But the facts don't pan out. As the article gets to eventually:
There is some silver lining in the Democratic cloud: Ritter, Cherry and Dodd were all struggling to gain traction and their departures could actually increase Democratic chances of holding those offices.
If they want to make an argument that Dorgan's retirement was an important indicator fine, but the others are actually good news. So how could 75% of the events be good for the party's chances but the overall story be advanced as something bad.
The reality is that if Democrats want to hold their own or actually win this year, we have to get rid of dead weight, and then go forward with a lean agenda. It is usually difficult to convince politiicans that they should retire. Look at Blago in Illinois, Corzine in New Jersey, Jefferson in La. and so on. It's not just Democrats look back to last year with Ted Stevens.
But the fact is it wouldn't be as good a story to write, "Democrats improve 2010 chances with unpopular politicians deciding against running again."
It might make it in the next round of stories.