[Dave S]

he certainly doesn't have to nominate them prior to 2007 (when our larger Senate majority will be seated).

Counting our chickens before they are hatched, ey? Having gotten gains so many terms in a row, it may come as a suprise but we can lose seats in 2006. This is especially true if the war doesnt show improvement and the GOP gets bad press for overreaching on SCOTUS debate.

[Southack]

"Counting our chickens before they are hatched, ey? Having gotten gains so many terms in a row, it may come as a suprise but we can lose seats in 2006. This is especially true if the war doesnt show improvement and the GOP gets bad press for overreaching on SCOTUS debate."

Just political reality. Here's why the GOP *gains* 3 net Senate seats in 2006 elections:

1. Dems have to defend more incumbents in 2006 than do Pubbies (i.e. the math says that we'll win),
2. Dems are behind in fundraising (i.e. the money says that we'll win),
3. The Heartland is finishing up its historic realignment (no longer the Solid South for Demcorats; now the whole Heartland is Republican),
4. Republicans finally outnumber Dems in voter registrations,
5. The Dems have been distracted from their key Senate races (e.g. by attacking GWB, DeLay, filibustering, etc.),
6. The Trend. The GOP keeps winning and winning, gaining leads in state governorships, state legislatures, the House, etc...so continued gains in 2006 for our GOP dominated Senate fits in with the historical trend-line.

Even Nixonian-resignation-level political blunders couldn't blow 2006 for the Pubbies in the Senate.

GOP gains +3 Senate seats. You heard it here, first.

[Jeff Chandler]

it may come as a suprise but we can lose seats in 2006. This is especially true if the war doesnt show improvement and the GOP gets bad press for overreaching on SCOTUS debate.

Is that you, Senator Lott?

[Lx]

Spoil sport! Also, 100% correct. We need to deal with the here and now.