Replies

I don't understand several of these picks. My thoughts:

Byrd: Very vulnerable. This guy seems increasingly out-of-touch with the value of his state, and a smart opponent would build upon this by going after his age (he will be 89.) When you have an older Senator prone to making unusual observations, it raises a lot of questions, as Senator Bunning of KY found out.

Clinton: Not vulnerable. New York is very liberal, as Tuesday's results demonstrated. Guiliani hurt himself in New York state by campaigning so hard for GWB. He needs a lot of Kerry voters to win in 2006.

Conrad: Vulnerable. North Dakota is as conservative as South Dakota. If South Dakota will throw out the minority leader, North Dakota will throw out Conrad. All the GOP needs is a good candidate.

Lieberman: Vulnerable. Liberal Democrats are furious at Lieberman for his neo-conservative foreign policy leanings. Go over to DUmmyland. They are ready to burn him at the stake. He could face a nasty primary fight, or a third party candidate running to his left.

Byrd: Very vulnerable. This guy seems increasingly out-of-touch with the value of his state, and a smart opponent would build upon this by going after his age (he will be 89.) When you have an older Senator prone to making unusual observations, it raises a lot of questions, as Senator Bunning of KY found out.

His opponent should also remind the WV voters of his Klan past and remind them that this does not reflect their values.

Let me explain.

Byrd: His age and Bush's popularity have dropped him from the top ("unopposable") to the second ("safe") tier. But he rolls tons of political pork into the Great Distinguished Senator Robert C. Byrd Memorial State. As President Pro Tempore, he sits just four heartbeats from the Presidency. Problem for the Republicans: a complete dearth of credible conservative candidates. The GOP should begin grooming candidates (plural) now to replace Byrd when he retires (or dies). Without Byrd on the ballot, this seat blows wide open. Other groomed Republican candidates can challenge Jay Rockefeller and take other state offices.

Clinton: This New York senator is considered vulnerable primarily because she ran behind Al Gore in 2000. Bush also performed better here in 2004 than in 2000. That even excludes the "star" candidacy of Guiliani, who remains enormously popular in New York City. Yeah, Guiliani did hurt himself by campaigning for Bush, but he only has to do a little better than Lazio. That's really quite easy, even if he has just half of his support remaining in the City of New York. And remember: Gore and Kerry--no presidential candidates--will be on the ballot to provide coattails.

Conrad: Should be vulnerable. But if the Republicans had a hand to play, why didn't they fare any better against Byron Dorgan? Where is the "good candidate" that North Dakota so desperately needs? Completely absent--unless the Governor John Hoeven, or another popular Republican, will contest this seat. It shouldn't be difficult--but why hasn't it happened yet? When--and more importantly, if--such a candidate should appear, we can reassess the vulnerability.

Lieberman: Note the assumptions that I've made. He (1) wins his primary easily and (2) doesn't face a significant minor-party insurgency. If both assumptions apply--granted, a big "if"--then how could a conservative beat him? Even if a Greenie splits the liberal vote, it would be interesting, but Lieberman is centrist and incumbent enough to block a conservative Republican. If he doesn't win his primary--or doesn't run, having been appointed, perhaps, Ambassador to Israel--then it's an open seat. Democrats would have a natural edge, but if Republicans could find a credible centrist candidate, they could capture this seat.