'Good' retirements for Dems - where a new candidate is better than the incumbent (PPP)

[jefferson_dem]

Thoughts on Yesterday

I guess I just can't get that worked up about all the Democratic retirements yesterday.

John Cherry, who was clearly going to lose for Governor of Michigan, decided not to run. O well.

Byron Dorgan, who was clearly going to lose his seat if John Hoeven made a Senate bid, decided not to run. O well.

Bill Ritter, who's been trailing Scott McInnis by a significant margin in our polls since last April, decided not to run. O well.

And Chris Dodd, who was going to lose a Senate seat in one of the bluest states in the country, decided not to run. Hallelujah.

Democrats will keep the Senate seat in Connecticut now. They'll have a better chance on the Colorado Governorship. I don't see a lot of hope on the Michigan Governorship but the odds aren't a whole lot worse than they were 24 hours ago. North Dakota is the only really bad news for Democrats of the day, but the bad news is that Hoeven's running, not that Dorgan's retiring. Better to retire now than be retired in November.

<SNIP>

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/thoughts-on-yesterday.html

[Double T]

1. Thank GREED chris dodd will finally be gone.

Hope nancy and harry follow in chris' footsteps.

[DarthDem]

2. Agreed

Good analysis. I do think the Michigan governor's race will be competitive, though. And it's too bad about Dorgan, who was a very effective U.S. Senator, but the Democrats enjoyed the strange benefit of having two Ds in a red state for a long, long time. Oh, and I wouldn't completely write off an Earl Pomeroy candidacy.

Dodd's retirement is outstanding news. CT is now almost a Democratic lock.

[shotten99]

3. Hope Reid retires, too.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Dorgan was probably the strongest candidate in ND

[jefferson_dem]

5. Perhaps. But some polls still showed him trailing Hoeven by up to 20 points.

Red states will be tough to hold, regardless of who's running as a Dem.

[brentspeak]

15. Sounds like a good, intelligent strategy: Don't run for reelection if you're not guaranteed of a win

You're a campaign genius.

[depakid]

6. Who knows, in 2 years- the same might seem wise for the potus- under this sort of reasoning

Just sayin'

[jefferson_dem]

8. And in two years some DUers might look back in hindsight and feel a bit embarassed...

for tossing ideological tantrums when unity should have trumped purity.

[depakid]

12. Some of us have principles- others- just parties and cults of personality

that stand for nothing.

And the logic remains- though it's less likely for presidents to step aside.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Oh the drama

Make a fuss about mocking supporters and falling on that sword of "principle"...while the rest of us work for real progress.

Presidents do not NOT run for re-election...at least none since LBJ in 1968 and that was the sort of perfect storm like we will not see again. You'll have your choice in 2012 - Obama or some Neanderthalic, theocratic, wingnut Republican. Consider it the least of two "evils" if need be.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Byron Dorgan was likely not going to lose, actually.

Dorgan and Hoeven are both fairly popular, and in ND, it wouldn't have played well to take on Dorgan, regardless of Hoeven's popularity. Dorgan was a very, very good Senator for both ND and the country.

Dodd retiring is very good news for us, indeed.

[bigwillq]

9. Very happy Dodd is not running.

I wasn't going to vote for him anyway. But I will vote for the likely DEM candidate, Attorney General Dickie B!!

[Jennicut]

10. I am too. He is a good candidate for the Dems here in CT.

[curlyred]

11. maybe we can get a real Democrat to replace Ritter

Republican lite just doesn't cut it with me anymore.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Yeah, cue Ethel Merman to make "the sell" complete.