A fire reportedly broke out in Congressman Chris Murphy's DC office this morning, but there are few details yet in terms of how it started or how big it was.

Murphy, who represents CT's 5th District, is widely expected to seek Joe Lieberman's seat in 2012.

Over the weekend Former Republican Congressman and Senate candidate Rob Simmons met with local Tea Party supporters to persuade them he was conservative enough.

The Tea Party movement is so young, so disorganized, and so glorified by the press, that I don't think they can have any real impact on races like this in the general election. But they could definitely tip a tight primary race between Simmons and Linda McMahon in one direction or another. For those of you with a sadistic streak, here's some video of Simmons' Teabaggery.

Senate candidates released their year-end fundraising numbers this week, and things aren't looking so hot for former Republican Congressman Rob Simmons.

Simmons raised $970,000 in last year's third quarter when the GOP was still frantic with blood-lust over Chris Dodd. But contributions began to erode even before Dodd dropped out of the race, and now that Attorney General Dick Blumenthal looks like a sure-thing for the Democrats, GOP donors will likely shun Simmons and direct their resources toward other states where Republicans can actually win, like Penn., Nevada, Arkansas and even Illinois and Delaware where Barack Obama and Joe Biden's old seats are in danger of flipping. Simmons closed out the last quarter of 2009 raising $631,000.

If this trend continues for Simmons, as I suspect it will, his GOP primary opponent Linda McMahon could definitely overtake him for the nomination. Her personal fortune gives her the staying power to keep going through the summer, and while she only raised $35,000, that's probably not a reflection of a lack of interest in her candidacy among Republicans, because she has vowed only to accept small donations.

But McMahon has injected 6 million bucks of her own money so far, has spent more than half of that, and could ultimately spend $50 million dollars of her own money by the time this thing's over.

Sadly, money usually talks in American politics, but in some recent elections, in New York City and New Jersey, for example, there have been indications that you can't always buy victory, so we'll see how it all plays out.

Blumenthal isn't required to release his fundraising data until next quarter, and Peter Schiff, the long-shot Libertarian-leaning Republican seeking the nomination has raised $1.4 million.

When Attorney General Dick Blumenthal entered the race to replace Sen. Chris Dodd, I predicted that one of his potential GOP challengers, former WWE CEO Linda McMahon, would probably bow out of the race in the next few weeks.

Blumenthal is the most popular politician in the state, and has been polling 25-30 points ahead of McMahon and the other major GOP candidate, former Congressman Rob Simmons.

Simmons has been considered the stronger candidate from the start, but his dwindling fundraising numbers and the fact that McMahon is spending millions of her own dollars makes her more of a threat than I had initially thought.

I assumed McMahon would decide not to spend so much money on a lost cause, but after Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, Republican outsiders are feeling so emboldened it may have given her campaign the jolt it needed to stick it out.

Most Importantly, McMahon's camp isn't just spending the cash, they're spending it wisely, investing in sophisticated targeting strategies and technology that can really make a difference when it comes to reaching voters with tailored messaging and turning them out on election day.

So, I certainly don't think Blumenthal is losing sleep yet, but he needs to keep his eye on McMahon.

Rosa DeLauro: "I am concerned about a call for a three year spending freeze in discretionary spending. I will closely examine this proposal over the next few months and will require more information about what and who will be affected by this. Nevertheless, I am heartened by President Obama's overall address, and I look forward to working with him to tackle these and other challenges on behalf of the American people in the coming year."

Rob Simmons: "Regrettably, the President used tonight's speech to pass blame rather than accept responsibility and provide a credible path forward. He spoke of making job creation his top priority despite spending his first year focused on job-killing health care legislation. He defended a massive bailout program he admitted to hating. And he proposed hundreds of billions in new spending even while promising to freeze the budget. His rhetoric simply does not match reality.

Chris Dodd: "Tonight, the President outlined clear, common-sense steps that we should take to put middle class families back on the path to prosperity. This Congress must rise to the challenge before us - to create jobs, reform Wall Street, and finish our work to make quality health care affordable and accessible to all. I stand ready to work with President Obama. And I know my colleagues in the Democratic Party are ready to roll up their sleeves and get back to work. I only hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use this moment as an opportunity to re-think their strategy of mindless obstructionism and join us in tackling these challenges."

Linda McMahon: "I have been a business person for a long time; I know a marketing campaign when I see one, and tonight's speech was little more than a public relations effort to give an out-of-control Washington an image makeover."

Dick Blumenthal: "I watched the President's State of the Union address last night. The President forcefully acknowledged the economic pain felt by many Americans. I'm looking forward to reviewing his plans to help middle class Americans, who are still hurting economically. And, I look forward to continuing my travels around the State... to hear what you and our fellow citizens need and want to see from their next US Senator."

Congressman John Larson, (D-Hartford) Just hinted moments ago on MSNBC that Congressional Democrats may be skeptical of President Obama's plan to freeze spending on many domestic programs.

Larson, who is Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, acknowledged legitimate concerns on the left over Obama's plans, but said he was optimistic it could be a positive development if properly targeted.

"If the President uses a scalpel instead of going after this with a hatchet, then I think that's an approach that can work," Larson said, emphasizing that core Democratic programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security must remain exempt from the freeze.

Obama will announce a three-year freeze on discretionary spending in tomorrow's State of the Union Address. The plan would not involve defense, homeland security, intelligence or veteran affairs spending, and would reduce the federal deficit by a couple hundred billion dollars, largely a symbolic move aimed at recapturing support among Independent voters.

The freeze would not take effect until the fall though, so that gives Democrats time to pass some pricey legislation, like an expensive jobs bill, for example.

According to a new Quinnipiac poll out today, Ned Lamont is comfortably ahead of the other Democratic gubernatorial hopefuls, but only holds a small lead in a general election match-up with Republican Tom Foley, 38%-36%

As the pollsters point out, Lamont's name ID is probably playing a role in his numbers, so it wouldn't surprise me to see the Democratic primary field tighten a bit in the coming months.

Before I'm accused of liberal spin, let me be clear: The Democrats suffered a humiliating, historic, needless defeat tonight not only on a symbolic level, but on a practical one as well.

Scott Brown's victory in the MA senate race is a big deal. Democrats have spent months crafting a health care bill compromise to garner exactly 60 votes, and now they have to start from scratch, or ram the bill through really, really fast before Brown is sworn in.

Contrary to the refrain from Fox News and other conservative outlets, tonight's election was not a referendum on President Obama. The President, along with every other major Democrat in the state enjoys very strong approval ratings. This was an act of frustration over the economy and the specific rejection of an inexcusably weak candidate who thought this was a coronation rather than a campaign. (Coakley held fewer than 20 events compared to about 70 for Brown.) And if any other well-known Democrat in the state, like Rep. Ed Markey, had run, the Dems would have won by 10 points.

Perspective is important here. The Democrats have lost their 60 vote super majority, and that will devastate Obama's agenda. But what we witnessed tonight was not an overwhelming gesture of confidence in the Republican Party. The GOP still polls significantly worse than the Democrats, and even after Brown's upset tonight, the Dems will still have a huge 19 vote margin in the Senate, an unprecedented majority in the House of Representatives, and it is difficult to find even a Republican political pro who genuinely believes Obama is in danger of losing reelection. And Brown is only carrying out the remainder of Ted Kennedy's term, and probably won't be reelected if the Democrats field a strong candidate in a couple years.

So as symbolically brutal as tonight's defeat may be for the Democrats, in 2012, they will likely still be in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. So panic and soul searching is a bit premature.

Still, Brown's win should send a message to the Democrats that they shouldn't take voters for granted, and they need to deliver. Scott Brown won tonight because he fought harder and he deserved it more.

There are reports coming out of Massachusetts that voter turnout in today's special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat has exceeded expectations, casting some doubt on the last-minute polling data that used models with lower turnout.

While that might offer some hope for Democrat Martha Coakley, there are also reports of low turnout in crucial Democratic precincts so far.

This is a weird election, and anything is possible, but at this point I'd have to put my money on Republican Scott Brown pulling it off tonight with a relatively comfortable margin. A lot of people have been critical of the media and the Democrats for placing so much emphasis on this race and describing it as make or break for health care reform. After all, the Democrats will still enjoy a huge majority in the Senate regardless of tonight's outcome.

But make no mistake, if Brown wins tonight it'll be the biggest political upset in recent history, and it will deal a major setback to health care reform.

I agree with those who suggest the Democrats should be able to govern with 58 or 59 votes in the Senate, but the reality is, this is the most obstructionist minority in history, with Republicans using the filibuster far, far more than the minority ever has, and as long as the GOP continues down that path, Harry Reid and the Democrats will be screwed on major legislation without 60 votes.

It's also worth noting that Reid and the Dem leadership have a far more diverse caucus to wrangle, whereas the Republicans have mostly purged themselves of moderates, with the exception of the two senators from Maine. This reality makes any Democratic majority appear larger than it is, because figures like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson from Nebraska have no qualms siding with the Republicans.