Obama, 60 senators and the 2010 senate races

Lets assume Obama wins in 2008 and we get 56 senators, which is good but the GOP can still filibuster with that amount. My understanding from groups like 538 is that 56 is a reasonable number of senators (58-60 would be better), but if the dems only get 56, then it could be hard to get meaningful legislation passed for unions, healthcare, foreign policy, the economy, taxes, etc.

In 2004 Bush's coattails helped the GOP pick up 4 seats, and in the 2010 election there will be 19 GOP and 15 dem seats up for reelection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010

I really want to see progressive changes, but don't know if it is possible without 58 or more democrat senators. If the dems only walk away from 2008 with 56 senators, does the landscape for the 2010 senate race look good for a couple more pickups?

It seems like several of the states that the GOP won were close (<5% victory). Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina & South dakota.


Is it likely that the dem gains in voter registration and party identification will carry over until the 2010 midterm elections, and we will see a true filibuster proof majority? In between the Obama campaign, the primary and various progressive GOTV efforts, a few million dems are being registered or have been registered.

So if the dems walk away from 2008 with Obama and 56-57 senators, are they likely to pick another 2 or 3 up in 2010 and get a true filibuster proof majority?

Arlen Specter's seat will open up, and George Voinovich might be in trouble, or decide to retire.