Not that the NRCC is acually trying to encourage this, but given the advantages of incumbency, isn't a year where the win is at your party's back a good year for your party's senior members to retire?

perhaps the bozos among the Repugnants see the zombies headed their way and are running for their lives...

I do wonder if some of the retiring Reps aren't just tired of being beholden to complete idiots and would rather do honest work for a change. Even being a lobbyist is a more honorable calling than having to satisfy the birthers, xenophobes, economic illiterates and flat-earthers who now make up the Republican "base."

retirements are quite the indicator some in the media would like to believe.

aren't
The Typo Police (yes we're very busy)

Having to run open seat races rather than in support of incumbents is far more costly. Thus far Republicans have not done a good job in fundraising. This could very well limit their gains in the House.

Remember, the norm is a loss of 25-30 seats for the president's party in the midterm of a first term president. That will have to be the benchmark in November 2010.

It doesn't fit the narrative.

The narrative is that 2010 is going to be 1994 and 2012 is going to be 1980.

And Sarah Palin is going to be our Nehemiah Scudder in a skirt.

I'm curious to know how many (if any) of the incumbents retired because they faced primary challenges from more reactionary Republicans.

If the Democrats were gaining numbers in the House AND Blue Dogs were retiring to make way for liberals, I'd consider it to be quite the victory. So, if the GOP is gaining seats AND becoming more ideologically rigid, then the loss of more than 10% of the incumbents in the caucus is hardly "Good News!" for Democrats.

My guess is that it competing forces are cancelling each other out.

Down here in Miami, this could be interesting to see what happens. If Mario decides to run for Lincoln's seat, there could be a domino effect (how appropriate in Little Havana), and it might even have an impact on the Senate race between Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio.

Let the games begin.

I have to disagree that the notion of retirements indicates a party does not have the 'wind at its back.'

On the contrary, the GOP will likely argue that the crop of fresh faces, most probably far more conservative then those they seek to replace, are the driving force behind the resurgence.

I'd argue that having high turnover is one way to 'rebrand' without much work or any change.

Perhaps the JBS right wing billionaires are being very effective in ridding Republicans from the party.

What this tells me is that the retiring Republicans don't really believe there are enough teabaggers votes to regain the house. That means the back of the bench for another few years at least.

I know that doesn't fit the narrative, but it fits the facts. Senior house members don't retire just before they are about to regain the majority.

The only thing between the Republicans and a total wipe out is the failure of the Democrats to make the kinds of changes needed to motivate their base. The perception is that Obama and the Senate Democrats are cowering in the face of a relatively tiny Republican minority. If the Democrats would kick ass and take names, 2010 could be a great year for Democrats.

wonder if republican disaffection isn't in response to the republican party pols becoming nothing more than autobots for the leadership to spin its politics, and that republican pols in Congress can do nothing more than that which they are told. Can't be a very interesting or satisfying job - republicanism distilled down to getting in, scarf up your graft, and get out. Grab 15 minutes of fame as a detached imbecile if you're so inclined, but accomplish nothing, but boosting the republican insanity.

I'd point out that the pace of retirements has surprised me by being so even: everyone's struggling to draw conclusions because just when one or two Republicans retire... a Democrat has followed suit. The locations don't make sense, the trending isn't obvious... except that, it's been a lot of medium-range incumbents. Which makes me think that the real thread here is a sense that incumbency is the problem.

That sense, I think, is why Marco Rubio frightens more Republicans than (still) feel good about his insurgency... or why, even after Dede Scozzafava, the national party still isn't thrilled with Tea Party alternatives. Pat Toomey? The party tried - for years - to keep him off of Arlen Specter. And now, Joe Sestak is doing just the same as Toomey was, refusing to take Specter's seniority as a given. Then, too, look at the manhandling required to keep other Dems away from Kirsten Gillibrand... and still, no one can seem to stop Harold Ford.

I think a lot of lefties, still, see the Tea Party and "voter anger" as small, isolated - and dismissable - aspects of the political scene, rather than what they might actually be: a harbinger, and an indicator, as a number of recent elections have shown, that right or left, the real voter message right now is peform... or we'll replace you. Diaz-Balart was never anyone's best example of greatness. I think he knows that, as smart, yet mediocre people do. And he knows now is a good time to not test the public's lingering goodwill (as opposed to, say... Arlen Specter, who knows nothing of shame or self doubt). We assume incumbency is strength... but I think that's true... until it's not.