Key Senate Races Update

Democrats need to gain 6 seats in November if they are to take control of the Senate. It's a nearly impossible task, but there are possibilities. Here are the 10 races that I view as the most vital to Democratic chances in November, starting with the most essential to the effort.

#1 - Pennsylvania: Rick Santorum (R-inc) v. Bob Casey, Jr. (D)
There's a more complete analysis of the state of this race in a previous post from today. I rate this as the most important race for the Democrats because it is the "easiest pickings." Casey has led in every poll that has come out this summer, and Santorum hasn't yet started to come back significantly in the race (in fact, the most recent poll, conducted by USA Today, has Casey leading by a whopping 18 points). Put simply, if Santorum wins this race, it's going to be a long night for the Dems.

#2 - Ohio: Mike DeWine (R-inc) v. Sherrod Brown (D)
Very similar to Pennsylvania in terms of import for the Dems. DeWine is an embattled Republican in a state that isn't exactly in love with Republicans at the moment. That probably explains why the quite liberal Brown has consistently led this race, leading by an average of 5.7 points in the Real Clear Politics average, and having not trailed in the race since June poll by Rasmussen.

#3 - Rhode Island: Lincoln Chafee (R-inc) v. Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
Or at least, it will be Chafee if he miraculously survives a very tough primary challenge against Stephen Laffey, which is looking unlikely. Chafee is a certified RINO (Republican in Name Only), while Laffey is a conservative dream. If Laffey wins the primary, he'll be crushed by Whitehouse in the General, because Rhode Island is . . . how to put it . . . a tad liberal. Chafee might be able to beat Whitehouse if he survives this Tuesday (the polls are much too close to call), but this is a must-win for any reasonable strategy the Dems have to take the Senate.

#4 - Montana: Conrad Burns (R-inc) v. Jon Tester (D)
I didn't believe that Burns was really vulnerable until it became clear that Republicans throughout the West are struggling, and in surprising places. Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, Colorado . . . all are flirting with Democrats in places where that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. What's amazing is that the polling indicates that Tester is in the lead, albeit narrowly. Even when polls are within the margin of error, if several of them in a row indicate that one candidate is ahead of the other, then that's probably legitimate. Burns appears old and out-of-touch, and this race is a great pickup opportunity for the Dems.

#5 - Missouri: Jim Talent (R-inc) v. Claire McCaskill (D)
Talent has been unable to put much distance between himself and McCaskill this summer. The RCP average has him leading the race slightly, and I think he's going to win in November, but McCaskill is a sturdy challenger. For Dems to pull off the upset and take the Senate, this race probably needs to go to McCaskill, but of the Republican incumbents whom I have already mentioned, Talent is by far the most likely to find a way to win another term. I'm guessing he wins by 4-6%.

#6 - Tennessee: Bob Corker (R) v. Harold Ford, Jr. (D)
This is Bill Frist's (R) seat, and he's retiring. Corker was the clear leader in this race from January to early August, but a series of corruption charges (not to mention charges of inefficiency as a Mayor) have brought him back to the pack. Ford is a highly charismatic political figure (he was Barack Obama before there was a Barack Obama), and he has a chance to pick up this seat for the Dems.

#7 - Virginia: George Allen, Jr. (R-inc) v. James Webb (D)
Talk about sticking your foot in your mouth. Allen was ready to sail to re-election when he made the infamous "macaca" remarks regarding a Webb aide. That, along with increasing scrutiny of his potential connections with leaders of the modern-day White Supremacy movement, have led many young voters to desert him. The result? His lead has gone from well into the double digits to between 3-5, and Zogby Interactive even has Webb leading by a point. In other words, this is now a race. Just like the Pennsylvania race will be a litmus test determing whether the Democrats are going to have a long night, this race will be a great test of Democratic potency. If Webb wins, an avalanche could be about to fall all over the Republicans.

#8 - New Jersey: Robert Menendez (D-inc) v. Thomas Kean, Jr. (R)
I've thought since early this year that Kean was the Republican best poised to pull off an upset and steal a Democratic seat. Well, alright, I gave Mark Kennedy in Minnesota a great shot to do the same, until the polling data came in and demonstrated that he's a bit of a non-starter for my home state. But Kean is in great shape against Menendez, with polls indicating that he leads by 4-5 points (oddly enough, the only recent poll showing Menendez with the lead is a Republican funded poll). Obviously, for the Democrats to actually pull off taking over the Senate, they can't afford to put themselves in a hole by losing seats they already control. This would be an embarrasing and stinging loss for the Party, and like Pennsylvania and Virginia could be a solid indicator of how the night will go. One cautionary tale: this race seems to be very much being run on local issues, so it might not be as much of an indicator as it at first appears. I could easily see Kean winning, but Democrats doing very well nationally anyway.

#9 - Minnesota: Amy Klobuchar (D) v. Mark Kennedy (R)
At one time, this Democratic seat would have been high on the list of those that were significant. However, Klobuchar has led from the start by between 5-10 points, with no signs of coming back to Kennedy. Democrats can't get complacent, however; they need to secure this seat, because it has the potential of becoming competitive again thanks to Minnesota's fickle electorate.

#10 - Connecticut: Joe Lieberman (I-Inc) v. Ned Lamont (D)
With no Republican involved in this race, how can it rate my top 10? The answer lies in the damage that Democrats could do to themselves here. First off, by nominating Ned Lamont and setting up Lieberman's independent run, the Dems assured that significant amounts of money would be spent here, where nothing good can happen (in terms of net seats controlled), rather than in the competitive races listed above. Second, Democrats could really shoot themselves in the foot. If they alienate Lieberman too much, he may refuse to caucus with them, thus costing them a vital seat. It would be tremendously ironic if the Dems were to gain six seats, only to have Lieberman chose to spite them and caucus with the Republicans, thus handing the GOP the majority much as Jim Jeffords did for Democrats a few years ago.