Two new N.J. polls:

Lautenberg with 46-40 lead in Bergen Record American Research poll. 4.0% margin of error.

Lautenberg with a 49-45 lead in Quinnipiac poll. 4.3% margin of error.

It'd be more believable if they traced it back further, i.e., not just to 2000. If the trend held up, then I might be more convinced that Wellstone and Allard truly will lose their seats.

New Hampshire has tightened up, too. I just read that an internal GOP poll shows that an 8 point Sununu lead has evaporated into a dead heat. It's now 45-45.

I get the feeling that most pundits have taken it for granted that the Senate will be determined by one vote, and they are ignoring all evidence that points to Democratic gains. Norm Coleman has run a flawed campaign, and Tim Johnson has given people no reason to kick him out. Allard and Hutchinson have been more vulnerable than Wellstone and Johnson all year. The pundits will just be proven wrong again, like they've been every year since 1996 (possibly 1994 as well, although at the end, some were predicting GOP takeover).

"Allard and Hutchinson have been more vulnerable than Wellstone and Johnson all year. "

Okay, I agree about Hutchinson. But I wouldn't say that Allard is more vulnerable than Wellstone and Johnson (work with me and let's try to look at it from a nonpartisan POV)

Only one NP poll had the Colorado race tied. All others have Allard had up by high single digits/low double digits since this race first got underway last year.

Johnson on the other hand is in a stastical tie, and he was trailing Thune earlier in the year by 2-5 points. Only recently has he gained momentum, but he still doesn't have the race in the bag.

And while Wellstone is closer to 50% than Allard, he is also ahead by fewer points. I would say that Wellstone and Allard are about equal in vulnerability.

I don't know where to post this, and I don't have a link, but on CNN's "Inside Politics" they had a poll that showed the public favors the Dems over the Reps 43% to 37% on IRAQ!!!

Looks like this may backfire on Rove after all.

Very interesting Alias. I just read about that on the internet.

The same poll also has Democrats and Republicans in a deadheat about the economy.

Republicans have a huge lead on the third most important issue, homeland security.

The pollwas Gallup. Here's a link: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-elect/2002/oct/07/100707785.html

Democrats lead 47-37 on Iraq, 47-43 on Economy, and trail 72-17 on Terrorism (Not Homeland Security)

Also notice the rising numbers of anti-Iraq support with growing casualties. If there are 5,000 casualties, 57% are opposed to a war with Iraq. Right now, 53% support a war, 40% don't.

If I was a gooper, I'd be crapping my pants over those numbers. The thing that strikes me is the absolute dearth of support for chimpco, despite(or maybe because of) their best proganda efforts.

People have no trust in chimpco as a leader.

The Bushistas and the media have been hyperventilating while trying to sell us this ridiculous Iraq plan. If there is so much public support for this piece of propaganda, why is it that Congress has been inundated with overwhelmingly anti-attack comments? Why do letters to the editor of newspapers not reflect this so-called strong support? Our paper here reports that anti-attack letters outnumber pro-attack letters by a 40- or 50- to 1 margin...Go ahead, GOP, stake your future on Iraq. Be my guest, suckers.

I think the Dems have almost as much to lose on Bush's war as the GOP. If the war degenerates into a quagmire, as I fear, Bush will be rightfully blamed. However, since most Dems in Congress are supporting his plans that leaves them little "I told you so" room in 2004.

Three trends are being ignored by the media and most political pundits:

1. The massive out-pouring of letters, calls and emails opposing the war. The lazy media just keeps quoting questionable polls to say public opinion is all out for blood.

2. The growing number and increasing size of anti-war protests. In Santa Fe, for example, on short notice, over one thousand people assembled in The Plaza Sunday to roast Bush and his cowardly Democratic war supporters. Here in Denver over 2,500 people confronted Bush last week when he was in town for a $1,000 per plate fund raising junket.

3. The number of calls congressional Democrats (and party offices) are receiving from angry constituents back home, threatening to withhold votes, funds and/or switch to the Greens over Dem complicity and cowardice on Bush's war.

I think that in 2004, if this war does develop into a bloodbath, both major parties will be severely damaged.

I disagree that Dems will be blamed for voting yes if this thing bogs down...from a political perspective there's still too much risk in voting 'no' outside of safe districts.

I have to side with JDW -- there's no particular downside for the Dems if Iraq goes sour. It'll be Bush's (and by extension, the Republicans') albatross. This may be nauseating morally, but we're talking stark politics. Historic precedent: pretty much all GOP Senators voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, but it was the Dems who paid large for Vietnam.

Yep, this is Bush's war. He's been practically peeing in his pants for it.

Even if we assume 60% of the US is for this, is that really substantial enough support if this operation is going to take many years (decades) at a great cost in dollars and probably lives?

We have no idea how many lives may be lost...it might be negligable- zero even- if Saddam can be persuaded to be deposed/step down. Won't dems look silly if they blinked?

The cost? Who cares? As long as we can fill up cheaply by taking oil that ain't ours...who's gonna fuss?

How's this for an idea; send a death row inmate (preferably one who shot his victims) to Baghdad with a gun and a mission-take out Sadaam. If he succeeds, commute his sentences; if he dies, he was suppoesed to be executed.

Eagleton/Star-Ledger poll has it 44-44 among likely voters and Lautenberg 46-40 among all voters. Which confirms my prediction of a four-point race. The next round of polls may be the key as to whether resentment among some indy voters over the switch has abated.

I watched both the House debate and Senate debate on Iraq and I didn't like them at all, especially in the Senate. I think the Democrats will hold the Senate in 2002, but 2004 is a different story. There are almost twice as many Democrats up as there are Republicans. The Demccrats who voted to support the President think it will save them in their reelection. But they are wrong, their vote for the Iraq resolution will attrack primary challenges in 2004 and 2006, it is too late for 2002. The base of the Democrats are oppose to the Iraq war, but the Senators are only looking out for their General election not the primary. The primary is very important. In Neveda where Harry Reid is up, who is always a weak link already, might attrack a primary challenge from the Black community who voted for him in 1998, but is upset with his vote today. This will cause him to spend money in the primary and cause him to not have sufficient funds to be competetive in the General. Byron Dorgan who also is a weak link might attrack a primary challenge and might cause him to lose in the General. And I can go on. These primary challenges might cost the Democrats their majority in 2004, because after this election I don't think that the Democrats will have a big majority to feel safe in 2004. The US House will definately be Democratic in 2004 if it hadn't turned already. Enough Democrats voted in opposition to the war in Iraq to not allow them to lose Democratic support in this election or the next. Also, all the Democrats who probably will run for president in 2004 and voted to support the war in Iraq will lose to one of the Doves in 2004, like Howard Dean or Al Gore. Doves are the base of support in the Democratic party and Democrats usually nominate Doves for president when a war is on the horizon. This is true in 1972 with George McGovern and 1988 with Michael Dukakis. The Democrats who support this Iraq resolution and will lose in the Democratic primary are: Tom Daschle, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Dick Gephardt.