I'll be an optimist and say that I don't think Democratic House gains have maxed out yet.

It would be good to make even modest gains in 2010 to set up for a strong position after the redistricting after the 2010 census.

The 2010 gubernatorial and state legislative races are of prime importance as well.

Finally, my early look at the US Senate says, barring retirements, the Democrats have 2-3 potentially vulnerable seats to the Republicans 7.  It would be great if we could go three cycles in a row with no Senate turnovers.

I think we'll all do well to lower expectations for the 2010 House elections, as we've netted 54 seats in two elections, with three more that may potentially go our way yet this year (OH-15, CA-04, and the run-off in LA-04).  We've swept out most of the easy pickings, there aren't many Republicans left in Dem-leaning districts, and there probably won't be as many GOP retirements in 2010 as there was this past cycle (almost thirty, was it?).  We're playing in harder terrain, and we've extended ourselves pretty far into red territory and we'll be playing some tough defense.

THAT SAID.  From a cursory look at expected 2010 battlegrounds we stand a pretty good chance of maintaining almost all of our gains from 2006 and 2008.  Just as 2006 revealed weaknesses among many uncontested Republicans, 2008 revealed even more.  I'm cautiously optimistic that our winning streak isn't over just yet.

As for the Senate, due to the cycling nature of the seats up, it's going to be another bloodbath for the GOP as we don't have to defend any of our 2006/2008 gains yet.

What does this mean...He's withdrawing from Democratic Caucus Chair race?  

I think I would rather have him get that job than continue on at the DCCC.  In terms of advancing the progressive cause the other job would have been more important

I checked the close House races and, even with the net perhaps somewhat below expectation, we did better than normal in the tight races. I always define those as within 4 points, since merely a 2 point sway would reverse the outcome. This year Democrats are 13-9 in those races.

When Rahm Emmanuel was at the head of the DCCC, it seemed like it was a constant battle between him, Howard Dean, and the Netroots when it came to the 50-state strategy and certain Democratic primaries. Under Van Hollen, it's seemed a lot better. He's embraced the "compete everywhere" idea and he's been friendly to the Netroots-- or, at least, hasn't antagonized them.

I'd say there are still plenty of seats that can be picked up in 2010 (MI-08 and MI-11 are at the top of my personal list), but I wouldn't be surprised to see the DCCC shift more resources toward incumbent protection. Unless things shift significantly (and it is two years away), I say we pick up a net of 7-10 seats next time.

     I agree with Skaje. After picking up a net of about 50 seats in the last two cycles, and given the tendency for the presidential party to lose seats in the midterm election, the job of the DCCC probably shifts from offense to defense for 2010, before a renewed offensive in 2012, when there will be newly-drawn seats and presidential coattails. In terms of losing seats, the last two congressional elections were the worst consecutive years for the Republicans since 1930 and 1932, and anybody who survived them is likely to hang on in 2010. There will be a few opportunities where Republicans in blue districts retire, but we now have a large Democratic majority and probably a progressive majority as well, and can now concentrate on the "better" part of "more and better Democrats". More Democratic members from red districts may only dilute progressive clout in the House.