So James Carville has said, "If we can't win in this environment, we have to question the whole premise of the party." Perhaps they should regardless of what happens, but I feel like I've been taken down this road before. Democrats will point to favorable poll numbers and claim they'll be victorious in November. Then, as they did with the Congressional races in 2002, they'll abandon their common sense and principles and alienate their base, or, as John Kerry did in 2004, they'll refuse to put up a tough fight against Republican slander and come across as weak-willed and incompetent. This is not a pro-Democrat wave that's building; it's an anti-incumbent wave. The question is whether Democrats are really serious about riding that wave to victory, or whether they just want to continue using their minority status to raise money for a mythical next election where they promise they'll do everything they can to win.

Every democratic candidate, independants for that matter, too, should prepare a "How dare you!" response ad. Prepare a TV spot full of outrage at the lies, innuendo, and outright nonsense that is sure to come from their republican opponent. It needs to be strong. It needs to be the sort of response you want your dad to make if the neighbor calls your mom a whore. That angry. That insulted.

Then the moment it happens: whatever "it" is, you fine tune the details and roll it out over the print, blogs, and airwaves.

And then democrats will not be seen as weak.

Carville: "If we can't win in this environment, we have to question the whole premise of the [Democratic] party."

A well-known comic strip character: "I know I'll kick that football this time."

Lately, the only premise I hold with certainty about my party is an uncanny ability to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. I am a person who would abstain from voting before voting for a Republican, but I'm not very hopeful about next November.

We're talking about a party that could not leverage Clinton's economy into a clear victory for his VP (i.e. untouchable by Florida hanky-panky) that bought into the Bush's poisoned chalice of Iraq war plans back in 2002 despite obviously shaky evidence, still managed to lose big AND get smeared as weak on defense, and that could not unseat an increasingly unpopular president in 2004 when the disastrous consequences were clear.

I don't know how the my party will manage to lose in November. My guess is it'll be helped along by gerrymandering, inside-the-beltway myopia, an inability to present a coherent and inspiring vision despite being basically correct on the role of effective, responsible governance, and a gullibility towards dirty tricks bringing to mind scenes of Lucy snatching the football from Charlie Brown.

If the Democrats do manage to win, that's what will shatter my premises. I'm more than willing to have them shattered, but I'm not holding my breath.

The "2" will not be Jeffords and Lieberman. Jeffords is retiring, and his seat is expected to be filled by independent Bernie Sanders.

Is going down, once the race really gets started he will be seen for what he is, a craven republican lackey...

Does anyone have a live, tame monkey (preferably a macaque)? Just start bringing that monkey to all Allen events. It will attract press attention, and when it does, the handler can just say, "We wanted to show Sen. Allen what a macaque actually looks like." Never, ever, ever let him live this down.

Assuming Lieberman wins, there would inded be two Independents in the Senate. But, one of them will not be Jim Jeffords. Jeffords is retiring at the end of this term. His seat is almost certainly going to be filled by another Independent, Bernie Sanders. There is neither a Democratic candidate nor a serious Republican candidate in the race. Dems have endorsed Sanders. And, like Jeffords, Sanders is likely to caucus with the Democrats. But, unless your column some how drags him out of retirment, Jeffords will not be in the Senate in the next term.

While talking about macaca is fun, if you're going to talk about Zogby poll results (yes, we know they have a bad reputation), how about covering some of the Nevada races. There's a lot going on in the state besides our new caucushood. Nevada races exemplify the wave discussed in this piece...red and quickly turning blue.

Jack Carter, son of Jimmy Carter, is within less than four percentage points of uber right Nevada Senator John Ensign. A huge surge.

Dina Titus, is leading her Republican challeger, Jim Gibbons, in the gubernatorial contest.

We also have two great women candidates running for congress in close races, Jill Derby and Tessa Hafen, and a total of six women candidates running at the top of the state ticket.

Shift some of the election focus westward--we're only a few hundred miles from Salon's headquarters anyway.

George Allan just sent out an apology e-mail to all who wrote to him complaining about his macaca comments. He used everyone's e-mail address in the "to" line. Doea anyone want to but some e-mail addreses? Just kidding...

I have no doubt the dems will win a lot of seats in exit polls in November. The question is whether the official vote counts will also win these seats. I'll go on record now: they will not. I would love to be proved wrong.

That's what he claims. The fact that he had a confederate flag in his office. Well, he's just a history buff and the flag is part of Virginia's history. The hangman's noose? I'm not sure how to explain that one, but I'm sure it's perfectly innocent. And the fact that he had his picture taken with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that desended from the White Citizens Council which states it's "opposition to efforts to mix the races of mankind"--well politicians just like to get their picture taken with anybody, right?

Here's a link: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060911&s=george_allen