Tell her to promise to caucus with the Republicans - it couldn’t hurt.
Have her remind the voters she’s a Woman, the same as Sarah Palin - Sisterhood!
I get the impression that many liberals are simply throwing in the towel on the Landrieu election.
Very foolish. It’s going to be very hard to win the Senate back 4 seats behind.
Is a DINO not better than a Republican?
The Democrats can’t control squat without DINOs.
If the Republicans can win 9 seats in 2014, I don’t see why the Democrats can’t win 4-5 seats in 2016.
Marginally. But not so much as to make it worth sacrificing what we stand for in order to get one more vote for Harry Reid and precious little else.
Beating that many incumbents requires a wave election.
Damn, you beat me to it. 
The Dems picked up 5 Senate seats in 2000.
I’ll confess I’d never previously thought of that election as a ‘wave election.’ More the ‘butterfly ballot, Brooks Brothers riot, and hanging chad’ election.
ETA: What it takes to pick up a bunch of Senate seats, sometimes, is for it to be 6 years after the other party’s wave.
It is far too early to make decent Senate predictions. However, facts are facts: Republican will defend 24 seats vs. 10 for the Dems. Seven of those 24 GOP seats are in states Obama won twice (FL, IL, IA, NH, OH, PA and WI). The only vulnerable Dems are Reid (NV) and Bennet (CO), though ousting them will mean capitalizing on just the 2014 momentum, since their states also went for Obama twice.
IMO possible retirements have to be considered. McCain (AZ) will probably run again–though if he retired this would instantly become a competitive race. But I have to wonder if Kirk (IL) would run again given his stroke in 2012. And the rumor is that Burr (NC) hasn’t raised much for another run in 2016, often a precursor to retirement. On the Dem side, Boxer (CA) and MiCulsky (MD) could retire knowing their seats are safe in deep blue territory.
Overall, I see the Dems having their best chances in WI (come back Russ Feingold!), PA (only if the Dems can find a candidate), and NC. Dems will have to work hard to keep Reid in the Senate. Based on that, I see the Dems falling 1 or 2 short of the 4 needed (assuming they win the presidency). But there are a lot of wildcards here, and the majority of those fall on the Republican side. It’s not impossible for the Dems to retake the Senate, but it’s not likely with the current landscape. Changing that would require them to take some bold steps–and they don’t don’t exactly have a history of great political strategery 
True. Much more favorable map though. The Democrats won in Washington, Minnesota, Delaware, and Michigan. The only state as blue as those states in 2016 is Illinois. Next best pickup opportunities are in PA and WI. The fourth easiest is Florida.
It certainly can be done, but it won’t be easy and candidate selection will be crucial. The winning Senators in 2000 who defeated GOP incumbents ended up being pretty decent names: Carper, Stabenow, Cantwell, and Dayton.
I feel really sorry for Landrieu. Must be lonely, and she’s a pretty respectable politician, but her electoral fate in the runoff is sealed.
If a Dem gets slaughtered in Louisiana and ABCNNBCBS doesn’t report it does it make a sound?
Yes - you can hear their teeth grinding in Guam.
Regards,
Shodan
Looks like Landrieu just got defeated.
Well, her opponent did have the endorsement of Sarah Palin, the Duck Dynasty douchebag and the NRA. Guns, stupid, and more stupid. She didn’t have a chance.
Can you clarify who is “stupid” and who is “more stupid”? It’s not obvious…
And again, Democrats didn’t turn out. They held the runoff on a weekend. What does it take to get these people to vote?
Voter suppression? Why bother? Seems like the easiest way to suppress the Democratic vote is to simply hold an election where President isn’t on the ballot.