I think 60 votes with some senators who arent progressive, but still still wear the D next to their name is much more beneficial to progressives than 55 and having to deal with filibuster after filibuster after filibuster.

I'm ok with this approach, as long as we're not afraid of running primaries against conservativer Dems in blue states.

We wouldn't have to 'deal with' multiple filibusters if 'Gutless ' Reid dealt with the Republicans and Joey the LiarMan by making them sweat. But that's not going to happen so....

Your argument falls on it's face when you say:

While some members of the Democratic majorities might not be with us on every issue, they would no doubt -- no doubt -- be with us a greater portion of the time than the Republicans they would be replacing.

Nice to think so but it doesn't seem to me that that has been the case with DINOs lately. It seems far sounder to pursue putting real progressive Democrat caucus in place. This fight against the Fascists will not be won in 2008 or 2010 no matter what we do. It will, sadly, take longer than that. In fact, it's only winnable at all if we progressives can show the country that we have solutions to the problems ordinary citizens are facing. This we cannot do with DINOs such and Bauchus, as an example, voting against us.  So I say we elect people who are on our side for real not for the votes and cash they think it will bring them.

OK, 60, but don't count Lieberman in the total.

Funny how it never mattered to the Republicans.

The opening bid of the Republican minority on what it will take not to filibuster will improve with every real Democratic senator coming in.

I can forgive Lieberman-esque Democrats in purple territory, which is what Virginia remains.  Webb damn near lost to Allen.  There's a reason why Pat Robertson, Falwell, etc. operated out of that state and not the deep south; they could have set up operations anywhere but they chose a slightly redder-than-pure-purple state for a reason.

What made Lieberman terrible is that he went out of his way to undercut Democrats as a matter of principle and vanity, not in order to survive in difficult political terrain.  Ever been to Richmond, where white people frequently lament the end of slavery openly?  Petersburg?  The Hampton Roads area is purple at best, despite being dense enough and urban enough to support proposed light rail, military and all.  Western Virginia is essentially Kentucky.

Also, Warner may be trying to demoralize Republicans early, which would be a kindness to Senate Democratic candidates in other swing states.  DSCC has a hard cash advantage over the GOP counterpart now but the GOP will probably recover partially from its slump, Liddy Dole won't be clusterf&#(@ing it into oblivion this time.

You really think Alaska deserves to be on the second tier, with no announced candidate and no signs pointing to Stevens being vulnerable in a challenge? This is Alaska, a ruby red state, in a Presidential year with the Godfather of the state on the ballot. Remember 2004, when everyone was sure Lisa Murkowski was on her way out? She was a GOPer with low approval ratings that voters didn't particularly care for, up against a Democrat who had one statewide twice for Governor (and this was before losing his next two races), and she still won, due in no small part to the Presidential race. And lest anyone believe that it was because the GOP had a good year in '04, I'll also point you to the 2006 Governor's election. If Lisa Murkowski can beat a challenger as strong as Knowles, then I'm no where near convinced that anyone, including Mark Begich, can defeat Ted Stevens. That is, of course, also assuming that Begich gets into the race.

Even if you brush aside all of that and believe that Stevens is vulnerable, I don't know how you can put that race ahead of Louisiana in terms of liklihood of changing seats.

As far as 2010 goes, its important to realize that the 2010 elections will be greatly impacted by the presidential election in 2008. If a Democrat wins (as you no doubt believe is almost certain), then historically speaking the GOP will have a good year in 2010. And without a strong map like in '08, there is as good of a chance of Republicans picking up seats as there is of Democrats.

Leaving the "uncertain political atmosphere" argument behind, though, even some of your state races are unrealistic. Its not surprising that Napolitino is beating McCain in polling in 2007, but that doesn't mean 1) that she's interested in the race, or 2) that McCain can't or won't raise his ratings after the presidential election. I haven't seen any indication that Brad Henry wants to run for the Senate, given how quickly he ruled out a run against Jim Inhofe, whom he would have a better chance against. Iowa is hardly trending blue; you may find it interesting that it voted for Bush in '04, a good GOP year, and Culver in '06, a good Democratic year, and likely Harkin in '08, another good Democratic year. If I didn't know any better, I would pin Iowa as a bellweather state, not a state that's likely to lean for one particular party over the other. And given Grassley's high approval ratings (they are routinely much higher than Tom Harkin's), I wouldn't bet on a strong challenge or a competitive race in 2010.

Its good to look ahead and plan for the future, but there is undoubtedly a case of "seeing what you want to see" here in your outlook for the next two cycles.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/p residential-by-digby-very-savvy-friend.h tml

"As my friend notes, the Republicans are very good at campaigning and character assassination. It's what they do best, and the Democrats just simply don't have an equal talent. When you combine it with the GOP's nearly limitless access to money, it's a serious mistake to assume that the Dems can't lose. In a world where vast amounts of Republican money and corporate liars weren't available to bombard the people with an alternate reality, perhaps we could relax and assume that their epically disastrous performance in office would automatically disqualify them from winning any further elections for a while. But we don't live in that world. It's would be a very good idea to be prepared for some very, very nasty trench warfare."

The post this is part of should be essential Netroots reading. We are in for a huge battle over the next year and a half. We need to prepare, and we also need to make sure we aren't slamming Democrats running in red and purple states who take a more centrist position than some of us might wish for in a more perfect world.

Well, if the Democrats nominate John Edwards, they'll have a filibuster-proof Senate, and we can at least take some of the "FERVOR" out of this 60 votes nonsense.

Sure, you'll have DINOS like Dianne Feinstein and Ben Nelson (NE) who still won't get it, but it's much easier to get Democrats to come along with Democrats than to try and collect votes from Republicans.

BUT how do we COUNT on getting those 60 votes out of these 1/2 Dems???      How do we know when they are told we need something passed, they will unite with us?     Look at Dems all over the place on this Invasion/occupation!     At what point does a politician decide they will be a Centrist Democrat, instead of a Centrist Republican?      I will continue to at least give my monetary support to good solid Liberals.      After seeing the polls saying CT voters now would NOW overwhelmingly put Lamont in over Lieberman, I understand the confusion some people have about Centrist candidates.  You think these candidates will support your issues, until it is time to vote.   Let's get rid of DLC and Blue Dogs and go back to the good old days when you were PROUD to be a full fledged Democrat !

You know, local bloggers, local voters.  I also think there is no consensus I what is "progressive", and that the blogosphere dismisses how complex the electorate is.

Well said! The Blogosphere has too many ideological puritans. Being successful at politics means doing what is possible, not what is pure. That said, it is important that the Democratic brand be clear and unambigious, but broad enough to include even those who deviate from time to time.

The map of 2010 also shows senile/crazy Kentucky Senator Bunning possibly facing Ben Chandler. So I guess it would be a sign of hubris to start discussing which constitutional amendments we would like to pass once we reach that threshold? My own preference is for the "Dick Cheney is a douchebag" amendment. It doesn't really have any concrete implications, it just kind of lays it down, right in the constitution. And then as a bonus any time we get a supposedly strict constructionist judge who talks about respecting the constitution as written, we'll be able to say: "Oh, so you agree with the Dick Cheney thing..."

     I agree that Lieberman shouldn't be counted among the 60. I wouldn't trust him to vote with Democrats on cloture, and I'm not willing to continue him in the chair of the Government Oversight Committee as the price of his vote on organizing the Senate in 2009. There's much more to be gained by making an example of him after his treachery in this Congress, and perhaps DINOs will be more apt to stick with the Party majority when they see what happens to Holy Joe.

What?  We need 60 votes against a HRC presidency?  Well you can elect Blue Dogs all you want, but don't expect me to participate.  No money, no vote, no work.  When it matters, they won't vote with us or the real Dems anyway.  

Conservative Democrats and Republicans managed to keep the war in Southeast Asia humming right along for years in the 1960s and 1970s with solid majorities in both the House and Senate. No reason to think that they wouldn't do the same thing in Southwest Asia.

While I will agree with anyone that states that Warner is a Conservative Democrat will fight tooth and nail anyone that claims he is Liebermanesque.

Matt Stoller with his polemic arguments (and others of the same ilk) are the biggest threat to progressive movement.  Can anyone imagine a better situation in a historically red state than having a Jim Webb and Mark Warner as the US Senators?  Awesome!

Winning one single off year congressional election is not the making of a dynasty.  

Perhaps we should have a couple of successful election seasons under our belts before we start eating our own.

Making outlandish comments and arguments just plays into the hands of the right wing media, etc.  They can play this to the hilt.

Very well said.

Don't forget Texas. I'd put our chances of knocking off Box Turtle Cornyn at least as high as OK, KS, KY, and NC.