Stuart Rothenberg has an analytical piece up that looks at the likelihood that the Republicans will gain or lose seats in the House in the 2010 election. His conclusion is that the Republicans have better odds of gaining seats than losing them, but his analysis is based entirely on the partisan lean of marginal seats and some historical data. He doesn't look, at all, at the current strategies of the major parties and how those strategies are likely to play out and be received by the American public.

In one regard, I agree with Rothenberg doing his analysis this way. The Democrats have picked all the low hanging fruit in the last two elections and the Republicans that remain have demonstrated a Darwinian ability to survive. But I have to disagree that the odds favor the Republicans.

I think that politics matters and that the Republicans are not showing any political savvy. I don't see much reason for the electorate to vote out any of the Democrats they've recently elected. There are perhaps a half-dozen Democratic seats that are really vulnerable: Frank Kratovil (MD-01), Walt Minnick (ID-01), and Bobby Bright (AL-02) all come to mind. There are also about a half dozen Republican seats that are obviously vulnerable. The most likely outcome of the 2010 elections is actually that very few incumbents are voted out of office, despite the potential for some fairly widespread dissatisfaction with the state of the economy. The reason? The Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to make them a more attractive alternative but most of the seats they hold have a very strong partisan lean.

However, the Republicans still have to worry. They are likely to see a lot of retirements because it just isn't any fun to be a Republican member of the House right now. Republicans that think they have a shot at the governor's mansion (e.g., Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania) or Senate (e.g., Mark Kirk of Illinois and Kit Bond of Missouri) are likely to take it. Others will simply find some cushy job or go into true retirement. The NRCC is likely to lag badly behind the DCCC in fundraising and that will make recruitment even harder than it already is in the current environment.

It's true that the Republicans are not at much risk of losing another twenty seats, but they could easily lose a dozen or so, while only winning one or two. Given the Republicans' refusal to articulate a coherent federal response to the economic crisis, their fundraising and recruitment disadvantage, and the higher level of open seats that they'll have to defend, it is grossly optimistic to think they will gain seats. And, if they do, it will almost certainly be a small handful that makes no difference in the power dynamic in DC.

The Democrats could make some new inroads, although they are not likely to make much more progress until redistricting takes effect for the 2012 elections. The Dems could pick of some of the Miami seats, start making gains in California (where they've only netted one seat in the last two wave elections), and clean up a little in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Minnesota. It's not impossible that the Dems will continue to see a trickle of seats flip in the South, too, although they've come close to maxing out there. Still, there are seats in Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia that are somewhat vulnerable.

My overall prediction is that the Dems will win about eight seats and lose about two, netting six. Alternatively, the Republicans might pick up about six and lose four, netting two. That's about the extent of the best-case/worst-case range that I see right now. There's just too much gerrymandering for another wave election...methinks.