Still Not Worried About 2010, Part 2

Why am I so calm?  Dems are retiring.  Rasmussen has Republicans up by nine on the generic ballot.  Pundits on the GOP side are no longer talking about 1994, they're talking about worse than 1994 for the Dems, as in how they will not only easily recapture the House but the Senate as well.

To which I say  "Not so fast.  You guys are broke."

A 2009 spending spree has left the Republican National Committee (RNC) with its worst election-year cash flow this decade.

The largest GOP party committee has $8.7 million in the bank heading into an election year with 37 governors’ races, a dozen major Senate contests, dozens more in the House and an all-important redistricting cycle on the horizon.

Said one RNC official: “It is very troubling, and the thing is, most people don’t understand this. But it is really troubling.”

The RNC had $22.8 million in cash and no debt when Michael Steele was elected chairman at the end of January, but has since seen its cash on hand drop to less than $9 million at the end of November.

Over the previous five months, while governors’ battles were being waged in New Jersey and Virginia, the committee saw its cash reserves drop by a full $15 million. Through November, the committee spent more than $90 million last year, which is nearly $20 million more than the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

“They’re spending money at 2002 levels when they are not raising money at those levels,” said a GOP operative. “That kind of thing worked when RNC was awash in money, but you can’t do that in this environment.”

What?  I thought the environment meant Republicans taking over easily.  Could it be that America still hates the GOP more than they hate the Dems right now?

You betcha.  People are mad at the Dems...but not as mad as they still are at the Republicans after eight years of Bush.  They're not about to put the Republicans back in charge.

[UPDATE 12:29 PM]  Steve Benen also picks up on this:

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?

Among governors, several incumbents in both parties are term-limited and prevented from running again, but only three Democrats who can seek re-election -- Parkinson in Kansas, Doyle in Wisconsin, and Ritter in Colorado -- have chosen not to. For Republicans, the number is four -- Douglas in Vermont, Rell in Connecticut, Crist in Florida, and Pawlenty in Minnesota. (Update: the GOP number is five if we include Palin in Alaska.)

So, to review, Republican retirements outnumber Democratic retirements in the House, in the Senate, and among governors. The preferred Republican/media meme of the day doesn't match up well against reality.

Once again, if this is such a good year for Republicans, and Republicans are supposedly just a year away from opening the next Congress with control of both chambers, why are so many Republicans ditching out?