In Kentucky, Sen. Jim Bunning won in 2004 by just 1 percent. That could be a very close race again, which has Republican decision-makers urging Bunning to retire.
"Senate races -- more so than the House races -- recently have swung with the 'national mood' in elections," says Brown. "You saw Republicans pick up seats in 2002 and 2004, and Democrats pick up seats in 2006 and 2008."
Even if President Obama succeeds in working with Congress to pass legislation, the effects of those policies likely will not yet be felt by Americans in 2010. The public is more than likely to believe that, with Democrats in control, government isn't doing enough.
Barring another economic or foreign-policy crisis, the partisan pendulum is likely to swing once again, and Republicans will do better in 2010 than in the past two elections.
"The only two seats where I imagine that the Republicans will have a chance to take them will be Sen. Salazar's seat in Colorado and Reid's seat in Nevada," Brown says.
Now, knocking off Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be a moral victory for Republicans, similar to their defeat of former majority leader Tom Daschle in 2004. But that still won't get the GOP anywhere near a 51-vote majority.
Brown says to watch the special election in Illinois; lots of drama playing out there might help Republicans. Will scandal-era-appointed Democrat Roland Burris decide to run for a full Senate term? Will Burris be challenged by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.? What if special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation expands to include more Democrats besides Gov. Rod Blagojevich?
That may make Illinois in 2010 for Democrats similar to Ohio in 2004 for Republicans, when a governor's scandal felled nearly the entire GOP state slate.
For Republicans nationally, it all depends on recruitment. Luckily for them, retirements so far have come early enough to find quality candidates and to raise money.
Their fortunes largely rest on their relationship with President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress: Hold Democrats' feet to the fire, and Republicans could be called "obstructionists"; be too agreeable, and they'll be accused of playing "yellow-bellied roll-overs."
My prediction: A financial storm consisting of a mixture of commercial mortgage failures, resetting Alt-A mortgages, derivative meltdowns, rising energy costs, insolvent banks, overreaching Democrat tax policies, inflation and a continued Dow slide toward 6000 will enrage the American people. They will start the "de-Democratization" process by electing 30 Republicans and Independents to the House and at least 5 Republicans to the Senate. Obama will campaign furiously for his agenda with a "stay the course I have set" and "blame Bush" message. Americans will have already started to realized the monstrous error they made in Obama's election, but it will take until 2011 for the general consensus to be that he is an incompetent and a hard-line Socialist. He will be openly mocked and hated by everyday Americans and lose in a landslide to whoever runs against him in 2012.
He will be branded as the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century by historians.
The 2010 elections are critical if we are to have some semblance of freedom for our children and grandchildren. I suggest a minimum of 1.8% of income on an ongoing basis to political causes. Why 1.8%? Because it’s a typical amount that the left extorts through union dues for their political causes. If you make 100,000 that translates to about $35 a week . . . week after week it adds up and makes a difference.
Obama won Indiana by 1%. Mitch Daniels, Indiana's conservative and very effective Governor won re-election in the same election by close to 30%. A blowout.
So what are we to believe? Are we to believe that the same kind of voter who would select Obama also selected Daniels.
Would it not be far more prudent to believe that the conservative voters in Indiana, in mass, walked out on McCain by making no selection for President and then voted for Governor?
Will those voters return and when?
Despite this, Republicans could flub the opportunity by nominating RINOs. I hope to see some primary challenges to get rid of the old tired leadership in the GOP.
Why is a primary race out of the question?
>it will be Specter versus one of many potential Democrats.
Aside from the caucus, what would the difference be anyway?
The sorry state of the national economy is a leading indicator here, especially in the industrial SW of the state. Rendell lost here big in 2004 while the houseplant (Bob Casey Jr.) was easily elected based on his famous family name. I see things getting really ugly in 2010. Specter's greatest gift so far is a crowded list of GOP stars going for the governor's office. But I expect the likely candidate or two will emerge before year-end and one of the others could opt to challenge Specter.