RETIREMENTS IN THE SENATE ARE A LITTLE ONE-SIDED... AND NOT MAKING LIFE FOR THE GOP ANY EASIER

Sen. Pajama Man makin' room for Tom Udall in the Senate?

The only Democrats giving up their safe House seats are Tom Allen (ME) and Mark Udall (CO), each of whom is exchanging it for a Senate seat. There may be a third, Mark's brother Tom Udall (NM) who has tried to not run for the Senate but is practically being forced to by New Mexico voters across the board. On the other hand, at least a dozen senior Republicans have already announced their retirements or signaled that they will retire. Several others face long prison terms for corruption and may not be able to campaign.

Today's Congressional Quarterly reports an identical situation in the Senate. Forget for a moment the likely criminal indictment of Alaska's corruption king, Don Young Ted Stevens. Five Republican incumbents (of the 22 who are up for re-election next year) have already announced their departures-- Wayne Allard (Co), Larry Craig (ID), Pete Domenici (NM), Chuck Hagel (NE) and John Warner (VA). Democrats are now favored to win the resultant open seats in Colorado, Virginia and New Mexico. And even blood red Idaho and Nebraska-- where, respectively, Larry Craig and Bob Kerrey make the situations... fluid-- could offer pleasant surprises for the Democrats.

CQ calls it "a historic disparity in the partisan distribution of retiring senators [which] is creating headaches for Republican strategists, who already faced an uphill battle to regain control of the chamber." No Democrats are retiring from the Senate, except Hillary if she runs for the presidency and in that case it is likely that Governor Eliot Spitzer will appoint a solid progressive like Jerry Nadler or Maurice Hinchey. Overlooking the Stevens situation, CQ goes on to say that "if there are no more Senate retirements-- and any additional incumbent withdrawals at this point would be a surprise-- the partisan distribution of 'open' Senate seats would be the most lopsided in half a century."

In typical election years, the vast majority of incumbents are re-elected. But open seats, at least in politically competitive states and districts, can become much more vulnerable to takeover by the opposition party. That’s the problem Republicans face in 2008 as they try to reverse the 2006 result, when Democrats gained control of the Senate by a scant 51-49 operational edge.

Exacerbating that problem is the extremely weak Republican presidential line-up-- the pathetic pygmies™-- who consistently lose to "None of the Above" in polls of likely Republican voters. Between a libertine gangster like Giuliani, a flip-floppin' cultist like Romney, or even a doddering, stuttering and confused old stumblebum like Frederick of (Ancient) Hollywood why would anyone in Congress think they won't be suffering from reverse coattails in 2008?