There were four high profile Democrats who announced they would not be seeking reelection today.

I don't think anyone will be surprised that Chris Dodd is exercising the better part of valor, but the remaining Democrats, particularly Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter are clear harbingers of a nasty mid-term election for the Democrats.

Any electoral calculus at this point is as meaningless as all the chatter we saw a few months ago about how Democrats were going to pick up additional Senate seats from retiring Republicans, but at very least, the Democrats can kiss their super-majority goodbye. The House on the other hand is looking like it could very well pass back into Republicans hands.

Ah! Divided government. My favorite.

I think it says something concrete about this country that the Democrats are poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once more in less than 20 years. Its revealing that the looming disaster appears to be triggered by the same forces that sunk Clinton's Congressional majority in his first mid-term election: Democrats trying to foist revolutionary change on a public that simply does not want it.

I have to wonder, as apparently CBS's Bob Scheiffer does, whether the health care reform legislation is actually going to become law. The fallout so far has been devastating and I have to wonder if there are that many Democrats willing to fall on their swords to pass legislation that has no political benefit at all for either wing of the political continuum.

Ironically, a defeat might actually be good for the Democrat's long term prospects because the precipitous change in their fortunes can be squarely laid at the feat of the far-left, thus strengthening the hands of the moderates, who better reflect the Zeitgeist of the country. It was no accident that Rahm Emmanuel etal almost exclusively recruited blue dogs in the past couple of Congressional election cycles.

...which leads into my other observation.

How do you reconcile a nearly sure-thing bet on the Republicans this fall with the elite media consensus that the party was doomed to wander in the wilderness for a generation or more?

I think the answer is George W. Bush.

The Democrats didn't run against the Republicans, they ran against Bush, which is smart politics from a couple of perspectives. As President, he had both the visibility and responsibility for unpopular policies, and secondly, one can avoid bruising the feelings of voters who identify with the Republican party--i.e., you're not the problem, Bush is...

With the devil Bush metaphorically slain, there simply was no foil for the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate.

Who are the Republicans in the public mind now? "Not Democrats", which is why the generic ballot has swung into their favor.

I contemplate all those Democrat millionaires and billionaires, writing large checks to change the country into something more to their liking.

He He...