[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

Problem is, Musgrove has won statewide twice. He lost only the time he had an opponent far more popular than he.

True, but even his intital gubernatorial victory was by only about 9,000 votes, and much of that came out of northern Mississippi, where Roger Wicker used to represent. In a presidential year, one would think Musgrove would have to climb more uphill to win. I don't even know what his appeal there is. You barely win the first time (for governor) and get beat for re-election, how is he even close to an incumbent Republican for a federal office?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Well, the incumbent is still only an appointee. Musgrove lost reelection for Governor because he was running against a proverbial GOP rock star in Haley Barbour. He’s going to be able to exploit the current problems (the anti-GOP mood) to mount a very strong candidacy. We shouldn’t have lost Wicker’s seat, and if we could lose that, we can lose the Senate seat. It’s astonishing how much this year is starting to have the stench of 1958 (and in a situation without historic precedence, we could win the Presidency all the while suffering those potentially massive losses, most acutely in the Senate).