Karl Rove wrote in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:
History will favor Republicans in 2010. Since World War II, the out-party has gained an average of 23 seats in the U.S. House and two in the U.S. Senate in a new president's first midterm election. Other than FDR and George W. Bush, no president has gained seats in his first midterm election in both chambers. Since 1966, the incumbent party has lost an average of 63 state senate and 262 state house seats, and six governorships, in a president's first midterm election. That 2010 is likely to see Republicans begin rebounding just before redistricting is one silver lining in an otherwise dismal year for the GOP.
Republicans may have history on their side, but the landscape for the 2010 Senate races, at least, looks pretty inhospitable for the GOP, as Chris Cillizza writes today:
Republicans must defend 19 seats including six (North Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio) in states won by President-elect Barack Obama earlier this month. Democrats have far less vulnerability; only one incumbent up for re-election (Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar) won with less than 55 percent of the vote in 2004 and several potential races are entirely contingent on one Republican candidate deciding to run.
In addition to Colorado, the best opportunities for Republicans to pick up seats are in Nevada, where Harry Reid has had some very low approval ratings, and North Dakota, where the race would be a competitive race if the state's popular Republican governor jumps in. Of course, no one thought in 2004 that Democrats would win, or even seriously compete, in Montana and Virginia. There's great potential for Democratic overreach, and it would be a shame if Republicans failed again to recruit candidates for some races.