[icwhatudo]

Map link

[Darkwolf377]

Even the NYT portrays this as a near-impossibility of a Dem win of the Senate. The Dems would have to win all their safe seats, the leaning seats, the tossups AND a couple of R-leaning ones (or a real upset of a safe-R seat) to control the Senate.

Wonder what their House races map looks like.

[ReaganRevolution]

This is why Carville is so beside himself. The Dems won't takeover this year and he knows it.

[Darkwolf377]

Ah, didn't see the House tab before.

House looks even safer for the R's. And as Barone points out, the tide seems to be turning BACK towards us since the UK plane plot revelations.

[IrishMike]

Pretty amazing how we went from the dems winning both house and senate, to at least the house, to now maybe neither-at least according to the NYTimes latest predictions.
.
.
.
.
What's amazing is the source... The NY Slimes.

[AliVeritas]

Speaking of keeping seats... you'll love this.

GOP Continues to Spit in the Face of the Base
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/index.php?p=627

[dubie]

they have John Murtha - safe dem... I hope not!!!!

[pabianice]

The New York Times has historically over-rated Dem election chances an average of 16%. That needs to be applied to any NYT "prediction."

[HamiltonJay]

Dems are in no position to take control of either house.. Best they can hope for is a few gains, but nothing that will shift the balance of power.

If republicans handle the campaign properly, which they should, I'll even go so far as to say R's will gain. Lamont, and the moonbat thought processes that made him an official nominee is going to hurt the Dems across the country.

And that's assuming no other major terrorist attacks occur or are foiled between now and Nov.

[BobinIL]

It is interesting how they have Conn. as a safe Dem senate seat but Lieberman is leading the poll as an independant.

[GOP_Proud]

bookmarked for reference

[GOP_Proud]

fantastic map

[RobFromGa]

Senate 2006 Midterm ping.

If anyone wants on or off the Senate 2006 ping list, send me Freepmail.

And here's another interesting map link to district by district House races, and Senate races.

CQ Politics.com

[Redmen4ever]

At this time, in 2004, Kerry was projected to be president. The purpose of the projections is merely to try to determine where the close races will be; therefore, in what races to invest.

At this time, Democrats are wondering how much they should commit to AZ, NV, TN and VA (i.e., the sixth seat). Republicans are wondering how much they should commit to MD, MI, MN, NJ and WA (i.e., pick-up opportunities).

Last time out, Republicans made an early decision to not fund WI, which they later tried to reverse (in part because WI was also a competitive state in the Presidential race). The Republican candidate lost by 10 points. I'm not saying the early decision was a mistake, because the Republicans did well in 2004 by concentrating on the races that they concentrated on.

This time, the Democrats may hurt themselves by trying to win control of the Senate, instead of being satisfied with merely a net pick-up. Republicans may hurt themselves by being too defensive.

BTW I am thinking that the Republicans will again write-off WI to their own regret.

[Lancey Howard]

Good post. BUMP.

[PDR]

ping the map.

[boughtwithaprice]

Poor NY...a "safe" Democrat state that will re-elect Hillary. Come on, NY conservatives, get out there and vote against her! I definitely will.

[Once-Ler]

In 96 the rats and the media said they were going to take back the Congress. They repeated the lie in 98,00,02, and 04.

[Non-Sequitur]

Pretty amazing how we went from the dems winning both house and senate, to at least the house, to now maybe neither-at least according to the NYTimes latest predictions.

Not when you consider all the people around here last year talking about a 60 seat filibuster-proof Republican Senate. The long and short is that the Democrats will undoubtably pick up seats in both houses and that pleases me not at all. The fact that it could be worse is little comfort.

[ChessExpert]

"Pretty amazing how we went from the dems winning both house and senate, to at least the house, to now maybe neither-at least according to the NYTimes latest predictions."

I've read that elections tend to "tighten-up." I think the real phenomenon is that the press comes up with phony polls that show the Democrats will win. This drives the money from business and some others toward the Democrats, because you want to support a winner and money spent on the loser is lost. But the press doesn't want to be embarrassed and lose credibility with memorable bad predictions. So the press starts to get honest as the election nears. This way the press helps their party, the Democratic party, without losing credibility.