But I've traded in my well-worn cynicism for soemthing a bit more hopeful.

I have had so many political operatives tell me to always ignore the positive polls so we don't let the optimism cloud our energy and resolve to continue the good fight.... Well all I have to do is remember the last two Presidential elections and how there was and still is every reason to believe that the results were shaved just enough to get Bush the win in both Florida and Ohio.... Or the Creigh Deeds "non-recount" recount for an election that could have been won by just one more vote in about one out of every three precincts and/or the ability to fix voter anomalies that were observed but un-fixable because of the well crafted recount rules that were passed by the Republican assembly.

Voter suppression hurts Dems especially in NoVa and all it takes is for the Republicans to do this is to whip up the voters with either enough garbage to upset them and they decide not to vote or to generate anger on immigration or other subjects that are issues for NEXT year at the national level. Cloud the issues with anger, smoke, and mirrors since they have to counter the facts, history, and the actions of their own national and state leadership.

Well all that said, I personally feel that reading and talking about credible polls with positive numbers helps fuel the energy and commitment of volunteers to bring home the victory. You can never get complacent (Ask George Allen), but confidence helps raise money, volunteer hours, and voter participation. People really need to think they can win especially in races that have previously un-beaten incumbents. Everybody wants to be on the winning side?. Besides the "after election" parties are a lot better?..

Now we just need Kerrey to jump in the Nebraska race, and we're highly competetive in seven seats.

It looks like all the following states have REAL strong chances for Democratic pickups:

Maine
New Hampshire
Virginia
Kentucky
Minnesota
Colorado
Oregon

Depending on candidates recruited and other things, it's possible that the following states could come into play as well:

Idaho (Craig obviously if he remains on the ballot its likely competitive)
Georgia (polls showing Chambliss vulnerable)
Tennessee (depends on candidate recruitment)
Nebraska (if Kerrey runs, this moves up to likely)
Alaska (Stevens is in scandal danger if a strong Democrat emerges)
New Mexico (Domenici embroiled in US attorney scandal)

REALLY uphill but possible competitive states under the right circumstances (ie strong Democrat):

Texas (Conryn)
Kansas (Roberts)
North Carolina (Dole)

If we pick-up 6-7 seats we'll most likely be able to prevent (some) filibusters, and if we get 9 seats, look out!

Thanks for the rundown, which I think you pretty much nailed.

Megakudos, Lowell and Raising Kaine (and the several other good websites doing the same like Buckeye State Blog), for standing up to this latest round of purity bullying.

I could write a long, detailed diary on the OpenLeft phenomenon but I'll keep this a comment for now.

There seem to be two different things going on.  One is there is a sizable group of people attracted to activism (and rightly so, IMO) over anger at Bush admin foreign policy.  The problem with these people is they are (mistakenly, IMO) using Iraq as their litmus test issue, and are people who were not for the most part politically active before 2002.  They're the sort of people who mistook the Democratic sweep of 2006 for a mandate to bring the troops home immediately, or perhaps for impeachment.  When, in fact, while Iraq was certainly on voters' minds I doubt it, itself, was the deciding factor.  Things like the job market, outsourcing, wages, health care, immigration, and Republican scandals and corruption were at least as important, and some seemingly minor issues like anger over the ban on Internet gambling shouldn't be overlooked either.  To repeat an old cliche, it's still the economy, stupid!

The second thing going on is deeper and more problematic.  There is a certain mindset among some self-styled "progressives" and "conservatives" alike who see themselves as the permanent opposition to the establishment, no matter what that establishment is.  It doesn't matter how far left a politician is, once they are in power they aren't far left enough for the likes of Matt Stoller, and once he succeeds in getting somebody in office who would seemingly be to his liking, it turns out they aren't to his liking after all and he will move even further left and criticize them too.  If this sounds eerily similar to what has been going on within the organized conservative movement and the Republican party, it is  (reference the Club for Growth).  The far left and far right are exact mirror images of each other in their confrontational, permanent-opposition mentality.

Note the people OpenLeft is going after most viciously:  Zach Space and Brian Baird are, in fact, two of the most progressive members of Congress.  Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen, and yes, even Bob Kerrey, will be welcome progressive additions to the Senate.  The same people attacking them now were among the loudest naysayers to Jim Webb, which did not go unnoticed, and no, I haven't forgotten.

Normally OpenLeft's purity campaign would be brushed off and laughed at, but right now they have a ready-made constituency among the first group for whom everything revolves around Iraq.

was more than happy to take up the cause of Webb against an establishment candidate and wanted to pursue a primary on the merits, it certainly is more than a little dismaying to see how quickly that approach is dropped in favor of anointing winning candidates from the get go.  (And yes, I know that "site" is overbroad.  I'm referring to the general sentiment.)

While it seems to me that a number of folks here are more concerned with winning than governing, I'm interested in winning *only* because it affects governing.  That is to say, policy is important to me.  So no matter how fantastic I expect a candidate to be (say, Mark Warner), I'm certainly going to have policy disagreements with that candidate.  And what's more, I'm going to voice them.  And if I can get some assistance in addressing those concerns through a healthy primary, all the better.  The best candidate usually emerges victorious from a primary, and that process often improves the candidate.  Those of you going on about your "purity tests" in favor of lining up lockstep behind a candidate simply because you think they can win would do well to give that some thought.

....and have said so a zillion times.  Actually, I'm not really sure what your point is; yes, I think it's great when Democrats get the strongest candidates to beat Republicans. Is that so wrong? :)  Also, I'm against "purity tests," "litmus tests," AP tests...ok, maybe not the latter.

Seriously, though, you've got to win before you can govern.  And we Democrats need a big tent if we're going to govern for an extended period of time.  That's what I'm fighting for.

By the way, I liked Webb for a lot of reasons, but probably #1 in my book was that I thought he could defeat George Allen, which I never thought the "establishment choice" (which he wasn't, by the way, but that's another discussion) could do.