Road to 60

[Mr.Phips]

I think you're being unrealistic. We're definately going to gain a few seats, but I don't see how nine is within reach. From your list, 4, 5, and 6 are exceedingly unlikely. I think Louisiana is going to switch to the Republicans as well.

I'm just showing a scenario in which the Democrats could reach 60 in the Senate. This is of course contingent on a strong nominee (read: not Hillary), a downturn in the economy, the war malaise continuing, and Bush's approvals staying in Nixonland. If all those factors occur, I don't think this scenario is unrealistic.

It's also possibility that significant progress is made in Iraq, Bush's approvals rise to the low 40's, the GOP nominate Giuliani or Romney and runs an anti-Washington campaign, the Democratic Congress continues to alienate its base, Hillary runs a play-it-safe campaign, Johnson decides against reelection and Landrieu faces off against Kennedy.

Basically, it's impossible to tell this far out what the conditions will be like come October 2008.  Even in September 2006 (before Foley), most people would've thought it absurd that  Democrats would win races like KY-03, where the Democrats were saddled with a fourth tier candidate.

I would not call John Yarmuth a "fourth tier candidate".  Ive seen him speak and seems like a perfectly capable politician.  It also helps him that the district he won is one of the most Democratic non-black majority districts in the south. 

[Mr.Phips]

Up 15 of the GOP's 22 Senate seats up for reelection this cycle could be competitive.

Uh, what?

If the Democrats can take strong leads in the 7 open seats or blue state seats, they can refocus their energies to defeating three of the eight red state Republican senators who are in varying degrees of trouble.

Oh, it's that simple, eh?

On the other hand, if Democrats pass a series of popular reforms, the Democrats could take advantage of the GOP's strong 2004 Senate cycle to cement the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Considering how well Democrats have been doing while in control of the House and Senate, I'd say your 2010 scenario seems extraordinarily unlikely.

They are doing about as well as Republicans did by this point in 1995. 

[Mr.Phips]

Up 15 of the GOP's 22 Senate seats up for reelection this cycle could be competitive.

Uh, what?

If the Democrats can take strong leads in the 7 open seats or blue state seats, they can refocus their energies to defeating three of the eight red state Republican senators who are in varying degrees of trouble.

Oh, it's that simple, eh?

On the other hand, if Democrats pass a series of popular reforms, the Democrats could take advantage of the GOP's strong 2004 Senate cycle to cement the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Considering how well Democrats have been doing while in control of the House and Senate, I'd say your 2010 scenario seems extraordinarily unlikely.

They are doing about as well as Republicans did by this point in 1995. 

Which makes the GOP's 2010 the equivalent of the Democrats' 1998?

A Republican being elected President in 2008.

[Mr.Phips]

...Then we can really reform this country and fully undo the excesses of the Bush and Reagan administrations.

This is the wishful thinking part, not the 57 or 60 seats.  If they ever have a dominant position again, that is when the real right-wing nature of the Democratic Party will be revealed.  I.E. no significant change in the american economic system.

The last time the Democrats had a huge majority and a Democratic president, we got the New Deal and the Great Society. Hardly right-wing.

Those were great achievements, but the actually 1976 was the last year the Democrats had a huge House majority, 60 Senators, and a Democratic Party. Sadly, little was a achieved legislatively because Carter was arrogant in his relations with Congressional leaders.

I am always amazed that Democrats didnt pass universal healthcare after the 1976 elections.  They could have easily done it with their huge majorities and Democratic President.  I think it could have been done in 1993 as well had Clinton and Democratic leaders in Congress worked much harder.  All they needed to do to pass universal healthcare was to pass it in the House easily(258-177 Dem) and held their caucus together in the Senate(57-43 Dem) and picked up just three Republicans like Packwood(OR), Jeffords(VT), and Chafee(RI).