I just posted about the individual aspects of Indiana Senator Bayh's decision to resign, but what about the national implications? Congresspersons and Senators of all stripes seem to be resigning in droves rather than face another reelection battle. (The resident wag points out that skunks have stripes too, but doesn't know if a group of skunks is a "drove.")
Obviously, the factors I mentioned in my Bayh item play a big role. People see a Republican-created economic meltdown but are also fed up with the a do-nothing Democratic-led Congress that seems unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Obama's favorability ratings suffer along with the Congress that he relied on too much without being willing or able to crack enough heads to bring about a semblance of productive party unity.
Pundits predict net Democratic losses -- that's a pretty safe bet in any off-year between Presidential elections. The question is how much of a loss the Dems might suffer, and while political observers naturally succumb to the temptation to predict, I don't think it's really determinable at this point.
Although so far more Republicans than Democrats have resigned, analysts remain focused on the Democratic side. That's based mainly on a look at the specific constituencies of the resigners -- where an outgoing incumbent is likely to be replaced by a member of his own party, and where not. However, the tendency to focus on Democrats is enhanced by several factors: There's more drama in a loss of majority; resigning Democrats comprise more prominent, senior legislators including several hallowed dynasty-names (Bayh, Dodd, Kennedy) among them; and finding a suitable Republican candidate to replace an exiting incumbent is an easier job - they won't have trouble learning their lines quickly (NO to everything!).
But given that only 36% of voters now say they would vote to reelect their incumbent, Republicans may also suffer losses. A great deal will depend on the individual candidates selected.
The "rash" of resignations isn't yet as great a flood as it seems. According to something I've read but can't find now, there are so far 43 announced resignations from the Senate and House at this point. In 2008, a total of 39 resigned before elections. This isn't exactly a sea change in my book, though it won't take too many more throwing in the towel to make it one.
To the extent it becomes a flood, I think one of the more interesting political questions is why so many battle-hardened political veterans would, in this particular election, give up in unison. The anti-incumbent mood of the country provides one answer and I take it as a hopeful sign. For too long, incumbents seeking reelection have won, thanks to built-in advantages of name recognition, funding, and gerrymandering. A shakeup can't hurt. A shakeup of, say, 100 changeovers rather than just 43, would be significant and might even indicate that, win or lose in personal or Party popularity, Obama's message of doing things differently has resonated in the electorate.
Could we see a new Congress in early 2011 that's actually more productive than the logjam we have now? I won't hold my breath, but it's a possibility.