32.2 percent of precincts reporting.

Unlike West Virginia, no one is voting for Edwards. He's only at 1.6 percent.

24.6 percent of precincts reporting.

So if Clinton lost because of sexism, why did Dodd, Biden, and Edwards lose?

And is there perhaps, just perhaps, an inkling that perhaps supporting the biggest foreign policy debacle in our history, refusing to apologize for it, then voting for a similar measure targeting Iran might have had something to do with it?

And what about Mark Penn, was he foisted on the Clinton campaign because of sexism? What about her campaign's ignoring of the caucus states? Or their "Super Tuesday or Bust" strategy?

Sheesh.

Update: It looks close because Louisville and Lexington are coming in early. It won't stay this way.

Update II: Shifted my results to the KY SoS office, since they have more advanced numbers.

Update III: CNN called Kentucky for Clinton, they expect about a 30-point victory. All polls are now closed in the state.

Update IV: Lou Dobbs is a moron. "Something a backlash" -- that's why Clinton won Kentucky. It has nothing to do with Appalachia. And how much will they be talking about "backlash" when Obama wins Oregon handily?

Update V: Where's my "mute" button? "Clinton has been counted out many times" blah blah blah. She's been counted out because she lost. Nothing has changed. She has still lost.

The White House blames NBC for the "appeasement" crap:

In a letter to NBC News President Steve Capus, presidential counselor Ed Gillespie complained that a report on the "Today" show distorted Bush's remarks last week to the Israeli Knesset and did not include the president's objections to questions from reporter Richard Engel.

"This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible," Gillespie wrote, adding that NBC should air Bush's responses "in full."

Funny how last week, every winger -- including McCain -- cheered on the "appeasement" remarks. Now they were a product of selective editing? So yeah, the usual White House bullshit. But this part is also interesting:

NBC News said in a statement that the story "accurately reflects the interview" and questioned the White House's criticisms. "NBC News, as part of a free press in a free society, makes its own editorial decisions," the statement read.

What's the point of those "editorial decisions"? Really.

Once upon a time, there were time constraints on the air, or space constraints in print. But these days, unedited footage and transcripts can be posted online. Those "editorial decisions" are nothing more than editorial meddling, gatekeeping at its worst.

There's nor reason for NBC to hide the rest of the footage. Put it all online. Let people decide for themselves whether Bush was improperly edited or not. Do the same for all interviews.

There's no reason for news outlets to make those decisions for us anymore. They can still edit their pieces for on-the-air broadcasting, but leave the rest of those interviews online. It won't just help generate a more informed electorate, but it will provide a fantastic accountability for those journalists themselves -- with the source material available, their ability to skew their pieces according to their own biases will be seriously restricted.

Are there any hard-working white people in Oregon? Can't possibly be the case, considering he's about to win the primary there today.

Ranked by per-capita income, Oregon is ranked 23rd in the nation, two slots behind Ohio, and a single slot ahead of Pennsylvania. And since Ohio and Pennsylvania are apparently the gold standard of white working class-ness in this election, Oregon is little different than those two on the economic front.

Oregon is also a white state. According to 2005 census projections, Oregon is 9.38 percent Hispanic, 2.38 percent black, 2.44 percent pacific islander, 0.5 percent Native American, and 4.25 percent Asian. That's about 81 percent Anglo.

In fact, let's look at the whitest states in the nation according to recent Census estimates:

1. Maine (Obama)
2. Vermont (Obama)
3. West Virginia (Clinton)
4. New Hampshire (Clinton)
5. Iowa (Obama)
6. North Dakota (Obama)
7. Montana
8. Kentucky (Clinton)
9. Wyoming (Obama)
10. Idaho (Obama)

The list above excludes HIspanics, which are considered racially white, but ethnically different.

Let's look at the rankings of states including Hispanic whites. Remember, Obama is supposed to have just as much a problem with Hispanics as he is with non-Hispanic whites:

1. Vermont (Obama)
2. Maine (Obama)
3. New Hampshire (Clinton)
4. Idaho (Obama)
5. West Virginia (Clinton)
6. Iowa (Obama)
7. Wyoming (Obama)
8. Utah (Obama)
9. North Dakota (Obama)
10. Nebraska (Obama)

11th is Montana, and guess which state is 12th?

Oregon.

So yes, Oregon is white, it's working class, and it still manages to do this:

• Clinton is bragging about her support from Karl Rove. Does she honestly think that Karl Rove is being honest here? And if so, we're supposed to continue trusting her judgment?
• The three campaigns have until midnight tonight to release their April fundraising numbers. And they're all apparently holding out until the last second.
• Gallup should stop wasting its money tracking the Clinton/Obama race. Rasmussen did, and no one cared.
• Who would give to the Clinton campaign these days?

  Some big donors have told her campaign that it's getting tough to raise more money. "It's very difficult to get any new major donors at this point," said one important backer. "There will be no more million-dollar events."

• OR-Sen: Primaries are good!, Oregon edition.
• McCain doesn't have his right-flank all sewn up.

  That sound you hear is rumbling among unhappy social conservatives on the Republican Party’s right wing; it spells trouble not just for President Bush, but for the party’s presumptive presidential candidate, John McCain.

  At a time when Sen. McCain badly needs to consolidate the support of the Republican base before the general-election campaign begins in earnest, leaders of the party’s social conservatives are letting it be known—quietly, for now—that they aren’t happy with the way their desires are being met.

  The immediate target of their grumbling is Mr. Bush, but the message to Sen. McCain is clear: "You need us in the fall, not just those independent voters everybody wants you to spend your time courting."

  What are these groups upset about? Less funding for abstinence-only programs:

  Many social conservatives believe that abstinence training has led to a drop in teen pregnancies and contributed to a decline in abortion rates.

  Of course, they also believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth 6,000 years ago and that global warming doesn't exist and that lower taxes would eliminate the federal deficits and debt and all manners of other crazy shit wholly at odds with reality.

  But this one? It's particularly blind to reality.

  Experts from the American Public Health Association and U.S. Institute of Medicine testified that scientific studies have not found that abstinence-only teaching works to cut pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases or the age when sexual activity begins.

  The American Psychological Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also issued statements to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform criticizing the abstinence-only programs.

• Mocking NRO. It's almost always too easy.
• John Cole:

  5.) Bill Kristol, still dumb as a sack of hammers. I am noticing a trend here. Kristol claims government is inefficient, ineffective, and bad, gets a bunch of his buddies elected, and proves it. He also rails against the MSM, claims they can’t get their facts straight, gets a job at the NY Times, and proves it.

Twelve prominent state blogs have written an open letter to Howard Dean and the DNC demanding this oversight get fixed. Other state blogs will be signing on over the next couple of days. You can read the full letter here (PDF).

As long-time progressive state bloggers, we have now witnessed many of our well-respected colleagues from crucial states be passed over. In many states, it appears that parochial politics and hurt egos played a role in these decisions. These concerns run counter to our shared goals of using programs like the state blogger pool to "tear down the walls" in Denver -- and better connect the American people with the events on the ground.

The Democratic Party endangers its own long-term viability when it makes fealty a criterion for inclusion. Instead, the Party should act to ensure that it includes its ideological media allies, even if those allies are occasional tactical or strategic critics.

We, the undersigned, have been included in the state credentials pool, despite our own history of criticism of local Democratic actors. This speaks well to the character of our own local parties. But while our peers in other states are being excluded, we'd be remiss in staying silent.

And remember, the solution isn't to give the snubbed bloggers regular credentials. It's to give them the very credentials that will allow them to sit with their delegations on the floor of the convention.

More information on this controversy below.

The DNC started off great with their blogging credentialling process. Of particular note was their state-blogger program, which would seat grassroots-level state bloggers with their delegations on the convention floor. This was how it was pitched at the time:

2008 DemConvention State Blogger Corps

Recognizing the growth of more localized blogs, this pool is designed for those covering state and local politics. To qualify as a state blogger, the applicant's blog must have been in existence six months prior to requesting credentials and have at least 120 politically related blog posts. Bloggers must submit their daily audience and list their authority based on Technorati stats. Bloggers may also provide examples of posts that make their blog stand out as an effective online organizing tool and/or agent of change.

A press release from that time:

In November, the DNCC announced its blogger credentialing process for 2008, including an expansion of the credentialed blogger pool from prior cycles and the addition of a state blogger credentialing program. Under the DemConvention State Blogger Corps, which is designed for those covering state and local politics, the DNCC is offering the opportunity for one blogger to be credentialed from each of the states and territories. The program, recognizing the growth of more localized blogs and in line with Governor Dean's 50-state strategy, has been open for applications since December.

So how did the DNC choose to recognize the growth of local blogs "in line with Governor Dean's 50-state strategy"? Mostly, they got it right. At least in 45 states. But they blew it big time in five others, dissing some of the best state bloggers in the country.

In New York, the excellent Albany Project was passed over for a site focused on NY City corruption founded by the Politico's Ben Smith. Go to that site, and it's nothing but press releases. [Update: That press release page is a lower-level page, which I got when I clicked on the "blog" link in their navigation. They have real writers on their home page.]

In New Jersey, the inimitable Blue Jersey got passed over for PolitickerNJ -- a non-partisan, corporate owned site run by the guys who own the New York Observer. Somehow, I doubt that's inline with the spirit of Dean's 50-state strategy, online organizing, or being agents of change.

In Alabama, Left in Alabama was passed over, as was Cotton Mouth in Mississippi, passed over in favor of a site, Natchez Blog, devoted to Natchez MS, population 18,000 -- a site, by the way, that didn't have a single post or action alert on the MS-01 special election we won last week. Cotton Mouth was one of the best resources on that race (and the Senate race as well).

Finally, Michigan Liberal was given the big diss as well.

The DNC's online guy at the convention, Aaron Myers (email: MyersA@demconvention.com) claims that it's a big ado about nothing, that the snubbed blogs will be getting regular blog credentials when those are announced sometime this week.

But that's not the point.

The state blogger corps were a special program and a particularly coveted one since it allows those bloggers to sit with their delegations on the convention floor. Regular bloggers can't do that. They may "have access" to the state delegations, but they won't be sitting with them.

The solution was easy -- take the five blogs that were given their unwarranted access, and give them regular blog credentials just like most everyone else. Those are the same credentials sites like Daily Kos will have, so there's nothing shameful about them.

Then they could give those five state blogger corps passes in MI, AL, MS, NY, and NJ to the blogs in those states that have are TRUE reflections of Dean's 50-state strategy, those blogs that are organizing and building for a Democratic majority at the local level with little recognition virtually and no money. Those are the bloggers who are in the trenches helping make victories like MS-01 possible.

This fix could've been done quietly and without any public commotion, but Aaron Myers and whoever ultimately makes those decisions have decided to be obtuse about it. They're pretend that there's no difference between the regular credentials and the state blogger ones, a farcical position. If there was no difference between the two classes of credentials, then there wouldn't be two classes of credentials.

So why would the DNC take a program that had gotten rave reviews, and then muck it up by 1) creating an unecessary controversy, and 2) appear so uninterested in quietly fixing things? The rumor is that state parties were given veto power, and the excluded blogs all have a history of criticizing and holding their state parties accountable. For example, here's what Cotton Mouth heard:

We've been in contact with people who have told us that we were considered for the credential, but were vetoed by someone in Mississippi's Democratic Party. We are attempting to find out who that person is and why they felt we should not represent Mississippi.

This is obviously bull, as is the lack of responsiveness and outright tone-deafness to this problem by Myers and company at the convention. They've let this become a public controversy when it could've easily been handled quietly, and things will escalate, as many of the credentialled state bloggers are closing ranks around the snubbed ones and are already pitching the story (successfully, as we'll soon see) to the traditional media.

Completely unnecessary. Luckily, it's not too late to fix things, and the DNC should do so immediately.

Check this out:

Note that Clinton has essentially camped out in Kentucky all week (and the region for several weeks), while Obama has made nothing but a perfunctory visit or two. Clinton's numbers haven't budged for a month. Support for both sides in the state have solidified, and it seems as if nothing could ever pry additional numbers loose in Clinton's direction.

It's really odd to see numbers that unmoving across so many polls. I've never seen anything like it before.

Earlier I noted the crazy good map we have this year. Believe it or not, it gets even better in 2010.

First of all, we have no threatened Democrats --

That's a whole lot of Blue territory, and North Dakota is Dorgan country, while Bayh will be senator as long as he wants to be. Lincoln in Arkansas? That could be a problem if Huckabee runs for the seat, but that's not currently likely.  

As for Republicans? It's ugly for them. Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah are initially off the table. But beyond that:

A Lieberman-proof filibuster proof majority is well within reach by 2010. The maps of '12 and '14 will be much tougher, as we fight to hold on to our gains from last cycle and this one. But for now, savor the mauling we are in the process of delivering in the middle of his heavenly six-year stretch between the 2006 and 2010 cycles. It's an epic beat down, and it'll continue straight into the end of the decade.

Update: As mentioned in the comments, retirements are possible in Maryland and Hawaii. Maryland would likely be a relatively easy hold, but Hawaii has a popular Republican governor that could potentially make Hawaii a tough hold.

Looking around for predictions I find:

Kentucky:

Oregon:

My predictions:

Kentucky:

Oregon:

Fresh from you-know-where. Obama under 30 percent in Kentucky and over 60 percent in Oregon are very real possibilities. Given he will win the Oregon white vote handily, and get crushed in it in Kentucky, that should make some pundit heads explode tonight.

Not too surprising.

Geraldine Ferraro, the outspoken former Democratic vice presidential candidate and a supporter of Hillary Clinton's White House bid, told the New York Times she may not vote for Barack Obama should he be the party's nominee.

From that NY Times story:

Cynthia Ruccia, 55, a sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics in Columbus, Ohio, is organizing a group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, of mostly women in swing states who plan to campaign against Mr. Obama in November. "We, the most loyal constituency, are being told to sit down, shut up and get to the back of the bus," she said.

The racist Ferraro couldn't have said that better.

I've long sang the praises of the contested primary, most recently last week when North Carolina's Kay Hagan saw a boost against Dole after winning her primary.

Now, if you listen to the Beltway conventional wisdom, contested primaries are terrible, terrible things. The parties work feverishly to "clear the field" for favored candidates, forcing out less-attractive primary opponents regardless of how many feathers are ruffled at the grassroots level. Party officials would prefer that candidates spend time raising money rather than spending it, especially if the opposing party has cleared its own field.

Yet a bitterly contested primary wasn’t a terrible thing for over half of the Senate’s newest members. Ten of the 19 senators first elected in 2004 and 2006 triumphed in contested primaries before defeating general election opponents who had been "blessed" with cleared primary fields.

In 2004, that list included Republicans Tom Coburn in Oklahoma, Jim DeMint in South Carolina, Richard Burr in North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, as well as Democrat Barack Obama in Illinois. In 2006, that list included Democrats Jon Tester in Montana, Jim Webb in Virginia, Bob Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania and Ben Cardin in Maryland, as well as Republican Bob Corker in Tennessee.

I went back to see if Webb's victory in 2006 was mostly influenced by Macaca, or whether his primary victory played a role. Here's Rasmussen polling of the race for the year:

Webb's primary victory was immediately worth about a 10-point boost, a boost he never relinquished. Macaca was worth another six points or so, and put him close enough to close the deal the final weeks of the race.

But it's clear, given the numbers, that the single biggest boost for his campaign was winning his primary.

• Thanks to everyone for their kind words regarding my grandmother. She did get to meet her 20th (!) great-grandchild, even though my poor Eli burst out in tears as my grandmother reached for her. She wasn't in good shape, and she continuously pleaded to us to let her go. Well, except for one wrenching moment when I mentioned that I would be back with the full family during Christmas, and I gamely told her she'd get to see my other child. For the only time during that trip, she looked up hopefully, and said, "if I get better."

  She was taken off life support yesterday.

• Bob Barr, who we hope takes a chunk of Republican support as the Libertarian candidate for president, has some problems with his PAC.

  In the last five years the fund has given $125,200 — about three cents of every dollar raised — to federal candidates and other campaign committees, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has found in a review of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Another $81,875 went to state and local campaigns [...]

  Most of the fund's spending — $3.3 million, or about 78 percent of all gifts from donors — paid for raising more money, including mailing lists, postage and telemarketing.

  "It costs money to raise money," Barr said.

  In the letter, Barr told potential donors the fund played a "tremendous role" in ousting Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) in 2004 and provided "critical funding" in 2006 for freshman Rep. Michele Bachman (R-Minn.). But records show the fund made modest donations in those races: $1,000 to John Thune, Daschle's opponent, and $1,500 to Bachman.

  The letter states he also raised tens of thousands of dollars in 2002 for Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). The organization, however, donated nothing to Chambliss that year; a fund official wrote in an e-mail that Barr, not the fund, helped raise about $20,000 for that race.

• Obama has a 16-point lead in Gallup's daily tracking poll.
• Toobin on McCain's Supreme Court:

  Successful politicians know how to attract attention, and how to avoid it, so it’s worth noting that John McCain chose to give his speech about the future of the judiciary on May 6th, a day when the political world was preoccupied with the Democratic primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. It is significant, too, that Senator McCain spoke mainly in generalities, rather than about such specific issues as abortion, affirmative action, and the death penalty. But even if he hoped to sneak the speech past a distracted public, and have its coded references deciphered only by the activists who were its primary target, its message should not be lost on anyone. McCain plans to continue, and perhaps even accelerate, George W. Bush’s conservative counter-revolution at the Supreme Court.

• MS-01: Did you hear that Childers victory last week was a good thing for Republicans? A bunch of wingers tried to make lemonade from lemons, and looked idiotic doing so.

  One wonders why, if Childers' election was such good news for their cause, these analysts didn't come out for him in the first place.

• Hillary staffers looking to work for Obama:

  Hillary Rodham Clinton’s former campaign manager and confidante, Patti Solis Doyle, and Sen. Barack Obama’s top adviser have informally discussed the former Clintonite’s going to work for the Obama campaign in the general election.

  Solis Doyle’s possible hiring is a major breach not just in Clinton’s campaign but in the political universe known as “Hillaryland,” a term Solis Doyle reportedly coined after joining the Clintons in 1991 as the first lady's personal scheduler. She was forced out of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in February amid internal criticism about her spending practices and preparation for upcoming contests.

  “I’ve talked to Patti throughout. I know that she wants to be helpful in a general election campaign, and we appreciate that,” Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod told Politico, declining directly to answer the question of whether he and Solis Doyle had discussed her working for the campaign.

  I'd love to see Clinton's group of Latino staffers and experts transition over to the Obama team. That crew was pretty darn good.

• Good point.

  Matthew Yglesias is skeptical about the influence of anti-McCain web videos.

  I kind of wonder on some level what the point of producing tons of McCain-bashing web videos is, since it seems like a foregone conclusion that pretty much the entire cohort of people inclined to watch web videos isn't going to vote for McCain in the first place [...]

  A small part of that "cohort" of people inclined to watch web videos is comprised of reporters and media professionals. Working them is more important to the success of a campaign than convincing a die-hard Republican McCain is a bad idea. If online viral video of SNL skits can affect campaign coverage (and trust me, not THAT many people watch SNL on TV) then so can stuff like this.

• Obama promises to target media monopolies if elected president. Watch the media conglomerates work to further subvert Obama.
• Harkin:

  Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, “and he has a hard time thinking beyond that,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.

  “I think he’s trapped in that,” Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. “Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

  Predictably, the wingers are getting the vapors. Get the smelling salts! John Cole:

  Is there a bigger bunch of pansies than right wing bloggers? They can spend years hammering the opposition, lying about them and calling them traitors, and someone makes a fairly harmless remark and they just go insane. Well, more insane.

The list below ranks this year's top Senate races not by my belief in likely success, but by what the latest batch of polling tells us:

1.) Virginia (R-open): Rasmussen, 5/8:

Still the DSCC's best recruiting success, giving us as close to a sure thing in the Senate this fall.

2.) New Mexico (R-open): Rasmussen, 5/14:

The Udall-Wilson numbers look even better than the Gilmore-Warner numbers above, but Pearce is likely to win the Republican primary so this race gets slotted second. And if my Unified Theory of Primaries holds (the winning primary candidate closes the gap against a foe with a cleared primary field), then this will ultimately be a tighter race. Of course, when you have an 18-point advantage, "tighter" is relative.

3.) New Hampshire (R-Sununu): Rasmussen, 4/30:

The first two races spoil us, making a "mere" 8-point lead against an incumbent look anemic. Well, it's not. Still, we are out of "sure thing" territory.

4.) Alaska (R-Stevens): Research 2000, 4/12-14:

Alaska number four on the list? Well, a Rasmussen poll conducted at the same time gave Begich a 2-point lead, suggesting that the long-time Senate institution, "Tubes" Stevens, is truly running out of steam. In reality, Colorado below is probably a stronger bet than Alaska, but that's not to diss our chances in this state. Alaska's chances of going Blue this year are real.

5.) Colorado (R-Open): Rasmussen, 4/16:

New polling on this race would likely show a bigger Udall lead. Schaffer has been hit with connections to Abramoff and had a widely reported and ridiculously embarrassing moment when a mountain identified in one of his ads as Colorado's Pikes Peak turned out to actually be Alaska's Mt. McKinley.

6.) North Carolina (R-Dole): Rasmussen 5/8:

Fresh off her primary boost, Dems have a solid candidate in Hagan, and Republicans are stuck with that "R" next to their names. I would slot this race below Minnesota if I was ranking by chance of success, but this one is at worst a pure toss-up.

7.) Texas (R-Cornyn): Research 2000 5/5-7:

These shocking results confirmed a previous Rasmussen poll also showing a mere 4-point deficit. Noriega's problem is money -- he's been less than adept at raising it and Cornyn has lots. And Texas is an expensive state. If Noriega can overcome the money problems, it's clear there's a yearning for change in the Lone Star State that he can tap into.

8.) Oregon (R-Smith): Rasmussen 5/7:

Will whoever wins the Democratic primary get a primary boost against Smith? Either way, this race is starting to show some sign of life when it once seemed to slip away from contention.

9.) Minnesota (R-Coleman): Star Tribune, 5/12-15:

Franken is going through a rough spot, having been busted with tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid state taxes from gigs and projects all over the country. He's paid that stuff off, and the question is whether it's merely a blip or a longer-term problem. I'd guess the former.

10.) Mississippi (R-Wicker): Research 2000 12/10-12/7:

Okay, the poll is hopelessly out of date, but I've got my second poll of this race coming out either late this week or next Monday. We can adjust Mississippi's place on this list according to those results. Given the results of last week's House special election, I wouldn't be surprised with some tightening.

11.) Maine (R-Collins): Rasmussen 5/14:

Collins is well liked in the state, but even she's starting to bleed support from huge early leads she previously enjoyed. Bush and his war in Iraq are proving a drag on anything they touch, and Collins remains an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Iraq.

Collins is still over 50, and hence considered safe, but the trendlines aren't looking good for her.

12.) Kentucky (R-McConnell): Research 2000 5/7-9:

The Republican Senate minority leader under 50 percent? Oh my! Perhaps it might have something to do with his anemic 48-45 approval rating. McConnell dodged a bullet when the Dems two top choices -- Rep. Ben Chandler (who will win Kentucky's open seat in 2010) and State Auditor Crit Luallen -- passed. But he won't be out of the woods until he can consistently get over that 50 percent hump.

13.) Lousiana (D-Landrieu): Southern Media & Opinion Research 3/26-4/9:

There's been just a single good poll on this race the entire 2008 calendar year, this one, so we have no proof that this will shape up to be the competitive race the GOP hopes it'll become. With Democrats picking up a House seat two weeks ago in a district Bush won by 19 points in 2004, it seems that even Red-trending Louisiana is in little mood for Republicans. Throw in an energized black electorate with Obama at the top of the ticket, and this becomes an even tougher slog for Republicans.

Kennedy switched parties at the wrong time in history, it would seem, though it's too early to be counting our lucky stars. There's still plenty of time for this to develop into a real race.

14.) Kansas (R-Roberts): Rasmussen 5/3:

Really, what the hell is Kansas doing on this list? Well, if these numbers stay static in the next couple of months, then Roberts will be safe. But for a Republican that won with 83% of the vote in 2002, Roberts is not used to being tested, and Slattery hasn't even started campaigning. This is still a likely Republican seat at the moment, but it's far closer than it should, by rights, be. We may have a surprise brewing here.

15.) Nebraska (R-Open): Southern Media & Opinion Research 5/15:

I polled this race last November and Johanns, the wildly popular former governor of the state (who won his last election with 69 percent of the vote) was crushing Kleeb 59-28. This last poll shows that we may have more of a race on our hands. I've got my second Nebraska poll due out late this week, so we'll see if Rasmussen's numbers are confirmed, or if they're too optimistic.

A 15-point deficit is "optimistic"? It's a fantastic result, and one that shows that this race could be truly competitive before all is said and done. And given that Obama trails by only 11 points in the state (compared to 23 points with Clinton), and we have another state were Obama at the top of the ticket gives our Senate candidate a fighting chance.

-------

Here's some context: Look at what Rasmussen said at roughly this point in time two years ago about the races Democrats picked up in 2006:

Okay, so I want to give props to the NRCC for admitting they have a problem:

"Clearly, we have got problems that are deep and serious in terms of how we are going to do in the fall elections," [Tom] Cole said.

That's progress. But then we hit the snag, as Cole further explains what those "problems" are:

"Having said that... we haven't lost as a party because of the ideological agenda on the other side. The obvious challenge we face is we had somebody running as a Republican, pro-life, pro-gun, who wants to cut taxes, wants to control spending. That's not particularly in step with where the Democratic majority is. So, that is going to create some opportunities for us. I think those issues clarify and reinforce [our agenda]."

First of all, does Cole really think that wanting to "control spending" is a Republican trait? If so, how come Bill Clinton balanced the budget while Mr. 27% and his Republican Congress has given us record deficits?

Nope, balancing the budget is definitely not a Republican trait. It's a Democratic one.

Second of all, guns are no longer a Republican issue. The NRA won. Democrats have given up on guns and have moved on. I know Republicans don't want to acknowledge that victory because it strips them of a once-useful wedge, but really, when you have Clinton and Obama fighting over who is more pro-gun, you know we've moved on.

So what's left? "Cut taxes"? Sure, everyone wants to cut taxes. The question is who gets those cuts and who shoulders the heavier tax burden. Republicans think oil companies need tax breaks, Democrats think lower and middle class families deserve them.

So that leaves abortion. And yes, on that issue, the two victorious Democrats in Louisiana (Don Cayazoux) and Mississippi (Travis Childers) actually buck their party. I'll add another one that Cole ignored -- immigration. On the border issue, these guys are downright regressive.

But that doesn't make them Republicans. Because if it does, then these positions shared by Cayazoux and Childers are now Republican positions:

• End the war in Iraq (Cazayoux, Childers)
• Stop new free trade deals (Cazayoux, Childers)
• Support SCHIP (Cazayoux, Childers)
• Eliminate subsidies to big oil (Childers)
• Protect social security (Cazayoux, Childers)
• Improve educational opportunities (Cazayoux, Childers)

This was the same lame spin that Republicans used to try and rationalize Jim Webb's victory in Virginia in 2006, before quickly dropping that approach as Webb's economic populism took center stage. Cazayoux and Childers appear to be economix populists in the Jim Webb mold.

What infuriates Republicans to no end is that these two Democrats effectively nullified GOP efforts to run on their pet social issues. Decades of winning elections on the abortion issue hasn't made abortion illegal in the country, nor has decades of anti-gay hysteria stopped the growing spread of tolerance, fairness, and equality. Heck, I doubt Republicans want to win those issues, given how quickly they're losing guns as a wedge issue now that they've won that battle.

With those social issues off the table, what's left? The kind of stuff that truly can make a material impact on people's lives -- health care, education, jobs, social security, and Iraq.

And no matter how much Republicans try to counter with the usual boogeymen (which now includes Obama, Wright, Pelosi and Kerry), it's not working. Democrats have clear advantages on bread and butter issues as well as the war in Iraq, even in the reddest of districts.

That's why Cazayoux ad Childers won. Not because they ran as Republicans, but because they ran on Democratic issues after taking the usual Republican wedge issues off the table.

Race tracker wiki: MS-01

Okay, so this is funny, as reported by Media Matters:

O'Reilly compared Moulitsas to white supremacist David Duke

Summary: Bill O'Reilly compared Markos Moulitsas, founder of the progressive Daily Kos blog, to white supremacist David Duke and criticized Newsweek for its decision to hire Moulitsas as a regular contributor, stating: "And Newsweek magazine, by the way, has legitimized him by giving him a columnist position. I talked to the editor by email, and I said I can't believe that you're -- that's like hiring David Duke. Again, I use Duke too much, but I have to -- the level of hatred coming out of that website is unprecedented."

O'Reilly is pissed that we're mocking him for his Inside Edition freakout. So he had one of his hapless interns find some diary which juxtaposed images from Jenna's wedding with images of the Iraq War. Apparently, that was The Worst Thing Ever because we must pretend that we're winning and that war has no consequences.

O'Reilly's rant predictably generated a "flood" (like 20) emails from his acolytes. You want to see an "unprecedented level of hatred"? Check out some of those emails:

You are a queer little fucking retard!!  Stay gay you cock sucker!!

You have gone too far with this liberal, fascist bullshit....sit down and SHUT UP and stop posting despicable stories to further your own ends. I am sick and tired of the radical left and I hope people like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck can exert their influence to SHUT YOU DOWN!!!!! If you don't like America, get the fuck out!

Hey asshole if I ever run across you in public I am going to really gonna give my best attempt to beat the living dogshit out you!!! Especially if I see you fly through DFW or if I go through O'Hare and run into you there. You suck!!!!

ive given ur actual city, state address to al qaida websites...i do believe they will be taking you out very shortly and not a soul will care...not even ur mother......

now i know why u dont go driving around or walking around in public...ur the skinny, nerdy high school kid who gets punched out for just being stupid looking and im sure that would still happen....after all, cowards are always cowards....

Fuck you communist sons-of-bitches! If you really want a war your leftist ,commie,scumbag asses had better be good to go! there is no more room in the United States for garbage like you! Anytime motherfucker!!

you guys are the scum of the earth. Your hatred of America and Bush is treasonous. Bush is a man of honor. You are not even in the same league.

You are truly disgusting.

Too bad you came back from visiting Grandma with little Spannish-speaking Eli.

Better luck for all of us next time you visit your homeland.

Go home, foreigner.

Hooray. I only found out about you today and I am celebrating. Your web site is so outrageous and literally full of it that intelligent people will be turned off, the same as with Michael Moore, Moveon.org, and totally incompetent people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and all your ilk!!!!

You are pieces of shit. You do not deserve to live in our great Nation. Get the fuck out. Do not let me catch you on a free street.

Hey Fagg,

Go let your Gay lover buttfuck you to death and quit taking up bandwidth!

You're an incredible asshole 'Markos' for your idiotic snot / blog on the bush wedding. The only jackasses that had a problem with that are the few liberal freaks who have nothing to contribute other than complaints.  And I think ICE should check your status.

You classless fucktard. You're the fucking problem with this country you cocksucking asshole. I hope some one beats the living shit out of you and that Mahler3 scumbag soon.

Drop fucking Dead!

Watch your back you fucking liberal ass..... ALL our days are numbered and yours is getting shorter... trust me.

Hmmm, a bizarre obsession with homosexuality, as if being gay is bad and being called gay is an insult (it's not and it's not). Mix it in with hatred toward my Latino heritage (some of it even directed at my one-year-old daughter). Some standard-issue threats. Unhealthy anger levels. Fake bravado. And, without a doubt, an unprecedented level of hatred.

But my favorite is this one:

Markos is a pig,and a certain secret society is watching you. And we dont like liberal Pigs like you, and the people that read this shit.The left are few,the right are many, and Pigs like Liberals will never run America.And your boy Obama is a Pig like the rest of you scum.

You know who else is a member of a "secret society" which doesn't like people like me (immigrants) and Obama (black)?

David Duke.

Bill O'Reilly and his illiterate fans are truly comic relief.

1.) Denial:

2.) Anger:

3.) Bargaining:

And that's where things stand right now. We've just got to get through the depression stage before we finally get to acceptance. We're slowly getting there.

In 2004, George W. Bush beat John Kerry 61-36 in Alaska. Now, the latest R2K poll for Daily Kos shows that McCain leads Obama only 49-42 in the 49th state.

So Obama is actually competitive for the state's three electoral votes, trailing only by seven.

But it's even better than that for Obama, as Reason's Dave Weigel notes.

Alaskan voters, all 470,000-odd of them, are unusually amenable to third parties. In 2000, Ralph Nader crested 10 percent of the vote here. In 1992, Ross Perot got 28 percent. The Libertarian Party's best ever state result was Ed Clark's 12 percent haul in 1980—I'm pretty sure he knocked Jimmy Carter into third place in some precincts.

So a lot of the scaffolding is there that could make this state a Libertarian target. Bob Barr, for example, voted for drilling in ANWR, and could lace into McCain on the issue. A higher-than-normal number of Alaskans will be voting Democratic down the ballot, and might want to split it... and hey, there'll be another conservative candidate they can vote for if they can't stomach Obama. (The Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin will be on the ballot, too.) If the LP shot for a 1980-sized 10 percent of the vote—around 30,000 ballots--it's possible to see Obama winning the state with 45 percent.

Alaska Republicans hate McCain, in large part because of his votes against ANWR. And sure, while Obama also opposes drilling in ANWR, that's expected from Democrats. For a Republican to oppose it is heresy.

That position has so damaged McCain in the state that he came in  -- check it -- FOURTH place in Alaska's caucuses (out of four candidates):

Yup, McCain couldn't even cross the "Paul Line".

So you mix in McCain's unpopularity in the state, Alaska's affinity for third party candidates, a credible Libertarian like Bob Barr, the GOP's endemic corruption, and top it all off with a resurgent Democratic Party with top-tier candidates in the Senate and House races, and you've got yourself quite a potent cocktail.