In Which Zandar Answers Your Burning Questions

Over at National Journal, Sam Baker and Sophie Novak ask:

If the Supreme Court Breaks Obamacare, Will Republicans Fix It?

Republicans want the Supreme Court to blow a major hole in Obamacare next year, but they are still debating whether they would help repair it—and what they should ask for in return. 

There's a very real chance the high court will invalidate Obamacare's insurance subsidies in most of the country, which would be devastating for the health care law. It would become almost entirely unworkable in most states, and the cost of coverage would skyrocket. 

That loss for the Affordable Care Act might seem like a clear-cut political win for the GOP, but the reality would be far messier. The law would still require people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, leaving people on the hook for a product that—sans subsidies—they could not afford. And as many of those people live in Republican-run states or 2016 battlegrounds, they'll be asking for a solution. 

That would leave Republicans with a difficult choice: Do they continue to push for an all-out repeal of the law—creating a standoff with Democrats who will dig in in the hopes of legislation undoing the Supreme Court's decision—or do they seek a deal that alleviates the law's burden on those who've lost their subsidies? Such a deal would likely include pullbacks of major parts of the law, but it would also require Republicans to give up on a full "root-and-branch" repeal.

Let's be honest here. A SCOTUS decision that wrecks Obamacare here will absolutely, positively be a 100% clear-cut political win for the GOP.

After SCOTUS destroys federal exchange subsidies, Republicans will then demand Obamacare be fully repealed and doing so will become the major campaign issue of 2016, because Democrats are pathetic, whining losers.

States with federal-run exchanges include Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin and Michigan, the states that will pretty much decide 2016's White House winner.  And Republicans in those states know damn well they can run ads saying OBAMACARE WILL COST YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A MONTH NOW and they won't have to lift a finger to fix a damn thing, and most likely they'll win easily.

Since when do voters punish Republicans for wrecking the country when they can blame Obama and win?

What's the downside?

Barney, Frankly On Occupy Wall Street

Rep. Barney Frank had some tough love for Occupy Wall Street protesters on Rachel Maddow's show on Monday night:  Where were you guys in November 2010 when we needed you in the voting booth?

[S]imply being in a public place and voicing your opinion in and of itself doesn't do anything politically. It is the prerequisite, I hope, for people getting together and voting and engaging things.

And I understand some of the people on Occupy Wall Street are kind of critical of that. They think that's conventional politics.

Well, you know, the most successful organization in America in getting its views adopted is the National Rifle Association. They are in many cases a minority. But in addition to everything else they do, they very effectively identify who the members of the Congress are, the legislatures and vote for them.

So, as I said, I welcome the Wall Street energy. I don't agree with everything some of the people say. I agree with the general thrust of it. But it's not self-executing. It has to be translated into political activity if it's going to have the impact. And -- you know, I would just say, the last thing, we had an election last year in which people who disagree with them, and disagree with me and with you, got elected.

I want to be honest again here. I don't know what the voting behavior is of all these people, but I'm a little bit unhappy when people didn't vote last time blame me for the consequences of their not voting.

And he has a very salient point.  If you agree with the Occupy Together movement and you choose not to vote, then the Republicans win.  Really is that simple.

So What The Hell Happened?

The retiring Boomers and Seniors turned out in massive numbers for the Republicans, and younger voters, African-Americans, and Latinos didn't turn out for the Dems.  Really is that simple.  The electorate this time around skewed some 41% conservative, 29% moderate, and only 20% liberal.

And those Seniors turned out in massive numbers for the Tea Party because of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent scaring them.  Some 40% of Americans said that they were worse off than they were two years ago. So why didn't minority voters and younger voters turn out?  It probably has to do with the much, much higher unemployment numbers among African-Americans (16.1% by last count) and Americans under 25 (12.4%) than the national average.  Some ten million more voters turned out for the GOP nationally adding up all the Senate results.

But the biggest losers?  The House Blue Dog Dems.  Out of 54 Blue Dogs, 28 of them lost, four more are down to the wire.

There's a lesson there if the Dems choose to heed it.

And with that, I retire the 2010 Election tag.  On to 2012.

Last Call

Consider this an open thread for election night.

Things are looking bad for the Dems, and that MSNBC is predicting a far better night for the GOP than expected.  We'll see tomorrow.

A Point For The Good Guys

As ABC News tells Andrew Breitbart "Thanks, but you're fired."

Dear Mr. Breitbart,

We have spent the past several days trying to make clear to you your limited role as a participant in our digital town hall to be streamed on ABCNews.com and Facebook.   The post on your blog last Friday created a widespread impression that you would be analyzing the election on ABC News.   We made it as clear as possible as quickly as possible that you had been invited along with numerous others to participate in our digital town hall.  Instead of clarifying your role, you posted a blog on Sunday evening in which you continued to claim a bigger role in our coverage.  As we are still unable to agree on your role, we feel it best for you not to participate.

Sincerely,
Andrew Morse

Naturally, the wingers are going bugnuts saying that Brietbart is being "muzzled" and ABC "caved to fascist liberal pressure."   Interestingly enough the winger site trumpting this the most is Breitbart's own Big Government site.

The Left nauseatingly pays lip service to the terms “tolerance” and “diversity.” In reality, they are highly intolerant and they hate diversity, particularly diversity of thought. They hate free markets and really loathe free marketplaces of ideas. As such, the stompy foot temper tantrums were in full force when it was announced that Andrew Breitbart and Dana Loesch, would be participating in ABC’s election night coverage. A coordinated effort between the usual suspects immediately, and predictably, sprung up. How dare ABC include people who won’t merely spout the Left’s talking points and somehow blame George W. Bush and people too stupid to understand the “nuance” of Democrats and their policies?

And you wondered why ABC dropped the guy.

Some Much Needed Perspective

To those folks who are just too cool to vote and would rather just run down to the coffee shop for some java, remember that you live in a place where the Starbucks don't tend to explode.

Sixteen bombs went off across Iraq's capital on Tuesday, many at coffee shops full of civilians. Officials said the death toll was at least 42, but that number could keep climbing as rescuers reach the scenes.

"Ten cars exploded with bombs inside them. There were also four roadside bombs and two sticky bombs," said Baghdad security spokesman Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi. "(They were) all in Shiite neighborhoods."

Officials said more than 100 people were injured.

As I was telling my friend today, too many people who are much better human beings than I will ever be sacrificed too much for me not to be able to vote, and America used to be a place where someone like myself didn't have the right to do so. That changed because people gave a damn and wanted to see it change.

So you can get off your ass now and go vote, thank you.

Compromising Position

If anyone still at this late hour is convinced that House Republicans have any intention of working with President Obama to solve America's problems, allow Dan Benishek of Michigan to disabuse of the notion.  Here's his commercial against Bart Stupak of MI-1:



Any questions on that whole "work together to help the American people" thing?

You're So Vain, You Probably Think This Moose's About You

Would someone care to explain to me why this election is supposedly really about a woman who lost in 2008, quit in 2009, and isn't on the ballot or in office in 2010?

“There is a determined, focused establishment effort ... to find a candidate we can coalesce around who can beat Sarah Palin,” said one source.

“We believe she could get the nomination, but Barack Obama would crush her.”

Speaking on Fox News, where she is employed as an analyst, Mrs Palin said: “This is a joke to have unnamed sources tearing somebody apart limb by limb.

“If they would man up and if they would, you know, make these claims against me then I can debate them, I can talk about it, but to me they’re making stuff up again.”

She continued: “I don’t think the paper that we just printed this article on, you know, it’s not worth even wrapping my King Salmon in. I’ll just ignore this crap.”

Earlier, she called KTVA television station in Alaska “corrupt bastards” after a recording emerged in which reporters were purportedly discussing how to sabotage the Senate campaign of Joe Miller, the Tea Party candidate backed by Mrs Palin.

“I can’t wait until it busts out all over the nation to show what it is that we, kind of what I put up with for two years now with the media,” she said. 

Do we not have more serious things to worry about here in 2010 other than Sarah Palin's obviously bruised ego, people?

Geez.

The Sixteen Percent Solution

Sixteen percent:  that's Nate Silver's final odds of the Dems keeping the House.

Our forecasting model, which is based on a consensus of indicators including generic ballot polling, polling of local districts, expert forecasts, and fund-raising data, now predicts an average Republican gain of 54 seats (up one from 53 seats in last night’s forecast), and a median Republican gain of 55 seats. These figures would exceed the 52 seats that Republicans won from Democrats in the 1994 midterms.

Moreover, given the exceptionally large number of seats in play, the Republicans’ gains could be significantly higher; they have better than a one-in-three chance of winning at least 60 seats, a one-in-six chance of winning at least 70 seats, and have some realistic chance of a gain exceeding 80 seats, according to the model.

However, the same factors that could provide Republicans with extraordinarily large gains if their turnout is strong tomorrow could also cut against them if Democrats turn out in greater numbers than expected, or if the polling has underestimated the Democrats’ standing.

It's that last caveat that I think will break in the Dems favor in a lot of close races.  Yes, a lot of seats are in play, 100+ by some counts.  The odds of the GOP taking all 100 of them are slim to none, but if the polls are underestimating the Dems, it could be a very shocking night.  Nate also has his reasons to believe the Dems may survive this mess and it's worth a read.  He concludes:

The case that Democrats could do better than expected — not well, by any means, merely better than expected — rests a little more in the realm of what artists call negative space: not what there is, but in what there isn’t. There aren’t 50, or even more than about 25, districts in which Republican candidates are unambiguous favorites. There isn’t agreement among pollsters about how the enthusiasm gap is liable to manifest itself. There isn’t any one poll or one forecasting method that is clairvoyant, or that hasn’t made some pretty significant errors in the past.

Instead, the case for Democrats is basically: yes, the news is bad, it just isn’t exactly as bad as you think, or at least we can’t be sure that it is. This isn’t a sexy argument to make.

Nor, probably, will it turn out to be the correct one; more likely than not, Republicans will indeed win the House, and will do so by a significant margin. But just as Republicans could beat the consensus, Democrats could too, and nobody should be particularly shocked if they do.

Not a lot to hang your hat on as a Dem, but there are legitimate ways the Dems can hold the House, just as there are legitimate ways the Republicans could have the best midterm in a century.

Vote.  I did.  I live in freaking Kentucky.  Odds are pretty good you live in a state with somewhat better prospects for the Democrats.

Other Propositions

It's not just candidates out there being decided on, but a number of propositions as well.  None is more controversial than California's Prop 19 legalizing marijuana, but that faces an uphill battle as California seniors are overwhelmingly against it by a nearly 3 to 1 margin.

Kevin Drum has a rundown of the rest of California's propositions this year.  The most interesting one is Prop 23, which would strike down the state's greenhouse gas emissions laws until the state was under 5.5% unemployment, effectively meaning never.

Prop 25 would allow California to pass a budget with a simple majority instead of requiring a 2/3rds majority, and given the state's hideous budget battles, I bet it passes.

On the other hand, Prop 26 would add the 23rds majority requirement on any local fee increases, and Prop 27 would eliminate all the state's redistricting reforms, so there's a lot at stake in the Golden State other than Mary Jane.

Remember, one out of seven of us live in California, so these propositions will have a major impact on the country as well.

Vote.  I'm heading out right now.

Last Call

This Tea-ranny of the majority stuff is getting serious.  Scott Rasmussen of Rassmussen Reports on the election:

Voters today want hope and change every bit as much as in 2008. But most have come to recognize that if we have to rely on politicians for the change, there is no hope. At the same time, Americans instinctively understand that if we can unleash the collective wisdom and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, there are no limits to what we can accomplish.

In this environment, it would be wise for all Republicans to remember that their team didn't win, the other team lost. Heading into 2012, voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless they are given a reason not to do so.

Elected politicians also should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.

And remember, Scotty here is a professional, serious pollster here basically justifying mob rule.  Ben Franklin had one for this situation too:  "A republic, if you can keep it."

Looks like we're about to cash ours in for some good old fashioned pitchforks and torches.

Vote tomorrow, folks.

Reality Check

Here's the kind of thing that shows what Dems are up against tomorrow.

Numerous Fox affiliates and an ABC affiliate are broadcasting a vicious 25-minute infomercial that accuses President Barack Obama of harboring "hostility" towards America and ties him to malicious rhetoric.


The ad, called "Breaking Point," was paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC, and since Friday has run in Iowa, Kentucky, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Its existence was highlighted by the liberal blog ThinkProgress, a project of the progressive thinktank, Center for American Progress.

It chides the "destructive ideology of leftist revolutionaries," refers to the president as a "socialist," and claims the views of Democrats are "far too extreme for Americans to accept."

"During the 2008 campaign, President Obama pretended to turn his back on some extremists from his past," the infomercial says. "You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You gonna have to kill some of those babies."

It also accused President Obama of raising campaign cash from Hamas.

“During his presidential election, he wound up with a record-shattering $750 million in his campaign," the ad intones. "To this day he refuses to report from whence it came. One reason might be that some of it originated from the terrorist group Hamas, which also endorsed Obama.”

And thanks to the Supreme Court, the National Republican Trust PAC can get all the airplay out of this they can here tonight and tomorrow.  It's all complete garbage, but you're infringing on free speech if you refuse to air it, and plus the donors to this PAC are...wait for it...anonymous!

To recap, one side is saying "I know times are tough but we have a lot of work to do and we need your vote."  The other side is saying "President Obama wants to kill Whitey and takes Muslim terrorist cash!"

But I know, I know, "both sides are guilty", right?

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

Steve M. on tomorrow's likely scenario:

We're going to get trounced because the vast majority of people in the Democratic coalition are people who don't read political blogs all day and who watch CSI rather than Rachel Maddow. No one's given them a reason to feel hope, and no one's made a case they find persuasive for why they should remain patient -- not the administration, not the Democratic Party, and not us (our message doesn't even filter down to them indirectly, the way the right blogosphere's does to rank-and-file right-wingers, via Fox and talk radio). And we never laid the groundwork to make these people progressive Democrats, not just folks who happened to vote Democratic in 2006 and 2008. I think we just assumed they'd keep turning out, based on their demography and our expectation that they'd continue to loathe the GOP and admire Obama.

It doesn't work that way. The party and especially the White House needed to find a way to keep their hope alive over the past two bleak years; we needed to recognize the fact that they aren't us and therefore they don't instantly see what we see when we look at the right wing. They don't obsess over politics in general the way we do, so they don't grasp the very subtle arguments for why Obama's been at least a partial success.

I say this kind of thing all the time. I'm just saying it again because blaming people like ourselves for the enthusiasm gap is one more sign that we don't understand our own coalition, and thus one more reason we have such trouble preventing it from falling apart.

I'll go one step further.

If you voted for Obama two years ago and have since lost your job, home, or a loved one in Afghanistan or Iraq, why the hell should you get off your ass and pull the lever for anyone?  I can certainly see that.

I've laid out the reasons why over the last two years.  Now how do I compete with FOX News on that message?

Answer?  I don't.  When reality has a well known liberal bias, you win by simply creating a new reality.  Obama is a Muslim.  Obama raised your taxes.  The stimulus cost jobs.  Health care reform will destroy the country.  Obama is the most hated President ever.

The reward for doing the right thing is to lose.

So our country goes, straight to hell.  Hope the GOP can fix the economy, Foreclosuregate, too big to fail, currency wars with China and Europe, global warming, aftereffects of the Gulf oil disaster, Iran, Afghanistan, the budget, education, and everything else.  When they don't, will voters remove them from office in two years?

Doubt it.

The Real Tea Party Victory

The real, long term win by the GOP will be the state races in a census year giving total GOP redistricting of the upper Midwest, turning them from battleground states to permanently red as MoJo's Nick Baumann reports.

Five states bordering the Great Lakes—Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—are the central battleground in the fight to control redistricting. Sure, the Republicans might take back the House of Representatives on election night. But winning gubernatorial and state legislative races in these five states could allow the GOP to dominate the House for much longer than the next few years.

The Republicans now control four of the ten legislative chambers in the five states in question. They also hold the governor's office in Indiana. But after Tuesday's election, Republican governors could be running all five states—and the Dems could easily lose their grip on the six legislative chambers they control today.

That's a prospect that has national Democrats very worried. Carolyn Fiddler, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which aids Dems in state legislative races, says that she's seen maps that corral all of the Democrats in Ohio into just four districts—down from ten current Democratic-leaning districts. (Ohio is also set to lose two representatives in post-Census population adjustments.) GOP redistricters in Pennsylvania could easily cut that state's Dem delegation in half, Fiddler adds. That would mark a dramatic change from the current balance of 12 Dems to seven Republicans. (Pennsylvania is also likely to lose a seat.)

The result would be that the GOP could count on an extra 16-20 seat swing in their favor for holding the House, and midwest Dems would all be herded into one or two districts in a state, with Dems winning in those districts overwhelmingly, but the rest of the state would have easy GOP victories because all the urban vote would be in one place.

I woudn't put it past Ohio Republicans to create an I-71 corridor district to connect the urban centers of Cincy, Columbus and Cleveland and give it to Kucinich...and he'd literally be the only Dem in the state come 2012.

That's what's really at stake here, and that means the GOP will be able to keep the House for a long, long time.

Eve Of The Storm

Gallup's final generic ballot numbers for tomorrow's election are gruesome for the Dems, with a couple of big assumptions.

The results are from Gallup's Oct. 28-31 survey of 1,539 likely voters. It finds 52% to 55% of likely voters preferring the Republican candidate and 40% to 42% for the Democratic candidate on the national generic ballot -- depending on turnout assumptions. Gallup's analysis of several indicators of voter turnout from the weekend poll suggests turnout will be slightly higher than in recent years, at 45%. This would give the Republicans a 55% to 40% lead on the generic ballot, with 5% undecided.

Republicans' 15-point lead among likely voters contrasts with their 4-point lead, 48% to 44%, among registered voters, highlighting the importance of higher GOP turnout to the election outcome. This wide difference between the GOP's margin among registered voters and its margin among likely voters is similar to the 2002 midterms, in which Democrats led by 5 points among all registered voters in Gallup's final pre-election poll, while Republicans led by 6 points among likely voters -- an 11-point gain.

Gallup's traditionally been very accurate with these numbers, enough so that Nate Silver's famous chart from April makes its appearance here:

As you can see, a 15-point GOP lead equals 90 seats for the Republicans, a complete and total bloodbath.  I don't know if the Republicans will do this well, we're right on the edge of Nate's model and all and it's a linear one, out into "Here be dragons" territory on the map.  But the Republicans have to be feeling really, really good.

Gallup is basically confident in saying that Republicans will have a presidential election year level of turnout, while the Democrats will have the worst midterm turnout in modern history, a combination that will result in an electoral abattoir.

We'll see what happens in about 36 hours.

[UPDATE]  Nate himself is greatly hedging his bets because there are so many House seats in play, it makes a model difficult at best.

Our model is a lot more sophisticated than that. It does look at the generic ballot, but it doesn’t necessarily assume that it is right. It also looks at local polls in each congressional district, expert ratings, fundraising data — the whole kit and caboodle. Unlike the political science models, it formulates an estimate of the result in each individual congressional district, and not just the overall seat count.

But it tells you basically the same thing. Tonight, our forecast shows Republicans gaining 53 seats — the same as in recent days, and exactly the same answer you get if you plug the generic ballot average into the simple formula. Our model also thinks the spread of potential outcomes is exceptionally wide: its 95 percent confidence interval runs from a 23-seat Republican gain to an 81-seat one.

Now, this is actually something of a coincidence; our model doesn’t think the confidence interval is wide because there is disagreement in the generic ballot polls, but rather for other reasons.

So it could be anything in there, and Nate's 52 is right dead in the middle of that range.  Individual races still count, and that means voter turnout counts too.

Worst-Case Scenario

OK, so if Tuesday is not just bad, but horrendous for the Dems, they lose 80 seats in the House or come close to or actually lose the Senate...what then?

Four things will prevent the Republicans from doing all the crazy things the Tea Party wants them to do.

One, Americans still really hate the Republicans.  Voters wanted gridlock?  Fine, you got it.  Now work it out.

Two, Republicans will always overreach.  50% + one vote is a permanent mandate for these guys.  They will make the same mistakes they did in 1995 and give Obama a second term.

Three, the corporate masters of the GOP will do everything they can to dispose of the populist Tea Party movement.  Tea Party supporters voted for the Tea Party, not the GOP.  When they get thrown out of the big tent as a result, you're going to see some real fireworks in 2012.

Four, they can't beat Barack Obama's veto without help, and all the centrist Democrats will be gone.

The question is how much pressure will be brought to bear on Obama to do everything the Republicans want?  It will be impressive.  How long can he hold out?  We're going to find out, most likely.

Of course, we can still prevent that worst case scenario.



Vote.

The Final Stretch

Nate Silver is still predicting the GOP taking the House, but not the Senate.  He has helpfully provided a list of House races to watch, and as usual, the first big indicators are Indiana and Kentucky, where polls close at 6 PM eastern.

Baron Hill’s seat, the Indiana 9th, has long been one of the most competitive in the country. I don’t think you should get too swept up in the results of any one particular congressional district — not when there are 435 of them in every corner of the country. But Mr. Hill, a middle-of-the-road Democrat who ordinarily performs strongly in his fairly rural, somewhat Republican-leaning district, but who voted for the health care bill and the stimulus, is in a position that is fairly typical for Democratic incumbents around the country this year. Also, the district has a magic number of 41, which means that it’s right at the cusp of what Republicans would need to take over the House. If they fail to win it, that could be the first sign that they’re liable to do a hair worse than expected. If they win it by a margin in the high single digits or the double digits, however, it could suggest that a lot of Democratic incumbents, many of whom are less skilled than Mr. Hill at understanding how to run a strong campaign in their districts, are going to be in trouble.

Joe Donnelly, in the Indiana 2nd district, is one Democrat whose polls have held up fairly well in spite of the Republican wave.  Our model has him favored by just 2 points, however, and if he were to lose, that would be a good early sign for Republicans.

Indiana’s 8th district, vacated by Brad Ellsworth, is very likely to be a Republican pickup. If they’re having trouble winning it, that’s a reasonably bad sign for them.

Indiana’s 7th and 3rd congressional districts are not likely to be especially competitive. If these races wind up within the single digits, something really weird might be afoot.

I’d be a little bit more cautious about reading too much into the two Kentucky districts on our chart, the 6th and the 3rd, just because Kentucky is a fairly idiosyncratic state to begin with, and both the polling and the Senate race have been strange there. Still, John Yarmuth’s 3rd district, which encompasses Louisville, reflects a strong potential upside case for the G.O.P. if they were to win it.

I'd have to agree.  If the Dems can hold Baron Hill's seat and more, they're going to probably have a decent night and might be able to hold on.  But if John Yarmuth and Ben Chandler go down in Kentucky, the game's pretty much over.

Nate's guide is very thorough, and by 9 PM eastern or so we should have a pretty good idea how big the Republican push is.  Keep it handy for Tuesday night, I plan to.

Last Call

Sharron Angle finally speaks to the press:

There have been major policy questions that remain unanswered from Angle's campaign. Voters have seen Angle's views and ideas on improving Nevada's economy, but the topics of national security and the role the men and woman at Nellis Air Force Base must play in two wars remain unknown.

We've tried to go to her public events and ask, but she won't answer. We've tried to call and email her campaign, but they won't answer. Now, we're finding her at the airport, still trying to get answers.

"I think when it comes to major policy issues, the people of Nevada are most concerned about our jobs, our homes and our economy," she said.

"If you want to be one of 100 U.S. Senators that are deciding on war powers and on ratifying treaties, which is what a Senator has to do, you have to answer these questions," said Reporter Nathan Baca.

"Well, certainly. And I'll answer those questions when I'm the Senator," replied Angle.

You don't need to know what her policy positions are.  You don't need to know where she stands.   You don't need to know how she would vote on issues that involve the country.  You just need to shut up and do what she tells you to do, because she's going to be your Senator.

That's all you need to know.  After all, she's a real American, not one of those elitist arrogant Democrats who thinks they know better than you do.

Now shut up and pull the lever for Sharron Angle.  You'll find out what her positions are later, if she feels like telling you.  We've got a whole raft of candidates who don't have to tell you damn thing about their positions:  Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell, Ken Buck, Rick Scott, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and dozens more.  You just need to stop worrying and vote for them because they're not Democrats.

And that's all you need to know, apparently.  That's all they'll tell you.  You'll find out what they have planned for the country after you elect them.

Because they are counting on you to accept not getting any answers and voting for them anyway.

You wouldn't like the answers anyway.

Now shut up and pull the lever.

Already Written Off

Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is quite literally already writing the epitaph for the Democrats as the Journal's John Fund gets the dirt from retiring Rep. Brian Baird to shovel onto Nancy Pelosi's political corpse.

When President Obama was elected in 2008, Mr. Baird was again optimistic that Democrats could bring real reform. But fierce Republican partisanship and the White House decision not to focus on job creation as its "number one, two and three" priority dashed that hope.

"Obama decided we weren't going to have a highway transportation bill because it might have required a gas tax increase," he recalls. After passing a misdirected stimulus bill, Mr. Obama made the fatal error of pushing forward with other priorities: cap and trade, financial services reform, ObamaCare. Each became compromised quickly.

"You don't get real reform by pandering to every special interest. With cap and trade we wound up with a bill that didn't accomplish much, was enormously complicated and expensive." Mr. Baird is especially upset that "good solid members will lose this fall because they took a tough vote for a cap-and-trade bill that never made it through the Senate." He has told environmental groups that they lost sight of the goal of reducing carbon emissions by focusing on the minutia of regulation to achieve it.

For some of the shortcomings of financial regulatory reform, Mr. Baird blames the disillusioning battle over ObamaCare. "When the House had to pass the Senate version of health care unchanged, some members asked why should they invest the mental effort in mastering the details" of financial reform. Mr. Baird found parts of the bill mind-numbing.

Although he voted for it, he says he was troubled that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the entities at the heart of the housing meltdown, weren't addressed. They have clearly exercised undue influence on Capitol Hill, he notes. "When I was first elected I was puzzled why they were holding events in my honor as a mere freshman. I asked myself, why is a federal entity so involved in political activity?"

Fun stuff. Baird goes on at length to do what every politician does in a situation like this: "If only the leadership had listened to me, we wouldn't be in this mess."

The reality is that the Republicans made such a terrible mess that there was no conceivable way that Obama and the Dems could fix the problem in two years.  The Dems did what they had to do:  unpopular triage work to stop the bleeding.  Of course, every inch of that was opposed by Republicans.  They'll make a hash of things over the next two years, blame Obama, and expect to be rewarded with one-party control again.

Who knows where our economy will be by then.  But anyone who thinks they'll be better off two years from now with the GOP in charge clearly hasn't been paying attention.

We always get the government we deserve, I guess.

Rallying For Sanity (And Maybe Some Fear)

The thing I'm struck by most about the Rally For Sanity on the National Mall today is that a hell of a lot of people are there (far more than the Beck rally) and that everyone in the Village is really, really pissed off at them.

David Corn keeps ranting on Twitter that the Dems are dooming themselves because none of these people at the rally here are involved with Dem GOTV efforts this weekend.

In fact, the message is shaping up that Colbert and Stewart here are going to cost the Dems the Senate as well as the House because these folks aren't making phone calls and knocking on doors right now, and that this is the biggest mistake in the history of politics that will hand the nation over to the Tea Party, those bastard Comedy Central faux journalists who are not like the Village!

You know, the same Village media that's hiring Andrew Breitbart and taking every opportunity to assume that Dem voters won't turn out anyway (and running stories on the "enthusiasm gap" assumption daily) is complaining about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert being responsible for suppressing the Democratic vote in 2010.

Nice.

[UPDATE]  Nobody was there or anything. 



It was maybe like, seven people.

[UPDATE] And because people still don't buy it: