I strongly recommend you read Kos’s post from yesterday in which he gives what I think is a pretty good analysis of the reality of the Senate today:
We only have 44 Democrats. 44. Jeffords was a Republican and remains one of the two most conservative member of our caucus. We lose Nebraska’s Ben Nelson more often than we get him because of local political factors. So we’re down to 43.
43.
Not much of a margin for error, is it?
Then consider the solid-red-state Dems —
We have two Democrats in North Dakota, one in South Dakota, and one in Montana. In the South, we have two in Arkansas, two in West Virginia, and one in Louisiana.
That’s nine Democrats who, like it or not, we are blessed to have in the Senate. S*** on them if you want, but would you rather the count be 43 or 34? But fact is, we’re not going to get these guys 100 or even 80 percent of the time. That is, if we want any chance at remaining competitive in the Senate.
I think, however, that his vision of a Democratic majority in the Senate (or even the sub-majority 5 seat gain he writes about) in the near term is a fantasy.
the internal split he describes is precisly why, from the POV of the Republicans, that a slight advantage in the ratio of R’s to D’s doesn’t get things done. That said, Nelson is more dependable to the Democrats, than say a McCain is for the Republcians.
That’s not quite true, Bithead. Nelson and McCain have exactly opposite ADA ratings: Nelson’s ADA rating is 65, McCain’s is 35 i.e. the ADA thinks they’re equally reliable to “their sides”.
The ACU is a little friendlier to Nelson than that: they give McCain a 72 rating and Nelson a 52.
Or, in other words, Nelson is more likely to cross over than McCain.