“If Democrats lose,” reads the Politico Magazine headline, “blame these guys.” The “guys” in question are five Democratic Senators who announced retirements since 2012 rather than face re-election, all of which are in red or purple states when it comes to national elections. Kyle Kondik argues that the empty seats made it easier for Republicans in this cycle to win six seats and regain control of the upper chamber:

If Republicans capture control of the U.S. Senate, there will be many explanations for their victory: President Obama’s poor numbers, a great Senate map filled with attractive opportunities, a generally strong slate of candidates, the success of establishment-backed Republicans in primaries and others.

But one of the biggest factors will have hardly anything to do with the national political climate or, really, the campaign as a whole. Five Democrats, all of whom are old enough to be eligible for Medicare, decided not to run for another term in the Senate. Their decisions, all announced before May 2013, are a huge but largely forgotten boon to GOP hopes.

The five retirements were: Max Baucus of Montana, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Carl Levin of Michigan and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. (A sixth, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, had announced his retirement, but he later died: Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat, now holds the seat after a special election last year.)

Retirements present a challenge for the incumbent party because it’s easier for a party to hold a Senate seat when an incumbent runs for reelection. Significantly easier.

That’s true, and it’s one of the reasons why people have so much frustration with campaign finance regulation. Most of it, and especially the McCain-Feingold Act, serves as regulatory incumbent protection. That is also one reason that the candidates and the winners in Congressional races have become wealthier prior to their entry to Congress; the parties look for people who can spend their own money to get elected, with mixed results. When incumbents choose not to run, it does make it easier for the other party to win the seat, without a doubt.

But this argument still misses a key point, which is why Democrats felt compelled to retire in this cycle. None of them are spring chickens, of course, but members of the club aren’t usually inclined to retire unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Lautenberg returned after his retirement and stuck around until he passed away at 89 years of age. None of the other retirees were as old, especially not Tim Johnson, who had been ill during his previous term with a stroke but fully recovered to win re-election in 2008. Johnson is 68, and Rockefeller 77, while Baucus is 72 and Harkin 75. Carl Levin is the elder statesman among this class, having turned 80 in June. For Senators, that’s practically middle age.

Why, then, did these Democrats decide to retire? The same reason that most members of Congress retire voluntarily — to get out before they fall into the minority. It’s no secret that sixth-year midterms tend to be hard on the party that controls the White House, and Barack Obama’s numbers began falling in the middle of last year thanks to an eruption of scandals and displays of incompetence. These Democrats wanted to get out while the getting was good, rather than have to face voters angry over the Obama administration’s policies and performance — and Obama’s summer swoon makes them look like clairvoyants, too. So, if Democrats lose the Senate, it might be in part because the retirements made it easier, but the retirements were a symptom, not a cause.

Besides, as I write today at The Fiscal Times, the finger pointing may not take place if the media keeps the midterm elections a secret:

Fortunately for Obama and the Democrats, the media still isn’t paying attention. The Media Research Center did a comparative study between media coverage of the 2006 midterms, which looked just as bad for Republicans for at least as long, and this year’s midterms with Democrats on the ropes. Between September 1 and October 20 in 2006, the three broadcast networks ran 159 reports on the midterm elections, 91 of which were full reports and the remainder mentions in other stories. The electorate knew full well what was coming in November 2006.

This year … not so much. The network news broadcasts have only aired twenty-five midterm stories combined. All eleven of the stories on NBC’s Nightly News have been “short mentions of individual contests” rather than in-depth reports on specific races, down from 65 in 2006. CBS Evening News dropped from 58 reports to 14. At least both did better than ABC’s World News Tonight, which has filed exactly zero reports on the elections.

Barack Obama and the Democrats will be held accountable for their performance over the last two years on November 4th. One has to wonder whether the Big Three broadcasters will cover the outcome at all, or better yet, be held accountable for their performance and their biased approach in the aftermath.

But if they do bother to cover the results in case of a big Republican wave, they can always follow Politico’s lead and blame it on Five (Retired) Guys.