Democrats in New York only need to win two more seats to gain control of the state senate for the first time in almost 70 years. This week, Newsday takes a look at the election:

Voter turnout is expected to be high and to favor Democrats because of their party's historic presidential candidate Barack Obama, together with angst about the economy and anger at President George W. Bush over the war in Iraq.

However, Republican senators still enjoy a fundraising advantage and GOP presidential candidate John McCain is predicted to do well in rural areas such as the north country, where his party hopes to win back a seat lost in February to Darrel Aubertine of Watertown.

Things are so bad that the new GOP leader, Sen. Dean Skelos, has taken to arguing voters will side with his party to keep balance in government:

"If the Senate were to flip, you would have every branch of government controlled by the Democrats, which I think is dangerous in terms of checks and balances. I believe people want balance and we, the Republican majority in the Senate, provide that."

In my experience, that's a losing argument. Polling seems to back me up:

Fifty-two percent of the voters surveyed by Quinnipiac University from July 31 to Aug. 4 backed a Democratic takeover of the Senate. Only 32 percent supported the status quo.

Perhaps it's worth noting at this point that Skelos got the job because his predecessor -- Sen. Joseph Bruno -- resigned mid-session. I'm not alone in believing that Bruno retired because he had no interest serving in the minority.

Democrats in New Hampshire hold a 14-10 majority in the Senate and a 235-158 majority in the House, and they feel good about their chances in the fall.

That's at least in part because they've also made a steady effort to improve the party's position in the state since 2002. Over the last six years, party leaders estimate that Democrats have gained around 84,000 new voters. They've quadrupled the state party budget, opened 28 new local offices, and now employ more than 50 full-time staffers overall.

Another big part of the reason for Democratic confidence in this election is that legislators have done a remarkable job passing effective legislation and governing. Senate President Sylvia Larsen outlines those accomplishments here.

On his first day in office, Colorado Republican Doug Bruce kicked a news photographer and then became the first ever member of the state House of Representatives to be censured by the body -- by a vote of 62-1.

Bruce is an activist -- he was a leading backer for Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (which was designed to starve the state's government) -- and he was appointed to a seat in the legislature in December.

He lost that seat last night, going down in his Republican primary 52-48.

When asked about the race, even his GOP opponent said that Bruce was an embarrassment.

I hate to kick a guy while he's down, but given Bruce's history, I'm sure he'll be causing more trouble for the people of Colorado soon enough.

In addition to the usual business of governing (writing the budget, for example), the legislature in Vermont has an important responsibility it seldom needs to use -- if no one candidate for governor picks up 50 percent of the vote on Election Day, the race is left for the House of Representatives to decide.

And there is a real possibility that might happen this year.

This November, Democrats in Ohio need to pickup just four seats to take control of the House of Representatives for the first time in almost 15 years.

But even in a state where the local GOP has taken plenty of lumps, it can still be really hard to defeat an incumbent.

Unless of course, the incumbent decides to take another job courtesy of Gov. Ted Strickland:

The Strickland administration announced yesterday that it is creating a $115,000 position in the Ohio Department of Development for three-term Rep. Jim Raussen, R-Springdale.

Raussen won re-election in 2006 by only 4 points, and Democrats expected to pay at least some attention to the seat again this year. Now, the 28th District in Hamilton County likely moves up on their target list.

Also yesterday, Sen. Robert F. Spada, R-North Royalton, informed House GOP campaign leaders that he would not seek election to the competitive 18th District in Cuyahoga County. Republicans say they are being told that Strickland also plans to name Spada to a government position, possibly on the State Employment Relations Board.

The Republicans who are still trying to protect their majority are crying foul, but their protests ring pretty hollow. Here's to hoping a few more GOP legislators are looking for new positions in about three months.

Coverage thus far of the down-ballot races in Texas has been interesting. Democrats in the state only need to pick up five seats in the state to claim a majority in the Texas House, so we're paying close attention.

So far, national media has focused on the Obama effect, and his campaign's pledge to hire organizers for the state.

Bloggers like the guys at Burnt Orange Report and Vince at Capitol Annex have reported more about the possibilities of a Democratic victory, straight up. They've even organized a political action committee to make that possibility a reality (about which, I have lots to say, but that's another post).

This story from the Houston Chronicle, though, takes a sort of middle tack. It starts out with this:

One hundred days before the Nov. 4 election, Democratic and Republican political insiders are pondering whether Obama can lose states such as Texas and still make a difference in targeted congressional, county and legislative races by inspiring voter turnout.

But it turns out, that's not really what the insiders said when asked. Sure they think about the presidential, but they're pretty excited about the local races for their own merits:

Democrats in Texas "are very much energized, pretty much across the state," said Democratic political consultant Dan McClung of Houston. "It's not just national politics. It's state politics and county politics that have Democrats energized."

Texas Republican Party Political Director Hans Klingler said fights over partisan control of Harris and Dallas counties are as exciting for party activists as the presidential contest.

"As important as to what happens at the presidential races at the top of the ticket is what the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are going to do at the bottom-of-the-ticket races at the courthouse level," Klingler said.

That's sort of exactly how I feel.

Sam Stein -- writing for the Huffington Post -- has put together a very good look ahead to the 2010 election cycle. He reports that:

Republican officials now believe that the party's best hope for retaking seats in Congress may come during gubernatorial elections in 2010. Should the GOP win back the majority of these seats (Democrats currently occupy 28 state capitols), they would be extremely well positioned to influence the redistricting of the political map that will come after the 2010 census.

This isn't the first story we've seen along these lines. Both parties recognize the potential of the election two years from now, and campaign organizations are gearing up in preparation.

That includes this campaign committee:

[I]n almost every state, the legislative chambers will have a say into how the congressional districts are re-drawn. And in this regard the governor's power is limited. Oftentimes, in fact, redistricting plans get sent to state courts to adjudicate disagreements.

In 2010, there will be more than 1,150 state senate races and more than 4,950 state house races held nationwide. Here, too, Democrats and Republicans are cognizant of any edge.

"A flip of 50 state seats in key chambers could mean a gain -- or a loss -- of 15 Democratic Congressional seats in the next round of redistricting," said Michael Sargeant, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. "We need to continue winning statehouses so that we can be at the table when these district lines are drawn."

The quote from my boss is a good reminder of the importance of the work we do. Control of the nation's legislatures have long-term consequences outside the boundaries of any individual state. If Republicans are going to throw all their resources into the 2010 election, we need to be prepared to defend our chambers and pick up those where the GOP is vulnerable.

Chris Kromm at Facing South posts some more exciting news about Democratic voter registration in Georgia and North Carolina:

Georgia has grown the most: an astounding 300,000 new voters have been added to the rolls since January 2008, putting the total number of active registrants at 4.7 million […]

According to N.C. State Board of Election statistics, just over 203,000 new voters have registered since January.

Like Georgia, new registrations have favored Democratic, independent and African-American voters. African-American voters have gone from 20.1% to 20.7% of the N.C. electorate in 2008. By party, Democrats have gone from 44.8% to 45.3%, and unaffiliated voters from 20.9% to 21.4% since January.

Those gains have been at the expense of Republicans, who went from being 34.3% of N.C. voters in January to 33.3% by the end of June -- a one-point drop.

This comes on the heels of a Democratic voter registration drive in Louisiana, which completely overwhelmed the state board of elections.

This is obviously only half the battle (still gotta get registered voters to the polls on Election Day) but these reports are still unreservedly good news.

Democrats won't pick up a chamber in Kansas this fall; I can almost guarantee that.

The Republicans hold a 20 seat advantage in the Senate, and a 31 seat advantage in the House. I'm not giving away any trade secrets when I say that the state isn't one of our top targets this year.

That's not stopping Kansas Democrats, however, from putting in maximum effort.

They're fielding candidates in 36 of 40 Senate districts and in 96 of 125 House districts, all with the aim of making the GOP compete for its majorities.

That's valuable for a number of reasons.

First, even in a state where voter registration favors Republicans by a 2-1 margin, the political climate has damaged the GOP brand. In Kansas, you've also got two-term Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and two Democrats in Congress who are popular and vocal leaders. Here, Democrats might have the potential to pick up some seats this year, even in districts that we don't normally have any business winning.

Second, by running so many candidates, Kansas Democrats force the GOP to spend resources protecting their incumbents that they could otherwise devote to more competitive races. Sure, the U.S. Senate race doesn't exactly seem like it's going to be a highlight (though Jim Slattery does show some life in the latest poll), and Kansas is also one of those states where Obama doesn't stand much of a chance. But competitive GOP incumbents in the statehouse can't count on monetary support from their colleagues who also have opponents. And that's a good thing.

Finally, every additional seat at the legislative table helps to change the conversation in the state. Even if we don't control a majority, we need more Democratic lawmakers talking about health care and education in Kansas. We need more Democratic incumbents developing relationships with constituents and providing leadership for the party. And importantly, even if the Democratic women and men elected this cycle never serve a day in the majority, some of them will some day become future candidates for higher elective office.

One of the things that I like best about the DLCC is our work to win majorities gradually by building infrastructure, providing resources, and training staff. Kansas is one of the states, for instance, taking advantage of our DLCCWeb program -- which provides our candidates with cheap and powerful Internet tools for campaigning.

It's also a place where we can afford to take the long view -- patiently laying groundwork for bigger wins in the future.

To me, the retirement of Sen. Joseph Bruno means one thing -- he believes that the Republicans will lose their majority in the New York Senate, and he has no desire to serve in the minority.

Already this cycle, we’ve seen some really good indications that might be correct.

On February 26, Democrat Darrel Aubertine won a special election in New York's 48th Senate District -- a seat that had been held by the GOP since 1880, where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats 78,454 to 46,824.

Three weeks earlier, Democrat Craig M. Johnson won a special election in New York’s 7th Senate District -- a seat that had been held by the GOP for more than a century.

Things were so bad in February that Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- the GOP’s single biggest Senate benefactor -- had to write a $500,000 check to keep them competitive. Prior to that little gift, he contributed at least $675,000 between October 2006 and December 2007.

So now, there are 32 Republicans in the New York Senate and 30 Democrats. In a traditional election, there are Republican seats (like those in New York City, which Reid Wilson points out) which would be vulnerable. But remember -- this is a presidential election year, and Democrats have a significant enthusiasm advantage. When I look at the map, New York is one of our top targets.

And this is all important not simply because Bruno and the Senate Republicans have managed to bottle up significant pieces of legislation and prevent a major Democratic agenda from getting a hearing in a very progressive state but also because New York is slated to lose two Congressional seats in the next round of redistricting.

Its delegation to Washington will be the smallest the state has sent since 1823. Democrats control the House and the governor’s mansion -- gaining a majority in the upper chamber will give us the strength we need to draw congressional districts in a way that reflects the progressive nature of the state’s electorate.