BooMan Versus Charlie Cook

BooMan (gratz on the kid!) takes on Charlie Cook's assessment that the even money line on 2010 is that the Dems lose 6 seats, and could conceivably lose the Senate, to which BooMan says "yeah, right."

So, to get to the precipice of five seats, we've posited that the Dems will lose every open contest, plus lose the Majority Leader, the vice-president's old seat, and the seat down in Clinton Country. And Cook wants to give us even money on that happening, plus (wait! there's more!) he's willing to toss in another seat. I don't know where you go to get another toss-up, but you could go to Barack Obama's old seat in Illinois. Or, you could look at Michael Bennet in Colorado (but he doesn't really have much of an opponent right now). Maybe Specter/Sestak will lose to Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania or Barbara Boxer will get ousted in California. Maybe. But you want to give even money on those things happening?

It's actually not at all unlikely that the Democrats will win some of the open Senate races. Robin Carnahan is a strong candidate in Missouri, to give just one example. And the Republican infighting in Florida is a sight to see. Who knows, if that contest becomes about voting for the candidate they electorate hates the least, the Democrats could pull off a shocker. I don't think Vitter is a lock, or Burr. I don't see any Democratic senators losing except perhaps Lincoln in Arkansas. To me, the midterms are still a wash, with the most likely scenario being a pick up of no more than two seats by either party. That would be a saner 50-50 bet.

I agree.  Cook seems to think that 61 or 62 for the Dems is just as likely as 49.  That's just not logical. When it comes down to it, the people still hate the Republicans more than the do the Dems right now.  That might change in ten months.  It might change greatly...but if it does, I see it changing in the Democrats' favor.