Over/under for Senate in 2010....

[Aviation Pro]

...I'm calling 68 for Democrats.

[billyoc]

1. 63

[Bluzmann57]

2. I'm not

Simply because too many Democratic Senators seem a bit wishy washy on health care reform. 72% of the people say we need real reform and a few Dems don't get that. If the ones who will not give us real health care reform are running, they may well get defeated.

[WI_DEM]

3. No we'll probably lose some ground in both the house and senate

not enough to lose control of either house, but traditionally the party in power does lose some seats in midterm.

[asksam]

6. Traditionally, we lose elections...

... because ReThugs steal them from us and (today's example in Minnesota being an exception), we're usually too weak and cowardly to do anything about it.

[DrToast]

17. The House maybe, but the Senate races look good for us

The 2010 Senate races look good:

[napi21]

4. Don't hold your breath! Many things are going to affect 2010.

We have 2 sick Senators who may or may not still be around by Nov. 2010. If something happens to Sen. Byrd, there's no guarantee a Dem will win the seat.

Even though we may think some of the Pubs have done things inexcusable to their constituents, that doesn't mean a Dem could win in their States.Most of the ones who are left are in pretty secure seats.

[asksam]

5. Oh, I'd love to get at least 67 so we can begin...

... to expel the Rethug senators and impeach the Rethug Supreme Court "justices."

[Truth2Tell]

7. On our present course we'll be lucky to keep 63.

We'll lose real progressives and independents on the upcoming healthcare betrayal. And some new faces in the Republican Party will run on the rapidly declining economy with a populist message tying Obama and Senate Dems to their masters on Wall Street (despite the bi-partisan nature of the corruption). As we move from recession to depression the Bank bailout swindle will increasingly become a political liability some Dems can't shake. Sadly we are doing this all to ourselves yet again. And then there's 2012...

[TheWraith]

11. Nice novel, but not exactly in line with realism. nt

[Truth2Tell]

12. I'll bookmark this for you.

How many times does one need be proven wrong before their proclomations about "realism" no longer have any credibility? Are housing prices still never going to drop as well?

[get the red out]

8. Run Bunning Run

And if he does Kentucky will add a democrat to the mix!

[Statistical]

9. Party in power tends to do worse not better in economic downturn.

I see the economy still being bad in 2010
+
Some apathy from groups who were energized about closing Gitmo, universal healthcare, marriage equality, wallstreet reform, etc.
+
Normal ebb & flow of politics it is unusual for a party to build on 3 elections of consecutive gains.

Anyone one of these would make it difficult to increase majority.

All 3.... I hope I am wrong but I think it will be a smaller majority in the Senate.... 52-56.

[TheWraith]

10. I'm going to go ahead and say 65 or 66.

I don't think there'll be a lot of upsets and throw-outs, but I think we've got good odds on all the open seats.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. 59-62 -nt

[tekisui]

14. We'll pick up at least 2, maybe 5.

If job numbers improve by summer of 2010(Which I think they will start to), it will be smooth sailing for the Dems in the Senate. The House will hold its big majority, and maybe add a little to it.

[FLAprogressive]

15. We'll be lucky to keep what we have. if we keep sticking to a DLC agenda bad things will happen

[Bonn1997]

16. If they don't pass significant progressive legislation now, who cares how many there are in 2010?

What's the difference between 60 Democrats who are afraid to pass progressive legislation and 68 who are afraid to? All I'm saying is I want them to give me a reason to be excited about the Democratic party before I start fantasizing about gaining seats in 2010.