All eyes and ears may be tuning into the Presidential prospects of ’08, but WaPo‘s Chris Cillizza takes an early peek at the ’08 Senate races in The Fix’s The Friday Line, and the view is very good. As Cillizza explains:

A cursory evaluation of the 2008 Senate playing field shows Democrats seemingly well-positioned to build on their 51-seat majority. Of the 33 seats up for reelection, just 12 are held by Democrats. And of those 12, only two Democratic incumbents received less than 54 percent of the vote in 2002 — Sens. Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Mary Landrieu (La.).
….Republicans must defend 22 seats and have more obvious vulnerabilities. At first glance, just three GOP senators — Norm Coleman (Minn.), John Sununu (N.H.) and Wayne Allard (Colo.) — look vulnerable, as each won in 2002 with less than 54 percent of the vote. But the complicating factor for Republicans is that there are a number of rumored retirements that may come before 2008, creating more open-seat opportunities for Democrats.

Cillizza also provides a race by race run-down. Bottom line is that the nine seat pick-up needed for a fillibuster-proof Senate majority is within reasonable range, but a 16 seat-pick up needed for a veto-proof majority is probably not. Ironically, Dems probably wouldn’t need it, because if we pick up nine Senate seats, we will likely win the presidency as well. (corrected 11/20, thanks to Kevin Drum).

The 2006 mid-terms may go down as the turning point when fair trade finally became a major cutting-edge issue. Many commentators have noted that a backlash against “free” trade played a pivotal role in Democratic victories in the mid-west and rust belt. The call for fair trade was a common denominator in the Democrats’ Senate victories over incumbents, as Harold Meyerson explains in his American Prospect article “The Fair-Trade Election”:

The Democratic pickups — Missouri’s Claire McCaskill, Montana’s Jon Tester, Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey, Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse, and Virginia’s James Webb — all unseated free-trade incumbents with campaigns that stressed the need to pay far greater attention to the downward leveling that globalization entails. Tester ran ads attacking trade agreements for putting “our jobs and the viability of family farms and ranches across Montana in jeopardy.” Webb’s Web site states, “We must reexamine our tax and trade policies and reinstitute notions of fairness.”

Likewise in the House races, as Christopher Hayes notes in his article in The Nation “The New Democratic Populism”:

A postelection analysis by Public Citizen found that campaigns cut twenty-five ads attacking free-trade deals, and that trade played a significant role in more than a dozen House races won by Democrats. In the entire election, Public Citizen noted, “no incumbent fair trader was beaten by a ‘free trader.'”

Fair trade may prove to be the issue that helps Democrats make inroads into the south, where the textile industry has been devastated in a number of communities. Democrat Heath Shuler’s victory in his North Carolina House race benefitted from his embrace of fair trade as a priority.
Fair trade is an issue that has clearly arrived in a big way for a growing number of voters in industrial heartland communities. Yet, with characteristic elitism, President Bush has already taken some pot shots at the newly-elected fair trade Democrats. Let’s hope the GOP’s next presidential nominee will be equally clueless.

Post of the day goes to Paul Waldman, whose “Democrats, Don’t Wimp Out” at TomPaine.com does a refreshing number on the “Let’s be nice bipartisans” school of thought about what congressional Democrats should do now. Waldman, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, puts it this way:

…What Democrats need to do is spend the next two years crushing their opponents like bugs. It’s not about mercy, it’s not about manners, it’s about three fundamental goals: limiting the damage the Bush administration can do, passing whatever legislation they can in the short term to help the American public and laying the foundation for future progressive victories.

For example, with respect to empowering the federal government to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs, Waldman counsels:

…Democrats should wage the fight…Two outcomes are equally likely: Either they won’t be able to pass such a bill in both houses, or they’ll pass a bill and Bush will veto it. Either way, it shows whose side they’re on, and whose side the Republicans are on.

His point is nicely-echoed by American Prospect co-editor Robert Kuttner in his web-exclusive piece “Bye Bye, Bipartisanship“:

Pelosi has said her first actions will include legislation to raise the federal minimum wage and create an effective prescription drug benefit under Medicare. If Bush signs these progressive bills, we can all sing bipartisan Kumbaya. If he vetoes them, Democrats can keep reminding voters which party serves whose interests.

Waldman has an interesting idea for dealing with the GOP’s lapdog media:

…Democrats should say the following to Fox: You want to spread GOP propaganda all day? Be our guest…But don’t expect any Democratic newsmakers to legitimize you with their presence. We’ll go on every other network, be interviewed by every legitimate news organization. But we don’t consider ourselves under any obligation to pretend that buffoons like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson are news professionals who deserve a moment of our time. We’re not going to try to fight you; we’ll just act like you don’t exist.

There’s more, and Waldman concludes:

Democrats need to understand that they are engaged in a war of ideas, one that stretches far beyond any one Congress or presidency….Democrats should wake up every day thinking, “How can we keep Republicans on the run?” Never give them a moment’s rest, never let them advance their agenda, keep them on the defensive so they have to apologize for being the standard-bearers of a discredited ideology and a disgraced president. Do that, and every legislative battle and election to come will be that much more likely to swing in your favor.

Kuttner lays it out with equal clarity:

Forget treacly calls to come together to solve national problems. There are huge, principled differences here. The voters rejected the policies of the governing party and gave Congress a mandate to help regular people for a change.

If Waldman’s and Kuttner’s calls to arms seem draconian, answer one question: If the tables were turned, would the GOP hesitate to consolidate their power and crush the opposition?

E. J. Dionne, Jr. makes a persuasive case in his column in today’s WaPo that, after all of the spin has been rolled out on all sides, the relevant message of the election is that the Dems’ winning formula was progressives plus angry moderates equals victory. In addition, Senator Lieberman would do well to give some thougthful consideration to Dionne’s take on his win:

Some Republicans say that Sen. Joe Lieberman’s reelection as an independent suggests that rejection of Bush’s Iraq policies was not, to use Rove’s word, the “determining” factor in the election. But exit polls make clear that Lieberman won despite his support for the war, not because of it.
Connecticut voters disapproved of the war by a margin of two to one, and nearly two-thirds favored withdrawing some or all of our troops. Lieberman, who enjoyed residual affection among Connecticut Democrats, managed to carry close to 40 percent of the vote among those who favored troop withdrawals, including a remarkable 29 percent among those who favor withdrawing all our troops.

The botched, misguided Iraq policy was not the only source of moderates’ anger, nationwide. Many polls show an enormous backlash against corruption and scandal in the GOP, while economic concerns fueled voter discontent in the pivotal midwest. The ’06 formula may have to be tweaked for ’08 — but it’s clear Democrats will nonetheless have to provide credible leadership to address these issues.

Mother Earth was one of the winners on November 7, according to Amanda Griscom Little’s Salon article “Green Gains“. Little reports that the League of Conservation Voters re-elected 8 of its 9 supported candidates and defeated 9 of the 13 “dirty dozen” it targeted for defeat. And it gets better, as Little explains:

Jerry McNerney (a Democrat), also has the environment to thank for his stunning victory over House Resources Committee chairman Richard Pombo (a Republican), who for 14 years represented the Golden State’s 11th Congressional District and rose to become one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress. A no-name wind-energy engineer, McNerney made clean energy his signature issue and painted himself a zealous eco-warrior against the backdrop of Pombo’s relentless efforts to drill in sensitive natural areas, butcher the Endangered Species Act and open millions of acres of public lands to development.
…The new Democratic senator-elect from Montana, Jon Tester, beat out Republican environmental foe Conrad Burns with a similarly enthusiastic environmental platform. An organic farmer turned state senator, Tester centered much of his TV advertising on his plans to make Montana a stronghold of the new energy economy. As president of the state Senate, he pushed through a 2005 law requiring utilities in Montana to derive 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2015.
This same message also cropped up during the campaign of Missouri’s new Democratic senator-elect, Claire McCaskill, who ousted Republican Jim Talent, an avid proponent of oil extraction in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And it was a theme in the gubernatorial races of Democrat Bill Ritter in Colorado, who beat out his drilling-happy Republican opponent Bob Beauprez, and Democrat Ted Strickland in Ohio, who walloped Republican Ken Blackwell with a campaign that included a promise to spend roughly $250 million on next-gen alternative-energy projects.

In addition, Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi has named energy independence one of the top action priorities for the incomming House of Representatives. As Cathy Duvall, Sierra Club political director “Voters…gave a green light to a new energy future.”

Sunday after the election offers a bountiful harvest of post-election wrap-ups in the major dailies. Some of the better ones include:
In “Liberal groups expect postelection results” LA Times reporters Peter Wallsten and Janet Hook focus on potentially divisive issues facing Dems as the try to consolidate their victory. The LA Times also has American Prospect Editor Michael Tomasky’s “Dems put the ‘big tent’ back together,” arguing that Dems shouldn’t buy into the ‘conservative victory’ view of the election, and instead should build the left-center coalition that has always been the key to their most significant wins.
The New York Times post-election wrap-up “Incoming Democrats Put Populism Before Ideology” by Robin Toner and Kate Zernike probes some of the newly-elected Dems to assess prospects for bipartisanship. Leon Panetta’s “Govern, Don’t Gloat” op-ed argues that now is a good time for some Democratic humility and a genuine spirit of bipartisna cooperatrion. Nonetheless, No good Democrat should miss “2006: The Year of the ‘Macaca’,” Frank Rich’s blistering critique of GOP bigotry and fear-mongering in campaign ’06.
WaPo‘s Jonathan Weisman’s “Democrats Find Lessons In GOP Reign” mulls over the lessons Dems should glean from the failure of Gingrich’s scorched-earth philosophy of congressional leadership. Wapo is also featuring Joe Trippi’s “The Democrats: Is Winning Winning?“, predicting more trouble for the GOP ahead and assessing prospects for Dem ’08 candidates from Bayh to Vilsack.
And speaking of hot prospects, check out the Boston Globe’s Politics Section for a host of articles on Deval Patrick’s historic election as Governor of Massachusetts, rich with lessons for winning strategies. Then relax, take a moment to savor the victories of ’06, because campaign ’08 begins in ernest tommorrow.

Yes, we’re all sick of lame political ads. But now is not the time for good Dems to hibernate, because there’s still a lot of interesting analysis to be digested if we want to learn how to win even bigger in ’08. So take a gander at the Campaign for America’s future web page “Truth in Advertising: 2006 Campaign Ads Reveal Progressive Populism.” There you be able to watch ads deemed most effective for the successful campaigns of Ron Klein, Sherrod Brown; Claire McCaskill; Bob Casey; Amy Klobuchar; Bill Ritter; the Appollo Alliance; The DNC and the DCCC. Bit of a slow load, so go pour a drink, kick back and see how the winners do it.
Then read the PDF analysis by Robert L. Borosage, Eric Lotke and Robert Gerson discussing the framing psychology, spending decisions, issues spin and image-shaping in the aforementioned ad campaigns.

The Center for the Study of the American Electorate has posted its preliminary report on the 2006 turnout, and the numbers may hold some clues for Dems looking to ’08. Overall the report concludes that “a modestly increased percentage of Americans turned out” at polls across the nation — 40.4 percent of eligible citizens, compared to 39.7 percent in the ’02 mid terms. This was the highest percentage since 1982 (42.1%).
Turnout increased in 21 states, but decreased in 26 states and the District of Columbia(CA, OR and WA absentee ballots are still being counted). The five highest turnout rates were recorded in MN, SD, MT, UT and ME, the lowest five in MS, LA, DC, NC, and AZ.
The highest Democratic turnout percentage increases over ’02 were recorded in NE (+10.7%); WI (+14.8%); VA (+13.2%); SD (+9.9%); WY (+9.8%); OH (+9.6%); VT (+8.6%) and NH (+8.6%). The highest Democratic turnout declines were in LA (-8.8); IL (-5.1%); AL (-5.0%); MS (-3.8%); GA (-3.5%); NC (-2.7%); and MA (-2.6%).
The most obvious conclusion is that the GOP GOTV operation praised in the MSM didn’t make a dent in the congressional elections. Even if the GOP did have a superior GOTV operation, it couldn’t overcome the rising tide of discontent or the limitations of Republican candidates. Good GOTV can make a difference in a close election, but not enough when a strong trend is surging.
The Democratic turnout decline in southern states lends some credence to the argument that Democratic resources would be more profitably invested in other regions. However, it could also be argued that these figures indicate not enough effort has been invested in developing southern candidates and campaigns.
Lastly, note that two of the top five turnout states, MN and ME allow voter registration on election day. Having picked up six governorships and nine state legislative chambers, Democrats may now be in a position to enact same day registration bills in more states. Note also that only three states have no voting restrictions on convicted felons or even prisoners, and two of them, ME and VT are top five turnout states.

Ezra Klein kicks off the soon-to-be-heated discussion about the meaning of the election with a provocative article in the American Prospect, “Spinned Right.” Klein shoots the interpretation of the election results as a triumph of conservative politics full of holes. A sample:

…the conservative election meme is a myth. Hard-right ballot initiatives, from the abortion ban in South Dakota to the gay marriage ban in Arizona, went down to defeat. It’s the first time that’s happened to an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative. Meanwhile, the stem cell initiative in Missouri passed.
More tellingly, every Democrat elected supports raising the minimum wage. They all support stem cell research. Only nine describe themselves as pro-life. And the most conservative Democrats, mainly those running in the South, largely went down to defeat. In Tennessee, Harold Ford, whose campaign focused on his church-going ways and conservative values, lost. Jim Webb is up by a few thousand votes. Meanwhile, unabashed progressives like Sherrod Brown, Ben Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, and former socialist Bernie Sanders cruised to victory. As Tom Schaller has noted, the flip-rate in the South was a meager five percent. The real transformations came in the liberal Northeast, where a slew of not-quite-left-enough Republicans were felled by a phalanx of progressive candidates, and the Rust Belt, where economic populists took out a series of traditional conservatives.

New Donkey Ed Kilgore and other Dems take a different view. As Kilgore notes:

But the results do not provide a good argument for Democrats to write off Enemy Territory and focuse on their Blue State geographical base.
15 of the 28 Democratic House gains were in Red States, most of them in Red or Purple Districts.
3 of the 6 new Senators are from Red States.
3 of the 6 gubernatorial pickups for Democrats were in Red States.
About half of the state legislative gains were in Red States.
We are beginning to turn Purple States blue, and Red States purple. I can’t imagine why any Democrat would think of this as bad news, but there is clearly a point of view among Democratic intellectuals that messing around with voters in Red State areas, particularly in the South, represents an exposure to ideological contamination.

This interesting debate is just cranking up, and it will likely go on for a long time. One thing all Dems can all agree on; it’s a hell of a lot more fun to argue with each other after an historic victory.

All eyes on Montana, where the Senate race may also be headed for a recount, as Democrat Jon Tester holds on to a 1,700 vote lead as of 10:25 a.m. EST. According to Mary Clare Jalonick’s AP report in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

Burns, a three-term incumbent, and Tester, an organic grain farmer from Big Sandy, were separated by only about 1,700 votes and .04 percent with 99 percent of precincts reporting. Tester had 194,914 votes and Burns had 193,179 votes. Libertarian Stan Jones had 10,166 votes.
…Vote tallies were still coming in Wednesday morning, more than 10 hours after polls were scheduled to close – a situation caused by equipment glitches, high turnout and a recount in Yellowstone County because of errors there.
A losing candidate can request a recount at his own expense if the margin is within 1/2 of a percent, which would be a margin off roughly 2,000 votes in the Montana U.S. Senate race.
…Tester told CNN that the campaign did not see any irregularities in the voting so far, noting there is record turnout…”We are making sure that every vote that gets cast gets counted,” Tester said.

Don’t bother checking the Montana Secretary of State’s website for updates, since it lags behind the Associated Press totals.