The concept of a Democratic super majority, in which the party achieves 60 seats in the Senate after the 2008 election, has increasingly cropped up in recent weeks, thanks to a New York Times story that first raised the prospect. Today, American Spectator associate editor James Antle tackles the same subject, wondering whether the party can actually run the table and reach a majority large enough to effectively shut Republicans out of the process.

But is such a large gap actually achievable? Probably not, as veteran analyst Stu Rothenberg wrote soon after the Times story appeared.

For Democrats to reach such a milestone, they would essentially have to run the table. The party is likely to pick up seats in Virginia, New Hampshire and New Mexico, and Republican-held seats in Minnesota, Alaska and Colorado remain strong opportunities for them. Assuming they pick up all five -- not a safe bet in the latter three, to be sure, especially if Alaska's Ted Stevens decides against another bid or loses his primary -- they will still fall three seats short of the magic number.

The party has made little secret of the fact that Senators Susan Collins, of Maine, and Gordon Smith, of Oregon, are top targets. That leaves Democrats one short of a super majority, and as they cast about for new targets, the terrain becomes decidedly more difficult.

To reach 60, Democrats will need to pick up one of the following states: North Carolina, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Kentucky.

In North Carolina, first-term Senator Elizabeth Dole has faced a tough six years. But the state is likely to go Republican in the presidential contest, and Dole's likely challenger, State Senator Kay Hagan, is little-known around the Tar Heel State. Dole had $2.6 million in the bank at the end of the year, and though Hagan raised an impressive $515,000, running as a Democrat against such a well-known incumbent in a Republican state will be exceedingly difficult.

Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe has never topped 57% in a state that votes even more heavily Republican than North Carolina, but he's faced some tough opponents: In 1994, he beat an incumbent Congressman for a partial term after Democrat David Boren stepped down. In 1996, he won a full term against Boren's cousin James, who, though underfunded, carried a well-known name. In 2002, he beat former Governor David Walters. This year, Inhofe will likely face State Senator Andrew Rice, a candidate without the footprint of any of Inhofe's three previous challengers.

Roger Wicker, appointed senator after the departure of Trent Lott, will likely face his toughest election this year, against former Governor Ronnie Musgrove. But Musgrove lost his 2003 bid for re-election to now-Governor Haley Barbour, and recent legal proceedings that might involve a previous run for office don't look good for the Democrat. Wicker will also benefit from two sets of coattails: Those of John McCain, who will be strong in the state, and of senior Senator Thad Cochran, who is running for re-election this year. Musgrove's bid remains a long shot.

Finally, a good way to beat an incumbent is to catch them off guard, as happened to several incumbents in 2006. But if any candidate is not going to be caught off guard, it will be Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Though MoveOn.org and other interest groups will target McConnell as national Republicans targeted then-Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota, McConnell has a $9 million bank account and is aware of the threat he faces. His likely Democratic opponent, two-time gubernatorial candidate Bruce Lunsford, will be well-funded too, but McConnell's name is likely too big to overcome.

In short, Democrats will be lucky to get to 57 or 58 seats in the Senate. Every year, close Senate races tend to break all in the same direction, as Antle points out -- Republicans won all the close races in 2002, except South Dakota, and Democrats did the same in 2006, with the exception of Tennessee. This year, though, it is hard to see how any of the four third-tier races will be close to begin with.

For Democrats, the idea of a super majority after 2008 is like buying a lottery ticket: The investment pays off in pleasant dreams, if not in reality.