http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/April%202006/Minnesota%20Senate%20April.htm

within margin of error.

Sens. Salazar, Reed, Levin, Kerry — this one’s for you.

To support your argument-
Rassmussen has it at 44-42 Chafee. 59% approval rating…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/June%202006/rhodeIslandSenJune.htm

Burn is within margin of error, and candiates peak after their nomination-see JFK.

DeWine is also within moe.
Talent too.

Incumbency is a strong predictor, especially in moe races.

Ford can’t crack 40%,and has a ton of baggage.

Cantwell is hurting for supporting Bush, so were she to lose, I would not take too much heart.

Santorum…this guy’s numbers track closer to Bush’s than any other senator. If Bush can’t make it to 45%, Santorum is done, but I hold out hope.

You got any numbers on MN?

Dick morris has a piece about hoe the Dems can win six senate seats, and regain the Senate. He does fail to discuss what would happen were lieberman to go independant, resulting in dems needing 7 seats.

His six seats are:
Santorum, De Wine, Burns, Talent, Chafee, and Ford.

This is wishful thinking, altough he characterizes it as a ‘fair bet’. Ford has ‘zero’ chance in TN. Santorum, chafee and Burns are goners, but the other three are a toss up at worse.

He also fails to mention NJ, MN.

I think Morris fails to see the implication of Lieberman not being on the Dem ticket in Nov, and his ‘fair bet’ is more like a 1in 5 chance.

It has zero informational quality and proves to be more of a screed.

Meyerson clearly read Broder’s piece and was pissed. Doing no research, failing to discuss the implications and results of Liebermann being forced to run as an independent, and not mentioning the other 22 dem senators who voted for the war, 21 of which still have not taken back their vote basically makes this an op-ed of dowd quality, having zero news and no politcal value.

Perhaps Meyerson could establish a benchmark for the 21 other Senators, to determine if they are sufficently complaining about Bush, and if they do not meet his standard of contempt for the president, he should ‘out’ them as well.

So out of touch with CT voters, that he is at 55% approval, while having averaged 60%+ since the beginning of Combat Operations.

The simple, transparent implication is that Liebermann is far more respected than his own party in the state-

perhaps it is a reflection of the public’s belief in the sincerity and integrity of Joe. It should also demonstrate how far the democratic party has to go to gain crediblity in CT. Rather than trying for Lieberman’s numbers, the dems are trying to remove him from sight, to hide their own embarrassment at lacking the connection Lieberman has with the people of CT, and hide the fact that they are out of touch with American voters.

It is not a question of his support for Bush’s Iraq policy, it is the jealousy of his being more popular than his own party, while not shilling their marginal views, that makes democrats hate him.

Furthermore, neither Specter nor Jeffords were ever considered in the mainstream of their party at any time. Lieberman, by contrast, was once considered acceptable enough to secure the nomination for Vice President and was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination this time three years ago.

Amazing that the sad “nonpartisans” in the media who lamented over Jeffords and Specter’s treatment have suddenly fallen mute.