Democrats have a narrow 51-49 edge in the Senate following the 2006 election. Democrats, who actually hold 49 seats, have the support of two Independent Senators: Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Say what you will about the evils of socialism, I'd much rather have Bernie Sanders as the "swing Senator" in deciding the outcome of legislation than warmongering neo-conservative Joe Lieberman. In looking ahead to the 2008 elections (the purpose of this post), things look good for the Democratic Party. For libertarians . . . not so much.

Originally, 21 Senate Republicans were going to be up while only 12 Senate Democratic seats would be up for reelection. This sort of lop-sided playing field was very advantageous to the Democrats in 2006. So far, the death of Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming and the resignation of Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi adds two additional special elections to the 2008 cycle and two more seats for the Republicans to defend.

It gets worse for the Republicans. Not counting Trent Lott's retirement, or that Craig Thomas's replacement will be running for election to the Senate for the first time, the Republican are facing five open seats: Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Virginia. Because of ongoing federal investigations into Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, I wouldn't be surprised if he scurries off into retirement. Given how weak he is polling according to the Club for Growth, I wouldn't be surprised if he is knocked off in a Republican primary. On the Democratic side, no retirements have been announced and I don't expect any. Not even Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, who is recovering from serious health problems, shows signs of stepping down.

Can it get any worse for the Republicans?

Hell yeah.

Consider the playing field for any offensive action by the Republicans. The Democratic candidate for the Presidency, be they Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or God-only-knows, should be heavily favored in states like Illinois, Michigan, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts--all states where Democratic Senators are running for reelection. Other Democratic Senate seats are in potential swing states like Arkansas, Iowa, and West Virginia. If you're looking for Republican Presidential coat-tails, the list is really limited to Montana, South Dakota, and Louisiana. And in the first two, I don't even think the Republicans have a serious candidate yet. Montana in particular has been trending blue with Democrats winning the Gubernatorial race in 2004, downballot from Bush's reelection, and Jon Tester's Senate race in 2006.

At most, I think the Republicans have a chance in Louisiana. As the Economist notes, the 2007 Gubernatorial race in Louisiana doesn't contain good news for Democrats like Landrieu.

And next year the Democrats' top officeholder, Ms Landrieu, looks like facing an uphill battle. When she was last elected, in 2002, she won in large part thanks to a landslide in her home city, heavily Democratic New Orleans. Whereas the city's predilections haven't changed dramatically, its size has, and its electoral significance along with it. In 2002 almost 133,000 New Orleanians voted in the Senate race. On October 20th less than 60% of that number turned up at the polls, a sign of the city's post-Katrina shrinkage. Ms Landrieu won New Orleans by almost 80,000 votes in 2002, twice her overall margin of victory. This time, that was more votes than all the candidates got combined in the city that was once the alpha and the omega of Louisiana politics.

So the most the Republicans can hope for in 2008 is to pick up Louisiana, hold off any other Democratic pick-ups, and hope that they can get Lieberman to caucus with them to avoid the possibility of a Democratic VP breaking the tie. Or hope the Republicans hold the White House.

At the same time, I don't think libertarians have much to cheer about as far as the Republican Party's chances in 2008. Mark Kennedy, a Democrat turned Republican, is running against Landrieu and seems virtually indistinguishable from an ideological standpoint. He's just an opportunist. None of the other Democrats inspire in me the same dislike that, say, Rick Santorum did in 2006. Sadly, none of the incumbents really inspire me in the same way Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin does. Much like 2006, I don't really care for any of the Democratic incumbents, but none of them are bad enough for me to hope they are defeated. For me, the better "pickings" are found when looking at the offensive strategy for the Democrats.

With 23 Republican seats to go after, the Democrats have a real abundance of targets. In 2006, I would honestly say that my favorite Democratic candidate was long-shot Jack Carter of Nevada, followed by even longer-shot Pete Ashdown of Utah. I'm pleased the Jim Webb of Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana won. So in looking at 2008, I'm interested in the long-shot Democrats that I really like, and the likely Democratic pick-ups that I'll be happy with.

The most likely Democratic pick-ups are all in states where I think the Democratic Presidential candidate is also favored to win: Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, and I'd even throw in Virginia. That's seven seats right there and leaves out other possibilities like Alaska (Stevens's corruption is making it hard to predict) and Kentucky, where Senator Mitch McConnell's approval numbers have been lackluster. Trent Lott's seat could become a real race if former Attorney General Mike Moore runs. Some of the long-shots and longer-shots would be Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and North Carolina, but I already get the sense that they may become blogosphere favorites.

In several of the open seats the Democrats are favored (Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia). In other proably Democratic pick-ups, the incumbent is generally centrist even if they can be labeled as right-wing because of their consistent support of the worst of the Bush Administration: the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and the attack on civil liberties and the separation of church and state. Even Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, who I believe has libertarian instincts, has shown what is quite honestly cowardice in his refusal to stand up to the Bush Administration. Sununu is the best the Republicans have to offer in 2008 among their Senators; that even he has fallen short of upholding the Constitution is a sign of just how pathetic the GOP is.

With Steve Marchand dropping out in New Hampshire (I'm hopping he runs again in 2010), I would have to say that the Senate race that interests me the most right now is the one in Maine between Senator Susan Collins and Congressman Tom Allen. As a big fan of Mo Udall in 1976, I'm keeping my eye on Mark Udall in Colorado and Tom Udall in New Mexico.

If I had to predict right now:

Safe Democratic Seats (11): Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.

Likely Republican Pick-Ups (1): Louisiana.

Toss-Up (1): Maine.

Likely Democratic Pick-Ups (6): Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Virginia, and New Hampshire.

Potentially Competitive (3): Alaska, Kentucky, and one Mississippi seat,

Safe Republican Seats (13): Idaho, both Wyoming seats, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, one Mississippi seat, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina.

Overall: Democrats pick up a net gain of at least 5 seats. Maybe more.

States I'll be watching: Maine, Colorado, New Mexico, and Alaska.