Missouri is looking less pivotal than before. A Democratic senate takeover pretty much relies on the absence of losses on the Dem side, but New Jersey now looks like an offsetting GOP takeover. Maryland and Washington also have contests with favored Dems leading but fading. Even if Talent falls, the net Dem pickup is probably just 4, with 6 necessary for change of control.

A race tightening does not mean the Democrat is fading, Oracle. By the same token, the Republicans are "fading" in Tennessee, Virginia, and Arizona. Democrats will be lucky to pick up one of those three.

If Missouri goes to McCaskill, the Senate goes to the Democratic Party for exactly the reasons that Duffy laid out.

Actually in my opinion this seat is more important than ever. NJ is fundamentally a Dem-leaning state where the undecideds are Dems likely to come home in the next few weeks. MD and WA are similar. And the Foley scandal will stop whatever national momentum the Republicans are claiming to have.

That means MO does remain pivotal to retaking the Senate. And as I've seen the last month, having attended a series of policy discussions with Claire McCaskill, we have an excellent candidate here. If progressives in MO don't get behind her and then see the Senate deadlocked 50-50, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

According to a recent study, MO is the 2nd most represeentative state in the country of the country. That is, only one state looks more like the nation as a whole than MO (its WI).

Duffy hit it pretty well on the head. Talent isn't a bad candidate and neither is McCaskill. There is no scandal or overly poor record here. As a result, if we see any movement to one side or the other as we head down the stretch, we'll know how serious the Democratic threat is. If McCaskill starts to pull away at the end of October, I think you might see the Democrats take the House or the Senate, though the Senate would be harder.

With the Foley problem and the Republican leaderships' lack of response, this could be an up hill battle for the Republicans and a long October.

Hey Gents:

Let's not forget Rhode Island. Democrats may not hit the mark but at least they have a shot.
Democrats had an opportunity to really branch out and make some inroads. I am still disappointed. Same game...different players. It seems as though they want everyone to join them on the dance floor for their song of diversity BUT we as African Americans are deliberately banned from singing or even creating a few songs of our own.

After all...Niaknows it's better to take the lesser of the two evils.

Nia, the longer you continue settling for the lesser evil, the longer the Democratic Party establishment knows they don't have to do anything to get your vote. You're being taken for granted now because you went along earlier. And you'll be taken for granted later if you go along now. They'll keep assuring you that better things are on the way tomorrow, but have you ever noticed that tomorrow never comes?

So we can't support Democrats because they're not changing anything, but they can't change anything unless they win. So we can't support them unless they win, but they need our help to win. That means we have to wait until they win to start supporting them so that they can change things?

For a progressive like me, the choice is not between the lesser of two evils. I largely agree with the Democratic Party, and I disagree with some of their positions. I don't like much of anything that the Republicans have to offer, especially after seeing them govern. One's good, with some bad qualities. The other is all bad. It's an easy choice.

Yep, that's the "easy choice" for non-strategic thinkers. Short-term instant gratification at the expense of long-term investment.

Like most entrenched establishments, the Democrats pay no attention to the smoke, or even the flames, in the grassroots unless and until they get burned. At some point we have to hurt them, or they'll never pay attention.

Conservatives rebelled against the Republicans, and it worked. In 1976, after moderate Ford prevailed over the insurgent Reagan campaign, and with Kit Bond in the Governor's mansion flirting with abortion rights activists and playing to the press as a young liberal, conservatives abandoned the GOP, and with no third-party alternative, they either voted Democrat or stayed home. Short-term hurt for them: Carter unseated Ford (with an impact on lower federal courts that is still felt today), anti-choice Democrat Joe Teasdale unseated Bond, Democrats won 4 of 5 of MO's uncharacteristically open congressional seats, and Jack Danforth won only because the Democrat who would have beaten him got killed in a primary-night plane crash.

But it was a great long-term investment for conservatives. The party turned to the more principled conservative Reagan in 1980, Kit Bond "found religion" so to speak and turned conservative, and the Republican Party has been mostly reliable for conservatives for a generation.

Progressives need to be smart enough to make that investment. If we had done so earlier, we'd have a dominant progressive party now. And if we don't do so now, we'll have nothing but more of the same ole sh** time after time (including the Republicans winning anyway).

We just need enough people seeing past the end of their nose.

Explain what any of this has to do with voting for a third party.

While I agree with Oracle on principle, I'm curious as to how a true progressive wave can happen in this state. If we look at the state house and senate districts, I'm failing to see where more progressives can be competitive. Rural Missouri is the issue here, the social views of these communities are a drag on true progressive candidates. There are issues that some voters will not bend on and others on which they will. Also, the current senate race here will tell us alot in terms of how effective the standard GOP attack talking points. My overarching question is though, if you're starving would you rather have half a loaf of bread or just continue to starve. Our party has been out of the majority in the United States house of represenatives for twelve years. Only a party switch because of bruised ego gave us a paper majority in the senate until being crushed a few months later. Telling people to stay home or piss their vote away in this election due to a candidate's lack of ideological purity is foolish at best.

Thanks Oracle for the advice. I'm going to sincerely take it to "heart". Give me a link/website address so that I can learn more.

You know I love Knowing the Know; Being in the Know.