As long as there's one Repub in the Senate, Harry Reid will capitulate to them.

Dead-on.

Bond is the third incumbent to announce their retirement in advance of the 2010 cycle, following Mel Martinez (Florida) and Sam Brownback (Kansas), while Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) is planning a gubernatorial campaign that create a fourth Republican open-seat contest. At least three of these four were likely shoo-ins for re-election.

Which three, Steve? Brownback and Hutchison--sure. But Martinez? He's been inept at both positions he's held since 2000 and he is not exactly the darling of the Republican core. Florida--and Florida Cubans--have been softening on the Dems, so there is a good chance that Martinez would have had a big fight on his hands. Given his propensity to run his mouth and lose papers that may leak campaign and party strategies, he was no shoo-in.

This brings us to Bond. If you were paying attention, a number of friends, associates and aides have vanished into a giant sinkhole as a result of corruption investigations and media exposure. Given the Bond-Blunt-Graves family triumvirate in Missouri, and the fact that only one of the Graves brothers and one Blunt have survived the carnage, with not only family members but also close allies drifting into obscurity, Bond was starting out the campaign cycle with a huge lodestone.

Chances of him joining Stevens behind bars are pretty slim, but there is enough public exposure to turn the state against him--the same thing that caused Blunt Jr. to abandon the governorship. And he's getting more and more play as investigations into USAtt firings are moving along. There is little question, at this point, that he was responsible for sacking Graves as USAtt. So his chances of reelection were not so clear.

And, quoting George W Bush, Roy Blunt is a "major-league asshole". But, unlike Sen. Bond, his House seat has been safe. But I would not put much stock in either Blunt running for Senate. Jr. is so damaged, he should never recover and Sr's special skills would not work in the Senate.

And Talent lost as an incumbent. He's a known commodity who's done precious little to change his image. This is a major handicap and, with a Dem governor in office for the 2010 census, the state may well turn strong Dem by 2012.

The exodus continues. The GOP won't even be a viable third party in 15 years. They'll just have to call themselves the OP.

I know that it's overly-optimistic...that's it's a wild dream beyond wild dreams at this point...but does anyone realize that the math behind this post suggests the possibility of---dare I say it---a veto-proof Dem majority in the Senate that could last long after President Obama's eight-year stint in the WH?

Unless, of course, we simply repeal that little "term-limits amendment" to the Constitution and make him Ultimate-Decider-for-Life (which would be a truly awesome way to smack down the Das Bush Criminal Dynasty and their "legacy of felonious ineptitude")....

I don't think that the Republicans have that much to worry about. Obama's "years of trillion dollar deficits" should pretty much kill the Democratic party and get the Republicans in for a generation or more. All they have to do is sit back and let the Democrats bankrupt the country, which they seem eager to do. Obama is definitely shaping up as a one-termer. Obama's main base is people under 50, and he's definitely going to lose them if he saddles them with massive multi-trillion dollar debts in order to pay for his war machine. As a progressive I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so. I definitely won't ever vote for him again, not after appointing Hillary. No way.

As a progressive

Did it burn when you typed that?

You are a loyal foot soldier, sir, and shall be rewarded. The McCain-Palin beer huggies are on their way.

Texas may not be a sure lock for the GOP. The 3 - 4 urban hubs, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin are voting more and more Democratic. Obama won Dallas County this last cycle and I believe he either won the other urban areas or was very close to it.

On the state level what was once a thoroughly red legislature is not so read. The GOP has a 74 - 76 majority in the Texas House. The leader of the House. Representative Craddick was ousted and replaced by a more moderate Republican who has promised a more bipartisan house.

On the local level, Dallas is definatley blue. The sherrif just won reelection. This in spite of jail inspection issues and her being a lesbian. Most of the local judges are Democrats and many of the state and even national legislative representatives are more and more Democratic.

My point is, do not count out Texas as going Blue.

@ mike: I'm with you. Except that Obama is a de facto Eisenhower Republican, and I think that the extant Republican party will dissolve, and that the Obmacrats will take their place but still under the Democratic party banner. Progressives will have to either organize and introduce a viable major party of the opposition, or there will be two fringe minor parties: Republican Southern Confederacy and Progressive Green.

Koster was *just* elected Missouri's AG this fall. I doubt he could really run for Senate in 2010. Also, until just a couple of years ago (if that), Koster was a Republican. To his credit, he left the party over its increasing wingnut tendencies on issues like stem cell research (which was a huge ballot issue in 2006), abortion, etc

All they have to do is sit back and let the Democrats bankrupt the country, which they seem eager to do ... Obama's main base is people under 50, and he's definitely going to lose them if he saddles them with massive multi-trillion dollar debts in order to pay for his war machine.

Um ... no one except history-ignorant wingnuts are worrying about deficit spending right now, dumbass.

And the only reason we have a huge deficit ($10 TRILLION) to begin with is because two presidents -- Reagan and Bush II -- rang up more than 60% of it in a mere 16 years combined. They spent hundreds of billions of dollars on useless military programs, kickbacks to their corporate buddies, and on a pointless war, all the while cutting taxes on the wealthy, thus reducing government income and placing most of the burden on hard working families.

So how's about you learn a bit of history before spouting off your idiocy, troll.

It's also striking because many of the easy Republican targets are gone. New England has only 3 R senators left (out of 12, and not counting Lieberman). Gordon Smith was the last on the west coast, and he lost in November. And only 14 states now have 2 R senators--but they make up over 2/3rds of the entire Republican Senate caucus. And three announced retirees are from currently split states (Bond, Burr, and Martinez). Not good for Republican hopes for 2010 at all.

I know that it's overly-optimistic...that's it's a wild dream beyond wild dreams at this point...but does anyone realize that the math behind this post suggests the possibility of---dare I say it---a veto-proof Dem majority in the Senate that could last long after President Obama's eight-year stint in the WH? -- Steve W, @13:30

By the time Tim Kaine's done dismantling Dean's 50-state strategy, I'll be happy if we pick up *any* of these seats. At the moment, it looks likely that, by '10, we'll have reverted to the siege mentality (try and hold onto what we have) we all know of old and Dean's expansionist vision may be nothing but another dream.

And the only reason we have a huge deficit ($10 TRILLION) to begin with is because two presidents -- Reagan and Bush II -- rang up more than 60% of it in a mere 16 years combined.

Minor point of clarification: we don't have a ~$10 trillion deficit, we have a ~$10 trillion debt. The deficit is, in effect, the annual increase of the debt.

Just how many Carnahans are there in Missouri? Are they the Missou version of the Kennedys?

Oh, Steve, that's so quaint. Senate Republicans need to neither conserve campaign resources *nor* maximize likely victories to get what they want.

As long as there are any Republicans in Congress, and as long as there are any anti-Democratic Democrats in Congress, Republicans in Congress (and anti-Democratic Democrats) will be able to get what they want. Maybe not quite as fast as in the glory days, but if they've been rendered impotent by any recent Democratic electoral success, nobody's bothered to tell them yet.

"Disappointment we can believe in" will bring the Republicans back into power.