical number but not in anyway crucial.  Lets say for example Democrats were to pick up 5 seats pushing the number to 56 or 55 depending on how you count. You then add Snowe, who no matter what you think of her is not going to filibuster everything to death, you than add to that Voinivich, Specter and Gregg who all face difficult re-elects and after watching three or four blue seats fall are not likely to risk there own necks constantly.56 Senators is enough to throw Dem Weight around. Now I would love to get to 60, but falling short is not an actual problem.

The rumor around DC is that Hagel has dropped his presidential ambitions and is looking to leave politics.

I think we will make 6-8 competitive races and win 5-7 of them.  Depending on the political atmosphere.  There is a cap on how good it can get for Republicans.  Bush will still be in office during these elections and his name hurts their candidacies.  

CO & MN are in the bag.  

NH & VA are in the bag if candidates retire/join. (Jeanne will probably run in NH, Jon will probably retire, then hope Mark runs)

Then we have to duke it out in ME & OR for possible victories

Then we have to pray for atmosphere and candidates to duke it out in NC and KY
(KY = Possible Stumbo candidacy and NC looks like it is still scratching it's head, but we still have a year or so.)

In accordance with state law a special election will be held due to the death of Senator Craig Thomas.  Current Senate appointee John Barrasso is likely to keep the GOP nomination.  Our bench is fairly sparse but Governor Freudenthal, who is immensely popular would propel this to top tier status.

We aren't producing the results necessary out of this Congress for that to happen.

With only 28 Dems voting against the FISA capitulation, I'd say that we need 32 new seats to get a 60 seat majority, and none of those 32 seats should go to Democrats in Name Only.

It's not gonna happen.

I start every election year assuming we are in the worst possible condition and work from there. That said, if certain senators drop out and certain Democrats get in, there are two seats we can pick up quickly:

Virginia
Nebraska

Then an open seat that's leaning our way:
Colorado

A seat likley to flip because of a weak incumbent and a strong challenger:

New Hampshire

And strong challnges in:
Oregon
Minnesota
Maine

Corruption:
Alaska

So I am looking at an optimistic potential of 8 seats. Fow now I will say 3 or 4.

1) Colorado

2. New Hampshire
   
3. Virginia
   
4. Maine
   
5. Oregon
   
6. Minnesota
   
7. Kentucky
   
8. North Carolina
   
9. New Mexico
   
10. Alaska

I will be happy with the first 3 and overjoyed with the first 6, then I will cry tears of joy with anymore.  I also fully expect Grassley, Voinovich, Brownback, and Specter to retire in 2010 and Gregg's seat to become competitive as well.

Big if with Hillary at the top of the ticket...she might not do damage in New Hampshire...but I think she would in A LOT of the states we are counting on being competitive. Will she drag them down low enough to lose? Who knows...it could still be a good year with her at the top...but if some of the races are close, she could very well be the deciding factor against the Democrat.

Say we pick up 6 seats in 2008 out of what seems like about 12 potentially vulnerable seats:  NH, CO, VA, OR, MN, ME, NE, TX, NC, NM, KY, and OK.  Then we need three more (if we can count Lieberman) out of plenty of vulnerable seats in 2010 (Bunning, Voinovich, Brownback, Coburn, Gregg, Martinez, Burr, Vitter, Specter, maybe retirements from Shelby and McCain).  Granted, we'll be playing more defense next cycle, but it shouldn't be too bad.

We dont need 60 seats anyway, there would have to be strict partisan lines for a vote to fail with the democrats caring 58 or 59 seats.

    Even if we get to 60 seats, to have the 60 votes needed to pass controversial legislation, we'd need to have the votes of Democrats like Ben and Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar, Mary Landrieu and Evan Bayh, many of whom have made a career out of saying "I'm not like those other Democrats".

    What we need is 60 votes once, to reduce the votes necessary for cloture to 55. In 2008, we can pick up Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Oregon, and Maine, plus Virginia, New Mexico and Nebraska, if the incumbents aren't on the fall ballot as Republicans. That's 58 without Lieberman. So 60 would only be doable if we could knock off Dole and McConnell.

    More likely we would have to wait for the class of 2010, which last ran in 2004, to give us a two-year window of opportunity before the Class of 2006 comes up again. We didn't win any close races in 2004, so we shouldn't lose any of our current seats in 2010, when we should have good shots at Ohio and PA, especially if Voinovich and Specter retire, Iowa if Grassley retires at 77, Gregg in New Hampshire, empty-suit Mel Martinez in Florida, Jim Bunning in Kentucky, Arizona if McCain retires at 74 and Gov. Napolitano runs, and Bond if Missouri swings Democratic. That's 8 fairly good targets, 6 of which are in states which went twice for Bill Clinton, and the others (FL and AZ) in states he carried in 1996.  

    Think big!

You're not likely to exceed your goal.  And when you said that every seat should be contested in 2006, you gave yourself a goal that could not be exceeded.  That was a truly Rovian strategy.  This should be the strategy for 2008:  A 67 seat majority.  That's 17 out of the 22 republican seats that are up for a vote. It's a goal you don't want to exceed, but it makes sure that you aim high.  If you don't aim high, you are not going to hit high!  And here's the philosophy behind this goal, that should be made known to everybody:  the only way that this country is going to be put on the right track is that everybody who has had anything to do with Bush MUST thrown out of office.  There must truly be a clean sweep.  That's a Rovian strategy.  It behooves us to remember that in 2006 we never thought we could take the Senate. To aim for 60 is to aim for mediocrity.