PA-Sen:  Pat Toomey's Club for Growth has promoted disastrous trade policies for the U.S.   The Club takes the unilateral disarmament approach... that the U.S. should unilaterally drop all trade barriers regardless of whether others do the same.

Caterpillar's Jim Owens has been a major supporter of these same policies. 

Today, Jim Owens is the featured speaker at Pat Toomey's K Street fundraiser.  See the email invitation and flier for the event below the fold.

****

IN-Sen:  Democratic Congressman Brad Ellsworth (IN-8) comes from a relatively conservative district in southern Indiana.  He has announced his intention to run to replace Senator Evan Bayh.   

Ellsworth's record on trade is slim, because he has only been in Congress since 2006.  He voted for the Peru FTA (bad) and was a currency manipulation bill co-sponsor in the 109th Congress (good).  He won by 30 points in 2008 (though I don't know that he had a top tier challenger) and McCain won his district by four points in the 2008 presidential election.

Likely the strongest Republican candidate is former Senator Dan Coats.

Evan Bayh's (D-IN-Sen) retirement was a surprise, and gained a lot of press.  He retired at the last moment, just before the filing deadline for the Indiana senate race, so no other Dem could gain a place on the ballot through petition signatures.  There will be a Dem, but the state Democratic committee will pick the candidate.

Bayh said the Senate was dysfunctional, which is no stretch, in relation to when his father held the seat.  Bayh was derided as too corporate by some progressive voices on the left.

I had not personally paid much attention to him before his announcement, but took a look at his trade action history today.

He actually had a fairly good CPA trade action history.  He voted against all the most trade agreements, except the Peru FTA, that have accentuated our trade deficit/offshoring trend.  He also was a co-sponsor of the currency manipulation bill that CPA supports, at least the 109th Congress version.  He also voted for an amendment that would prevent the weakening of U.S. trade law enforcement provisions, in the 108th Congress.

Not a bad record, overall.  Not earthshaking, but we have to hope that his replacement does at least as well.

A Republican takeover of the Senate is possible now in the November elections.  Dems have the lead by 59 (counting independents Sanders (VT) and Lieberman (CT)).  The path is clear, though not easy.

The 538 blog puts the big picture analysis this way:

Certainly, it's no longer that hard to chart a path under which the Republicans would gain the 10 Senate seats they'd need for a takeover. They are overwhelming favorites in North Dakota, strong favorites in Delaware, Arkansas and Nevada, modest favorites in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Colorado, and perhaps at least even-money in Illinois. Those are the eight obvious opportunities. Number nine would be California, where I'm a little bit skeptical of Carly Fiorina or Chuck DeVore's ability to defeat Barbara Boxer, but where Tom Campbell might have the goods. The tenth seat is tougher: Republicans would need a recruiting coup in Wisconsin (unlikely; Tommy Thompson just went to consult for a hedge fund), New York (less unlikely, but George Pataki would need to raise a lot of money very fast), or Washington (less unlikely, but Dino Rossi has kept a very low profile) -- or some kind of wild card, like Robert Byrd falling ill in West Virginia.

The Byrd wild card is not necessarily unlikely.  And West Virginia is not blue.  It is either red or purple.

But the Republicans also have to hold all the seats they now have.

The Democrats are competitive right now in Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Kentucky, could become that way in North Carolina and possibly Florida, and there's an outside chance they could get a wild card of their own like Arizona.

There also is the possibility of a Lieberman switch.  All in all, it is not hard to see the Republicans taking the Senate, but they need to sweep the field.