Thunderstruck

Last week I brought you news that number-crunching nerd-supreme Nate Silver said Johnny "Leatherface" Isakson was one of the more vulnerable senators up for re-election.

He's revised that and Johnny looks a lot stronger according to Silver.

25. Georgia (R-Isakson)

Approval/Favorability Ratings: Johnny Isakson (R)

Poll               Date    Approve   Disapprove    Net
PPP                11/24     30          25         +5
Strategic Vision   11/1      50          38        +12

Although Isakson's approval scores are not terrific, this race has been demoted significantly as a result of Saxby Chambliss; strong performance in Georgia's runoff this week. The Democrats, moreover, lack strong candidates in Georgia, and will need some time to build a bench.

Probability of Democratic Pickup - 6.0%

Clark Howard won't run for Mayor of Atlanta.

“I’ve really thought it through and, as much as I love my city ... right now it’s not going to happen,” he said (according to a CL staffer who was listening in his car).

That means there are now only 721 candidates and potential candidates left in the race. 

(Ed's note:This is bad, this is really bad. We haven't even finished the race for our Class II Senator and I'm posting about our Class III Senator.)

Nate Silver, the poll reading wunderkind at 538.com, says Johnny "Leatherface" Isakson is one of the more vulnerable senators up for re-election in 2010. 

We'll know more about this seat once we learn the results of Georgia'a runoff, but Isakson is not particularly more popular than Saxby Chambliss, and could also be vulnerable. In addition, some Democratic intangibles will arguably be more favorable in 2010, as they'll have had a full cycle to target this seat, rather than nominating Jim Martin at the last minute and realizing -- perhaps too late -- how competitive they might be. They will also have had two more years of favorable demographic change in Georgia, which is gradually becoming more urban.

Now, I don't want to get ahead of ourselves here, but think about this... Johnny looks potentially, weak. Roy looks potentially very strong. Both of those make 2010 look very good for Democrats. Of course, depending on whom you ask, Roy either says "I don't want to run" or he is "thinking" about running again. (FWIW: I've heard from other people Roy doesn't want to run/"his wife won't let him"). 

The potential of 2010 makes me giddy. Who would have thought, this time two years ago, we look as potentially good as we do now?

OK, I promise not to talk about 2010 again until 2009. Or Thursday. Most likely the latter. 

I missed this quote, but it is so great it needs to be posted.

John Stone: he won in a landslide, but I won.

“We beat John Barrow,” Stone said.

[EDITED BY ED -- 11:10]

How much do you think the NRCC will spend on Stone's race in 2010? 

Hattip: Swing State Project.

UPDATE 4: Kudos to Open Left for seemingly losing their rationality in a fit of hyperbole and apoplexy over this. Choice quote: "we were given another sign that the legislative branch no longer matters that much in the United States."

UPDATE 3: I wonder what the Tavern community thinks about this. I wonder... (that means there is a new poll)

UPDATE 2: He doesn't escape all punishment. Considering he has a massive ego, I'll bet he is crying about the meany-pants Democrats. 

UPDATE: Great. Disappointing? Yes. Shocking? No. I wouldn't read too much into this but I am curious what this means for any sort of Democratic policies getting advanced. Here you have a secret ballot on someone who has repeatedly betrayed the trust of his partisan colleagues, insulted them routinely, and nothing happens. What will happen when there is open voting, on more contentious issues, where there will be even less clarity for which way Democrats should vote. 

Why oh why do elected Democrats refuse to stand up for anything? 

Just a heads up, this is probably the most hyper-partisan post I will ever write.

With that said, if you have a few spare minutes today, call the Democratic leaders in the Senate and ask that Joe be stripped of his chairmanship. As is typical of Democrats, it appears we won't be showing a spine, and will allow him to keep his gavel (why they would want that is absolutely beyond me. I mean, I know why, but still.). 

If you don't know why Joe should go (aside from undermining the useful and at times necessary partisan system we have), read this. Keep in mind also, that he has actively campaigned against the President-elect, called him a socialist and a danger to America, and now can investigate him at any time. Consider that in light of the fact he has never investigated a Republican.  

Here is the list of the Senators on the Democratic Steering committee and their number.

Debbie Stabenow, Michigan - Chairwoman (202) 224-4822
Harry Reid, Nevada (202) 224-3542
John Kerry, Massachusetts (202) 224-2742
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii (202) 224-3934
Robert Byrd, West Virginia (202) 224-3954
Edward Kennedy, Massachusetts (202) 224-4543
Joe Biden, Delaware (202) 224-5042
Patrick Leahy, Vermont (202) 224-4242
Chris Dodd, Connecticut (202) 224-2823
Tom Harkin, Iowa (202) 224-3254
Max Baucus, Montana (202) 224-2651
Richard Durbin, Illinois (202) 224-2152
Kent Conrad, North Dakota (202) 224-2043
Carl Levin, Michigan (202) 224-6221
Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin (202) 224-5653
Barbara Boxer, California (202) 224-3553
Hillary Clinton, New York (202) 224-4451
Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico (202) 224-5521
Mark Pryor, Arkansas (202) 224-2353

Me, I've already gone insane (a long time ago infact).

Erick, on the other hand, seems to be taking the Palin for President McCain loss quite well.

Now, I would also like to point out, this is the same Erick Erickson who has called Obama a "messiah" many times, and that his own site, RedState, repeatedly calls him such, albeit mockingly. So either he needs to get his hysteria straight, or do something to get over his insanity. 

Hat tip to GriftDrift, the BFF of Karen Handel.

Palin may run in 2012.

In other news, water is wet.

Consider this: an open thread.

I don't think there has been a Winners & Losers since waaaay back in the day. And if you were to ask me, that is too dang long. So without further ado, here is the special election edition of the Tavern's Winers & Losers. 

WINNERS: Non-Republican PSC Candidates, Our very own finest, Jim Powell, is not only headed to a runoff, but he "beat" Lauren McDonald. If, and that is a big if, Karen Handel was trying to knock Powell off the ballot, then putting him in the midst of a protracted legal battle was only going to help him. With all due respect to Mr. Powell, PSC races get very little attention. By keeping Powell's name in the news, people became familiar with him and because of that, he likely picked up many votes. 

I'll throw John Monds in there too because he became the first Libertarian in Georgia to get more than 1 million votes. Well done to him. 

Runners up: Jim Marshall and John Barrow. Pulled 57% and 66% respectively. You would have to think their seats are becoming safe, or that those results inspire them to move up the ladder. Watch for Republicans to leave Barrow alone in redistricting, but go after Marshall even harder. 

LOSERS: DuBose Porter. Wow, what an awful job you did this cycle. Let's face it, Democrats in both chambers did an exceptionally poor job at candidate recruitment and campaigning. However, I am singling out DuBose because of his gubernatorial aspirations. I could begin and end with Keith Gross but I won't. This year, of all years, you couldn't find a way to hitch legislative races to Democratic coattails? If that's the case, could you ever do that? If he does plan to run for governor in 2010, I am not sure how he could get too much support after this cycle's performance. +2 seats is hardly something to brag about.

Runners up: Karen Handel, see above.

Post your own winners and losers below.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh a few minutes ago and a couple things struck me as odd. So go on a journey with me as I unpack the stupidity...

First, he said he "hopes" Kerry becomes Secretary of State. Why? Because Kerry would bumble around and put his foot in his mouth. That doesn't seem to be a departure from Bush's style which Rush was always quick to defend. Also, if Kerry does fail at SofS, then that only hurts the U.S., why on Earth would you advocate that?

He also said the 20% of Republicans who blamed Sarah Palin for the loss should join the Democratic Party. Rush, of course, was copying Herr-ick Herr-ickson in his desire to cleanse the Party. Now, if you were to kick out 20% of the GOP, that would mean Republicans would lose almost 4 million votes. Hardly the way to rebuild a party if you were to ask me.

Then the real kicker. He said Sarah Palin did wonders for John McCain's candidacy. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they just lose in a landslide?

I hope everyone has a great weekend.