Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, one of many second-generation senators and one of the few Democrat moderates, announced his retirement Monday. With a $13 million war chest and approval ratings above sixty percent, Bayh's retirement transforms a relatively safe Democrat seat into a likely Republican pick-up. The entrance of Dan Coats, former holder of the seat, into the race precipitated Bayh's retirement. Though Coats certainly made the race more competitive, and conditions aren't ideal for Democrats, Bayh remained an attractive candidate who probably would have swam successfully against the Republican drift. It's the likelihood that Bayh would have held on to the seat, and the fact that every other Indiana Democrat can't win it, that stings Democrats most harshly. All Bayh had to do was run, and the Democrats would have probably held on to the seat. Probably.

Professional politicians are more sensitive to the political winds than even political prognosticators. The spate of high-profile Democrat retirements suggests that Democrats know what they can't say: 2010 stands to be a year every bit as devastating for Democrats as 1994, 1966, or 1946. Judge politicians not by what they say, but by what they do. What Democrats are doing is retiring, or not bothering to run in the first place. That speaks volumes, and since it's the actual politicians who are the experts, these actions deserve a more respectful hearing than the sideline predictions from political handicappers.

Despite a multitude of "iceberg ahead" warnings, the Cook Political Report's Senate map shows just three seats currently held by the Democrats leaning Republican. Stuart Rothenberg sees Democrats losing four seats. Such prognosticators, one suspects, err on the side of caution because making projections of a landslide, no matter how accurate on election day, paint one as a kook before it. Better make safe, conservative estimates until a few days before the vote, as pundits did in the Scott Brown race, and then "predict" what's already a foregone conclusion.

A Republican landslide? My political Magic-8 Ball says "all signs point to yes." Looking at the races in the Senate, Republicans stand an even chance of matching their massive seven seat gain of 1994 and an outside shot of making the Senate a 50-50 split.

Leaving Indiana aside, in seats currently held by Democrats, Rasmussen has Republicans ahead in Illinois (46-40), Delaware (56-27), Nevada (47-39), Arkansas (52-33), Colorado (51-37), North Dakota (71-17), Pennsylvania (47-38), and Wisconsin (47-43). It's telling that Republicans are behind in none of the races where the party currently holds a senate seat. Atop all this, there are races where Democrats currently lead, such as California and Connecticut, but will ultimately be competitive. The professionals ignore all this and make weak predictions of a few seats swinging to the Republicans.

Rothenberg, for instance, lists Barbara Boxer's California seat as "safe." Yet, her weak standing with voters has encouraged a crop of healthy Republicans to vie for her seat, including Carly Fiorina, the well-funded former CEO of Hewlett-Packard. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Boxer barely edging Fiorina 46-42. That doesn't seem "safe" to me, particularly in an environment in which Republicans are motivated and Democrats lethargic. Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln trails by double-digits to each of her five potential Republican challengers. Charlie Cook sees the race as a toss up. Conditions can and will change by November 2, 2010. But on February 16, 2010, Blanche Lincoln looks like a loser.

It's February, not November. The economy, presidential approval ratings, and much else can improve for the Democrats between the present and the future. But less than a month after Scott Brown turned the bluest Senate seat in America red, notions that the Democrats will lose three or four seats in November are, at this moment, delusional. If Democrats aren't safe in Massachusetts, where are they safe?

Democrats started 2010 with a filibuster-proof majority. There is a chance that they end it looking to Joe Biden to cast deciding votes. Such an outcome is at least as likely as the forecast that Republicans pick up a mere three seats.

An interesting, well thought out piece. It is sad that a relatively neutral event is once again herald of the apocalypse for Democrats, even as Bayh cited cynicism for people like you as the principle reason he's retiring.

But let's say for argument's sake that you are right. I think you make two false assumptions:

1
Senator Bayh was in your own words expected to win by a substantial margin. His exit doesn't logically precipitate your next paragraph which chronicles the downfall of the democratic party. You cleverly make it seem like he is another domino falling. That fits your narrative, but it doesn't allow for more thoughtful take on why he's leaving. I think the enigma is part of a bold PR strategy about to unfold. Total conjecture, but I'm having fun. Stay tuned.

2
You cite Scott Brown as the most clear cut evidence of the reddening of America. This example is more obnoxious because it fails to take into account exit polling data and the specifics of that election. To some degree, narratives are self-fulfilling prophecies, so I can see why both the left and right will spin the Scott Brown victory into different stories. Nevertheless, the election was not a referendum on Obama and his policies since he retained popularity in those exit polls. The fact that Brown's opponent was utterly clueless and Massachusetts already enjoys similar health care legislation conflates the policy issues. I think it was a referendum on the legislative branch, the gridlock and the cynicism. Brown is a handsome figure promising change, not unlike Obama himself. Hell, I even like Scott Brown.

It is not impossible that a landslide could happen, but the war is being fought in the arena of public relations. The next months are critical, but I disagree with your premise that the nation as a whole is turning red. You even mentioned my state, California. Good luck.

By the way, know why we voted for Schwarzenegger? It wasn't because of a conservative climate in the nation, it was because Arnold Friggin' Schwarzenegger was on the ballot. How cool is that? My point: Scott Brown has inherent qualities. He ran a good campaign. He might as well have run against a corpse. Also, people feel congress isn't moving fast enough to make jobs and effect real change. Arianna Huffington is just as pissed at congress as Dan Flynn. (Admit it, that's a good point) It explains the election as least as much as your insistence that America is rejecting Obama's socialism.

Here is what you are leaving out about November. I think a greater transparency is about to hit Capitol Hill and Republicans might very well be revealed for the obstructionists they are. This will be PR poison that will negate any short term gains they think they've won.

If you fairly reported the televised debate between Obama and the Republicans, you might have a taste of how unsavory it is when politicians are seen undisguised.

What people want is progress -- and progress is not partisan. The party that seems the least partisan in November will claim the landslide.

A theory: what you are about to witness is a transformation in how we view our politicians: votes will be elevated from the snorefest of C-SPAN to relevant twittering in real time. A fair amount of manipulation and grassroots activism will trigger this but have no doubts, November will be about accountability.

There will be huffing and puffing on blogs and Fox News, but when November comes you will not see any reason for a massive migration to the party of no. On the contrary, unforseen or black swan events can only benefit the Democrats. And if the status quo continues, it will only reveal the Republicans to be bitter and partisan if they continue as they are now. They won't have much to run on after months of televised typecasting where they constantly play the role of hypocrite.

Finally, the Tea Party will continue to divide the Republican vote,and erode and confuse its brand, even as charges of racism and profiteering undermine any true believers -- if there are any out there. (And if there are true Tea Party members reading this, at least use some of your profits to hire minorities to stand next to you at events. You know, for the illusion you are a diverse group of libertarians instead of very old white people with a grudge)

To say Democrats are delusional in maintaining their majority is nothing short of the fundamental attribution error. You are clearly a partisan -- of an extreme variety -- so you can't interpret events in any other way.

You might just be feeding meat to the Palin fans out there, but I wonder if you aren't being hijacked by your ideology (hell, even Michael Crichton believed in climate change, he just speculated it might be caused by solar fluctuations).

I read about this phenomenon in one of your books. People can be incredibly articulate and even intelligent as they filter all information through their ideology, to the point where they can make mistakes. It's sort of expected, so why do I take issue with you doing it?

Because you ARE the information. People come to your blog to get this savvy take on the news, yet strangely enough, it all fits perfectly into your brand.

Meaning, I can predict that your take on this Senator's retirement will disparage the Democrats or otherwise fit the paradigm of another one of your books, "Why the Left Hates America."

Meaning, I can predict that you will do this...

Every...

Single...

Time.

Amazing, huh? You are a magician with current events. Every time they will fit your narrative of "left is bad." Rush does that, and he makes a lot of money. Hmmm. You guys are on to something.

How is it I can predict your opinion with uncanny regularity? There are only two reasons I can think of:

Intellectual Moron (hey, you wrote the book on the subject)
Perhaps you penned the book in a bout of Freudian guilt. Writing the intellectual obituary of Ayn Rand made you feel better at an unconscious level. But consciously, you believe every word of it. Jesus told you to.

or

Intellectual Profiteer
Distorting current events and history is profitable. (the books you write on the subject make money and build a brand that you must cultivate and be slave to. But secretly, after a couple glasses of Merlot, you are likely to confess that you think Obama's "not a bad guy," and you sometimes toy with notions of a socialist utopia.

Cheers, I only kid.

Gosh, you mean Dan thinks he is right and people who disagree are wrong? How long have you been sitting on this information?

Dan is a conservative and thus has certain convictions. That he believes they are healthiest for our government and its people is no surprise. People who believe government should fix economies, social ills, and provide services (e.g., health care, pensions, education, etc.) feel the same way about their convictions. To expect otherwise is naive, or perhaps revelatory of a lack of political convictions.

The recent spate of Democratic losses in Obama states, taken with the retirement of strong Democrat politicians, can hardly be seen as other than a sign of Democrat weakness. I guarantee you that there are plenty of Democrats who share Dan's view on this. It's not the result of bias so much as simply stating the obvious. Your thirst for something other than the obvious is the more interesting take.

The political eight ball should also come up with how the radical leftists running the show at this time were hiding in the wings and how they were exposed by the election of another radical leftist, Barack Hussein Obama. Now the fallout of being an extreme liberal ideologue is being felt by even the moderate Democrats, some of whom might not be that bad like Bayh.

Overall this purge is a good one and, if successful, will bring America back to it's political center and with any luck even more right of center.

Now all we need to do is expunge the moderate Republicans like McCain and his ilk.

"Indiana Senator Birch Bayh, one of many second-generation senators and one of the few Democrat moderates, announced his retirement Monday."

You meant Evan Bayh, not Birch Bayh. Birch Bayh lost a re-election bid because he wasn't a worthless POS conservadem douchebag and actually stood for fiscally and socially liberal policies. Mr. Flynn, I know of Birch Bayh, and little Evan Bayh is no Senator Birch Bayh.

Good catch. Corrected in original. The next time I reference Chris Dodd, I'll make sure to call him Tom Dodd just for fairness sake.

My rhetorical questions could be aimed at anyone who reduces political discourse into an us- versus-them dichotomy.

Keith Olberman is a perfect example of a man on the left who engages in a bluntening of political debate. Keith is articulate, but arrogant. He is a champion of righteous causes, but he does them a disservice through petty character assassination.

It is great to have political convictions, particularly if they are earned through experience, study, and above all, an evaluation of empirical facts. But political philosophy needs a refined voice to articulate solutions in a more nuanced manner than the simple polarity of left and right.

Right and left are artificial constructs in many cases, as many issues get co-opted by one party or another, thus politicizing them forever. This is dangerous because it stands in the way of your political convictions. Witness the party of limited government when it overstretches to preserve righteous causes.

Some issues are still up for grabs. Net neutrality, for example. The moment one party gets affiliated with that one, watch as the other one becomes demonized.

To use another example, there is no inherent correlation between limited government and the sanctity of marriage. Those are two completely different issues co-opted by one party. Yet as Dan will agree, the Bush presidency acted with total disregard for your political conviction of fiscal responsibility, and yet we must respect Rudy Giuliani for having views that were not cookie-cutter perfect.

I am influenced by Ralph Emerson in this regard. He very much wanted people to reject any kind of herd mentality that did away with independent thought. That is why we now have a system of political hypocrisy.

I do not think children grow up with our particular strain of liberal and conservative labels. I think these are historical inventions that evolve and transmute through culture. Your convictions are too often the parroted belief systems echoed through your family, the media you are saturated in, and your righteous indignation.

Make no mistake, you are no longer a thinker if I know what you are going to say before you say it. That doesn't make you consistent or a man of conviction. And if your only conviction is to follow the herd, to play your part in an entertaining feud, then it is a trivial one.

If you are rejecting a pragmatic view of political theater and upholding misinformation as gospel, then you are perpetuating the cyncism in our country. Whether you do it for a buck or out of ignorance doesn't make the crime any worse.

That is all I am saying. Call it as you see it. Don't call it before you see it. Statistically, your indignation should fall on both the right and the left. Sarah Palin giving Rush a free pass on his use of the word "retard" was utter hypocrisy.

Republicans that are now saying no to bills that they sponsored and supported is utter hypocrisy.

Republicans complained that the debate on health care was not televised. They now complain that they ARE televised -- utter hypocrisy.

Yet I won't read about that any of that on this blog. True, it's a conservative blog, but won't you give your cause more creedence if you demonstrate that your cause is a just one. You are a conservative, but also a citizen, right?