TPMDC

Ripping Off The Band-Aid: A Flood Of Democrats Announce Retirements

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

After three high-profile retirements sent the political world spinning, Democrats are saying the morning after they don't expect any more in the Senate or among the governors.

Worried Democrats who are seeing poll numbers slip nationally wanted to start 2010 with the best chance they could for keeping the House, 60 Senate seats and the majority of governorships.

Surveying the political landscape, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) were among the most vulnerable, and Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's retirement could prevent a divisive Democratic primary for the senate.

Sen. Michael Bennet, appointed to fill Sen. Ken Salazar's seat when he joined President's Obama Cabinet, is facing a stiff primary challenge from former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. Democrats hope Romanoff turns to the governor's race instead to make things easier for Bennet, endorsed by Obama. There also are a few other strong contenders - Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper among them.

Senate sources tell TPMDC this is it for retirements in their chamber - the Dorgan news coming as a complete surprise and Dodd's decision welcomed by party boosters who think Democrats are now more likely to be able to hang on to his seat.

But unless the Democrats pick up an open Republican seat this fall, their 60-seat majority is likely to be gone come January 2011 since North Dakota will be a tough race in a red state.

Democrats reeling from the prospect of losing Dorgan's seat to a Republican yesterday were actually cheered up by the news in Connecticut, thinking that a better candidate will be an easy win.

A source familiar with governors races across the country told TPMDC there aren't any more expected retirements - that they know about.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen said on ABC's Top Line today that a "couple more" retirements are likely in the House, a talking point he's used several times recently.

The retirees and their allies are saying they made their decisions independently and weren't pressured by the national parties or the Obama White House, which has gotten involved in a handful of races this year.

A Democrat familiar with the landscape said the recent news - and word that Michigan Lt. Gov John Cherry is stepping aside for someone with better chance at winning the governorship - is a net win because it allows the party to start 2010 with the strongest field of candidates possible.

"It adds up to more opportunities for us," the well-placed Democrat said.

The Democrat used outgoing New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine as an example - his polling was dismal and he was never able to overcome that, losing his reelection bid to Republican Chris Christie.

Dorgan, Dodd and Ritter each were facing low approval ratings, and John Cherry in Michigan was down by double digits in the polls.

Dorgan will speak about his decision tonight on MSNBC's "The Ed Show." Ritter is expected to make an announcement today. Dodd is speaking at noon.

Dodd was facing an uphill struggle to keep his seat and also has had a tough year. He battled cancer, saw his best friend Ted Kennedy die this summer, and his sister also passed away.

It was two years ago this week Dodd ended his short presidential bid after a dismal fifth place finish in the Iowa caucus. The 2008 run hurt Dodd with his constituents in Connecticut, since he moved his family to Iowa for the fall before the caucus and enrolled the older of his two young daughters in school there.

Sources told us that Dodd's internal polls showed he would have a tough race, and he is chairman of the Financial Services Committee at a time when Wall Street is becoming increasingly unpopular.

The White House invested significant time and resources in helping him raise money for reelection, and President Obama considers him a personal friend.

Late Update: Democrats involved in the Dodd campaign tell CNN the party was convinced his race was "virtually unwinnable."

Additional reporting by Evan McMorris-Santoro.

Comments (42) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 6, 2010 10:18 AM   

Why would you move your family to Iowa, for God's sake? That was about as smart as taking that sweetheart loan from Countrywide. The latter could at least be explained away by pointing out that CW didn't get much for their trouble. They didn't, right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 10:23 AM   

Flood of Democrats? Come on TPM - 2 senators and 1 governor does not constitute a flood. More sensational headlines. Geesh!!!

Ed Shultz just talked about Dorgan on MSNBC and it was age and time that Dorgan decided to retire and Ed hinted he might take a post in the Obama Cabinet because he's not done!! Also Ed confirmed the state's party asked him (Ed) to consider running for U.S. SENATOR. Stay tuned.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 10:28 AM    in reply to lousgirl84

Yeah, if TPM is hoping to become the liberal Politico, it might help for them to come up with bullshit memes that actually help liberals. I realize that would take a bit more work and creativity, but we loyal readers would much prefer it over a watered down Jonathan Martin column.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 10:56 AM    in reply to lousgirl84

Christina is often a Village Gossip Concern Troll. Brian likes to spin stuff to make it more sensational than it actually is. Eric does not understand polls and reports them at face value, even the ones from Rasmussen. Kind of makes me wonder what I'm doing here sometimes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 12:01 PM    in reply to Xantar

Well it's pretty fucking pathetic if you ask me. I was hoping better from TPM. Hey Josh are you paying attention and Christina, if you read your own crap, take a listen.

This is bullshit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 12:51 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Here's a reality check: the number of Republicans who are retiring this year is far greater than the number of Democrats, but somehow there's no mention of that by TPM:

In the House, 14 GOP incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Does this mean Republicans are "dropping like flies"?

In the Senate, six Republican incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while two Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Is this evidence of a mass Democratic exodus?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021783.php

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 1:35 PM    in reply to commie atheist

Yeah, that is because it is Republicans in safe REpublican districts. When a Blue Dog from a Republican state retires, it is news. When a Republican from a state or District that has voted Republican since the dawn of man retires, it isn't news.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 2:28 PM    in reply to masanf

So then Chris Dodd retiring wouldn't be news, right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 3:45 PM    in reply to Xantar

Indeed, that is central to his point. Also.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 2:48 PM    in reply to masanf

You again. I was hoping for a new year minus you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 3:44 PM    in reply to masanf

Yeah, that is because it is Republicans in safe REpublican districts. When a Blue Dog from a Republican state retires, it is news. When a Republican from a state or District that has voted Republican since the dawn of man retires, it isn't news.

You mean like John McHugh in NY Dist. 23?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 1:37 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Yeah, sure that's why he retired. That retirement speech he gave, you know the one in which he indicated that he was originally going to run in 2010? Let's just ignore that so we can try and spin away the horrible 2010 that is shaping up for the Democrats. That filibuster-proof majority is gone, and so will be Obama's chances of "accomplishing" anything after the election.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 2:50 PM    in reply to masanf

ROFLMAO. Keep dreaming you lowlife idiot.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 2:23 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Wonder what kind of lobby positions they will take??? They have certainly been pretty close with pharma and isnurance.

Stay tuned....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 2:50 PM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

I see Dorgan in the Obama cabinet - I doubt you will see Dodd lobbying. I may be wrong.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 3:03 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Yeah, that WOULD be the logical place for him. Along with the other shills.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 3:45 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Ed Schultz for Senator. What is this a "Franken did it, why shouldn't I" moment?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 10:25 AM   

I wouldn't actually call 3 a flood. Especially when Democrats are the wide majority in the house, senate and as governors.

It's a smart move early one to announce retirements of the long term officials, and let the new Democrat, new blood take it from there.

The mistake is thinking low polling for a particular Democrat, means other Democrats would even consider voting for a Republican. Especially since the GOP does not offer anything but being 'against' Progressive Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 10:40 AM   

Voinovich, Bond, Martinez, Bunning, Gregg all are retiring or already retired. Gov Rell in Ct also decided not to run for re-election. This is hardly unprecedented in this cycle.

As was mentioned Dodd retiring helps the Dems hold the seat. Dorgan is very likely a lost seat even if ed Shultz does run, but there are a couple chances for a seat pick-up with Carnahan in Missouri, Hodes in NH and even Ohio if the Machine wizened up and ran Brunner.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 10:50 AM    in reply to Walter Mitty

Good points all. IMHO Robin Carnahan has a very good chance against Roy "I want to abolish Medicare" Blunt here in Missouri.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 11:00 AM    in reply to Walter Mitty

I guess Christina was going for the hand-wringing and wailing response. Or perhaps some Chicken Little impressions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 11:40 AM    in reply to Walter Mitty

If Dorgan had stayed, odds of Hoeven entering the race were about 50-50. Dorgan would've swept the floor with Duane Sand and may have pulled off an upset against Hoeven. With Earl Pomeroy, odds against Hoeven drop quite a bit.

Carnahan is a shoo-in in MO; she comes from a respected political family and is viewed as an outsider...whereas Blunt is viewed as a selfish, out-of-touch Beltway obstructionist.

Hodes is facing an uphill challenge against the relatively moderate Ayotte. If NH goes with the conservative activist, Hodes' odds improve a bit (then again, this is the same state that elected Robert Smith...)

Brunner and Fisher are virtually interchangeable in the OH polls. All it takes is for either of them to tie Portman to Bush's economic policies and OH has a new Democratic senator

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 11:58 AM    in reply to EnnuiDivine

What are your feelings about Cal Cunningham in NC? He's a military vet and former JAG lawyer who went after contractor corruption while in that role. Burr is beatable, and has some negatives he'll have to explain away, including telling his wife to go hit up an ATM machine when he heard about the bank collapses, voting party line No against the Obama Administration who north Carolinians help elect, and specifically his vote against the Franken anti-contractor rape amendment and the Military Appropriations Bill to try and delay the healthcare vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 12:12 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

Cunningham is an intriguing candidate, but one without much name recognition. Unless he can really establish himself in a short amount of time, he risks the Burr campaign claiming him as "John Edwards with Military Experience".

Then again, Burr is a phenomenally weak candidate. He only won by 5% in 2004 (a strong year for the GOP) and has been on a downward slide since. Who knows what could happen?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 11:04 AM   

Bloggin makes a good point: retiring when Dems have a majority is a lot smarter and safer than ceding the field out of weakness.

So when you think about it, the article headline is kind of like spinning the arrival of reinforcements as a retreat by the besieged forces.

But it's pretty exceptional as one dimensional analysis goes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 11:18 AM   

The headline on the TPM page asks "Is [the] worst over?" Worst means most bad. How is Dodd's retirement in any way bad for Democrats?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 11:31 AM   

There's an unreported story here. It's too much of a coincidence that three major Democrats announce their retirements within a 24 hour period. Who made this happen all at once? What led them to do it now? And how did they do it?

Hint: The Washington parlor game only really involves question three.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 12:06 PM    in reply to Makeithappen44

Same way the GOP forced retirements on Bunning, Voinovich, Martinez, Bond and Gregg - all were running long odds against a Dem challenger. However were otherwise safer GOP seats with a new Republican running. It also locked in their party line votes the rest of the way out because they didn't have to worry about looking independent enough to vote against their party or try to appeal to Dem moderates, centrists and independents.

Dodd can go hard at the financial reforms bill he's working on now without having to worry about appeasing him bankster overlords who write campaign checks. Ed Shultz was contacted really quickly in ND as well, makes me believe he is the target of whoever hatched this plan. Raging, unapologetic everyman populist liberal is the only chance against Hoevan.

Every seat has a better chance at remaining in dem hands with the retirements yesterday. Dorgan could have battled Hoevan, but he probably doesn't have a hard campaign cycle in him at this stage. Hoevan vs Shultz would be a barn burner.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 12:06 PM   

At least in Colorado there are some good Democratic alternatives. The platform of the Republican, McGinnis (it hinges on tax cuts, deregulation, and gutting the few state agencies that have been able to attract or hold jobs in Colorado, if that can be believed of a Republican) has been so vague that even the can't-tell-it-from-the-Wall-Street-Journal editorial page of the Denver Post has been calling on him to be more specific. McGinnis also has developed a habit of losing his temper even in relatively friendly environments.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 1:38 PM    in reply to Butch

And what does the Democrat platform hinge on? Raising taxes, spending more money and growing the size of government? Wow, that is hard to believe coming from a Democrat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 3:50 PM    in reply to masanf

Guess you missed the whole health care thing that just happened, where all the big, bad tax-and-spend liberals had to make major compromises to the blue dog and conservative dems in order to get a major piece of legislation passed.

Sorry, dumbass, but the Democrats, for better or worse, really are the big-tent party. The Republicans are instituting purity tests. They will get the votes of mouthbreathers like you, but most voters will stay away from them in droves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 4:39 PM    in reply to masanf

More lies.

In the last year of Clinton's second term, the national debt decreased (in inflation-adjusted 2000 dollars) by $122 billion. From the start of his second term until the end, the national debt decreased by $2 billion. The debt-to-GDP ratio, a more important number, decreased by 0.2% during Clinton's first term and by 8.2% during his second term (the largest drop since the Johnson administration).

By contrast, the debt-to-GDP ratio increased by 11.3% and 9.2% during the first and second terms of Saint Ronald of Reagan, by 13.1% during George HW's term, and by 6.9% and 11.2% in George W's first and second terms. In (inflation-adjusted) dollar terms, the federal debt increased by 49% and 40% during Saint Ronnie's two terms, by 32.7% during HW's term, and by almost 23% during W's first term. Compared to a mere 13.2% increase in Clinton's first term, a 0.2% DECREASE during his second term, and a 0.4% decrease during Carter's single term, we begin to see who the real fiscally responsible people are.

I've previously debunked your lies on Republican vs. Democratic use of the filibuster. Any other talking points you want debunked, troll?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 12:46 PM   

Hey Chris Dodd don't the let the door hit ya in your corrupt backside.

Let's call this crook for what he is,He is not a progressive never was, just an opportunist all out for himself.

Reminds me of the guy who is Prez now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 1:39 PM   

Anyone who thinks a far-left nutbar like Ed Schultz has a chance of winning an election outside of Ann Arbor or Madison, WI or Berkeley is even more of an idiot than he is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 2:24 PM    in reply to masanf

I hope to hell ED doesn't run. He'd win for sure, but we'd lose a good muckraker in the process

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 2:49 PM    in reply to masanf

This coming from a far right nutjob like you!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 3:07 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Your Nader bashing smear tactics have become tiresome. Nobody takes you guys seriously anymore. I'm glad the number of independents is significantly up. Tells me this nation is waking up.

The Democrap brand has become nearly as soiled as the Republiturds and in only 1 year.

Congratulations!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 4:18 PM    in reply to JorgeOrwell

Nader bashing smear tactics. Are you serious - and just who the fuck do you think you are?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 4:22 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

A REAL liberal?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 4:10 PM   

Christina, on Colorado there are a couple things you've missed in your reporting.

First, there have been plenty of reports over the past many months that Romanoff's primary challenge against Bennet has been flailing badly. Romanoff isn't raising much money and isn't the least bit visible as a candidate. He looks like Colorado's answer to Creigh Deeds, although even Deeds at least raised serious money even if throwing it all away. So calling his challenge to Bennet "stiff" is a misstatement, as it's been anything but. Accordingly, it's also not necessarily in Colorado Democrats' best interest to have Romanoff as a the gubernatorial nominee, as his ability to run a competent statewide operation is in serious doubt.

Second, Marc Ambinder in a serious tease today posts on his Atlantic "Politics Channel" blog that the Obama Administration knew Ritter's withdrawal was coming and also that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar might jump into the Governor's race. Ambinder says Salazar long has WANTED to be Governor.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 4:34 PM   

Since the CT seat seems safe for the Dems I'll return to what I said a couple of months ago. It would be good for the rank and file Democrats if a few of the old time Pols who are tied in to the Wall Street bankers and the Corporate boys lost their seats. I mentioned Dodd as one in particular.

Maybe if a few of them lost their seats others might notice and we could return to a more liberal/progressive party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 6, 2010 5:26 PM    in reply to JohnW1141

I'm with you. Nothing wrong with new blood. And if a few seats go to Republicans, I'm not too worried...that "filibuster-proof 60 votes" thing is just bullshit, as we saw with health care reform. Any major legislation will require concessions, even if there were 65 Democrats in the Senate, because there will always be a good number of centrists and conservatives that will need appeasing. And I'm still not convinced that Republicans are going to make a major "comeback" in 2010, what with the tea partiers forcing out moderate GOPers, and making Democrats more attractive to independents in the process.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on