To pick up some balls played by Gatemouth, I'm just now noticing that the Working Families Party is running its own candidate in a state Senate race that is one of the top pick-up opportunities this year. The race in question is in SD-3, Suffolk, pitting a young, fresh-faced Democrat, Jimmy Dahroug, 28 27, against antediluvian republican Caesar Trunzo, 78 80.

The WFP endorsed one David Ochoa, after he won its primary and thus its ballot line; however, Ochoa was simultaneously defeated in the Democratic primary by Dahroug, who had run in 2004 (full disclosure: my organization, New Democratic Majority, supported Dahroug in 2004 and again this year).

The truly unfortunate thing is that the presence of two Progressive candidates on the ballot makes toppling Trunzo more difficult. It's also not helpful, as the WFP blog makes clear, that their advertising in the district urges voters to vote their ballot line.

The strategic implications of this divided ballot become clearer if you take a look at the broader battlefield. The party establishment's rallying cry on the Senate all this year has been "2008! 2008!", but with strong challengers coming out of the woodwork everywhere, it's not as unlikely as the kommentariat seems to think that the Senate could flip on November 7th. We need four seats to take control, and there are more than four serious challengers: Dahroug, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Matt Titone, Brian Keeler, Brooke Ellison come to mind, with newcomers Leslie Bielanski and Odelia Goldberg rounding out the pack.

I have a very soft spot in my heart for the WFP, but they should give some major thought to what it is that they're doing out in Suffolk. It won't engender any goodwill if they turn out to be the stumbling block for a Democratic Senate. How about an Ochoa endorsement of Dahroug?

[Update]: A commenter thinks Ochoa may have says Ochoa has endorsed Dahroug.

[Update 2]: From the comments: WFP is urging a vote for Dahroug, as per the WFP blog. Excellent work.