I don't know what happened in the State Senate. If you read Steve Gilliard's blog, it looks like there was some tacit deal where the WFP agreed not to aggressively challenge Republicans in exchange for support for some of the WFP's priorities (notably a minimum wage increase).
The only more Hillary could have done would have been to campaign harder against Reynolds or Walsh. I can't remember her schedule though. I think she campaigned against one but not the other.
Hillary also gave millions to the DSCC, and it's pretty clear the DSCC needed every penny they could get to win Virginia, and to a lesser extent Missouri and Montana (closer but cheaper).
It feels like a lot was left on the table, but everyone did their part.
There have been polls that show Chafee in the lead. While polls have shown Burns tied with Tester, none have shown him in the lead. I think RI is small enough that the 72-hour plan could make a difference. Plus, the Governor's race is a win for the Republicans
Webb seems to have solidified is lead in all polls but one, so I'm comfortable with that one.
Lots of states have "property rights" initiatives to force states to eliminate every zoning law they've ever made (In Washington) or otherwise restrict government from keeping a lid on growth. Those are failing too.
It's worth mentioning that the Kansas Republican party has morphed two or three times; once from the abolitionist party into basically the center of the populist movement; then into the party of moderates like Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum, then into its current form.
I'm trying to figure out how much to worry about the "one million contacts" figure. Spread across all districts, that's about 3% of a GOP working majority. More carefully spread around the 40 competitive districts, it's closer 30%. But of course, some of those contacts are going into Senate races in states with few competitive House races: Tennessee, Virginia, Rhode Island, Montana. So it's probably something in between; say, 10-15% of GOP voters. Sizeable, but nothing to freak out about.
But one contact isn't anough; you really need 3 or 4 to get things to stick. I don't think this is enough to swing the election. Recall that in the '04 election, Republicans had more than one million volunteers sweeping the nation. To be reduced to only a million contacts is a sizeable dropoff.
I think Arizona is still just barely out of reach. If you look at the SurveyUSA figures, the election is now polarized; Pedersen now pulls 78% of Democrats and the majority of independents. But Republicans make up 42% of the electorate. He has 10% of Republicans currently; he needs another 10% to be competitive. That's going to be tough.
When/if Napolitano runs in '12 or when McCain retires, I think she will win. But it will be a few cycles before Arizona truly turns blue.
I think Lieberman will almost certainly caucus with the Democrats. In 2008, Dems will have the following quality pickup opportunities:
VA: John Warner (if Mark Warner decides to run, or John retires and Webb runs)
MS: Cochran (the guy who was going to run as a Dem if Lott retired stood a good shot).
MN: Coleman (Paul Wellstone's seat; Franken or Hatch [if he loses the gov race] can go after it)
CO: Allard (Udall)
Plus outside shots at OK (if Henry runs), and AK (if Knowles runs).
They would have to defend LA, AR, SD, and maybe MI if Levin retires.
I think there is a good chance that Democrats will be in the majority in the Senate going forward, so it's in his interest to stay on the Dem leadership's good side.
This is big. If Brown can get the margin to 58-42 that would suggest there's a substantial swing that may pull OH-2, OH-1, and Pryce's district (that's 16?) over the finish line. Maybe one or two more.
Also if that Talent-McCaskill result holds (I think it oversamples the youth vote), a similar phenomoenon might occur in Missouri, but I don't know what the maps look like.
One of the side effects of the upcoming success in governor's races is to all but eliminate any viable candidates for the 2012 Presidential election. If Hatch defeates Pawlenty in Minnesota, there will be no popular two-term, pro-life governors.
That will make it very difficult for the Republican party in 2012, if they do not win in 2008. The party will be limited to Mountain West governors of deep red states, HW Bush and W Bush cabinet officials, and assorted figures like Newt Gingrich.