Trump's Pence-sive Decision

Several news outlets are reporting that Donald Trump has decided on Indiana GOP Governor Mike Pence as his running mate.

A Donald Trump campaign stop in Indiana scheduled for Tuesday is raising speculation that the presumptive Republican nominee will announce Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate.

The Washington Times reported Sunday evening that Pence has a “95 percent probability” of being Trump's choice, according to sources close to the campaign and to the governor. The first-term Indiana governor’s name has surfaced in recent weeks as a contender for the position. Pence tepidly endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas before the state's May primary, but later backed Trump, praising the chance to "take a new direction" in Washington.

"The kind of leadership that I truly do believe, to borrow a phrase, will make America great again," Pence said during a Thursday campaign stop, according to The Associated Press.

Others said to be under consideration for vice president are former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Considering the convention is coming up next week for the Republicans, Trump certainly doesn't have a lot of time to make a decision.  But Mike Pence wouldn't have a whole lot of time to decide to accept, either.

The coming days could see a major shake-up in Indiana politics as Donald Trump considers Indiana Gov. Mike Pence among others as his Republican vice presidential choice.

Pence is set to attend a campaign fundraising event with the New York billionaire in Indianapolis on Tuesday - just six days before the Republican national convention in Cleveland. The Trump campaign also has scheduled a rally for Tuesday evening in suburban Indianapolis.

If Trump picks Pence as his running mate, it would scramble the Indiana governor's race as Pence could not run for both offices under state law and would have to drop his re-election campaign by noon Friday.

A number of other Republicans are already expressing interest, including House Speaker Brian Bosma and U.S. Rep. Todd Rokita. Lt. Gov. Eric Holcomb, Pence's current running mate, and U.S. Rep. Susan Brooks also are viewed as potential replacements.

It would also definitively link Trump to Indiana, and I'm not sure how that will be received by Republicans in the state.  It's certainly not going to help Trump in November.  The question is will Pence gamble his political career on arguably the worst job in the GOP right now?

We'll see, possibly as soon as tomorrow.

[UPDATE]: Now we're hearing that Indiana has gone completely insane and that former Dem Sen. Evan Bayh could be getting into the state's Senate race to reclaim his old seat.

Evan Bayh is mounting a return bid to the U.S. Senate, giving national Democrats a boost as they aim to retake the chamber in November. 

An announcement about Bayh's candidacy for the Indiana Senate seat is expected later Monday morning, said a source familiar with the plans. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because they will not be released publicly until later Monday. 

National Democratic leaders have encouraged Bayh to run for more than a year, ever since incumbent GOP Sen. Dan Coats announced he would not run again. Bayh was dismissive at first, insistent he was done with public life, but Monday's announcement will mark a significant victory for Senate Democratic recruiters. 

Rep. Todd Young won the hotly contested Indiana Republican primary, beating out Rep. Marlin Stutzman for the nomination. Young has been heavily favored to beat Hill in November, but Bayh's entry into the race easily changes that dynamic. 

Bayh stunned Democrats in 2010 when he left the Indiana Senate race after being named the nominee. Indiana Democrats picked then-U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth to fill the Senate slot on the ballot, but he lost to Coats in the 2010 tea party wave. 

In an interesting reversal, Indiana Democrats will now have to formally place Bayh's name on the ballot after nominee Baron Hill announces he is stepping out of the race. That announcement is expected at the same time as Bayh's, according to the source.

Holy crap.  I get to break out my favorite retired StupidiTag!

Last Call For Coats For Senate

The latest Senate retirement headed into 2016 is Indiana Republican Dan Coats, setting off a Hoosier state shuffle for his seat.

"Today I am announcing that I will not seek re-election to the United States Senate," Coats said in a statement. "This was not an easy decision. While I believe I am well-positioned to run a successful campaign for another six-year term, I have concluded that the time has come to pass this demanding job to the next generation of leaders.

Coats's decision to retire may set off a Republican scramble for the open seat. While the GOP would seem to have the early edge, it is now another state they must defend in a presidential year where they're almost entirely playing defense to protect their new Senate majority.

Potential Republican candidates include Reps. Todd Young and Susan Brooks, both of whom have long been viewed as having statewide ambitions, as well as Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and Reps. Todd Rokita, Jackie Walorski and Marlin Stutzman.
An aide to Rep. Luke Messer told The Hill he wouldn't seek the Senate seat.

Coats's chief of staff, Eric Holcomb, is also taking a look at the race and is seen as a top candidate by by Indiana observers. He is close to kingmaker and former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), has been traveling the state extensively building connections with the GOP grassroots. 

“Eric has taken a leave of absence from Senator Coats’ office as he considers a run for the open U.S. Senate seat in 2016. He’s grateful for the immediate outpouring of support from every corner of Indiana and will make a decision soon,” Pete Seat, a spokesperson for Eric Holcomb, said in a statement.

Well that's the GOP side, plenty of people salivating over that prize.  But Indiana's other senator is Democrat Joe Donnelly who won because Republican Richard Mourdock was a tea party nutcase that Indiana didn't want to touch..  Could the Dems take both seats in a similar way?

That would mean finding another Blue Dog in Indiana with the cash to run for Senate.  And you know who that means.

Their best recruit would likely be former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who chose to retire rather than facing a tough race in 2010 and still has close to $10 million in the bank for a potential return to politics. Bayh has ruled out a run for governor but hasn't closed the door on a Senate run. 

National Democrats immediately expressed optimism over the newly open seat, pointing back to their 2012 victory.

“Indiana's Senate race is now one of the most competitive Senate races in the country, and Democrats are ready to put together a strong campaign just like we did in 2012. We're confident that we will find a great candidate who will put Indiana first and win this seat in 2016," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Jon Tester (Mont.) said in a statement.

If Bayh doesn't run, former Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Hammond Mayor Tom McDermott (D) are potential candidates on the Democratic side.

Oh hooray Evan F'ckin Bayh might be back!  I'm sooooooo haaaaaaaappy.

Pulling One Snowe-ver On Us

Jon Chait argues this morning that Sen. Olympia Snowe's surprise announcement that she's quitting the 2012 race is really nothing the Dems should be cheering, because all indications are that the real reason behind her bowing out is that Americans Elect and their Sensible Centrist shenanigans are afoot, judging from her outro statement.

This sounds exactly like the kind of rhetoric emanating from Americans Elect, the third-party group that believes that both parties should put aside partisanship and come together to enact an ever-so-slightly more conservative version of Barack Obama's agenda. Moderate retiring senators often deliver lofty, vacuous paeans to bipartisanship on their way to a lucrative lobbying career. But Snowe's statement seems unusually specific ("unique opportunities to build support for that change from outside the United States Senate") about her intent to do something.

I suspect it may not be coincidental that David Boren, the former Democratic senator from Oklahoma and oil industry lickspittle, came out for Americans Elect today. The group is set up so that its presidential and vice-presidential candidates need to come from opposing parties. The process is set up to, at least putatively, allow the voters to choose the ticket. But Americans Elect and its well-heeled funders have maintained tight control over the proceedings to ensure their envisioned ticket pairing establishmentarian insiders can prevail over candidates like , say, Ron Paul who might be able to actually win an open vote.

Snowe and Boren would make for the kind of ticket Americans Elect is looking for. Is that the plan?

Americans Elect is definitely designed to take votes away from one candidate and give a "less than 50% popular vote but 270+ electoral vote" situation, which will faithfully be interpreted by the Village as a "you don't have a mandate so you'd better listen to us" win.  That would be more effective if used against Barack Obama, but I'm not entirely convinced that the Americans Elect ticket would hurt only the President, especially given Romney as the GOP nominee.

On the other hand if you believe that there's going to be a brokered convention leading to a crackpot wingnut non-Romney nominee however, Americans Elect is exactly the vehicle that could give that nominee the win in November.

On the gripping hand, Romney keeps winning the GOP primary voters whose motivation is solely defeating Barack Obama.  It's also very possible that the anti-Obama vote will line up behind Romney, and with Americans Elect in the mix, it could be enough to put Mitt in the White House even with an otherwise depressed GOP base.

And yes, Snowe would have won re-election easily, unlike Arlen Specter or Evan F'ckin Bayh or Joe Lieberman.  She bailed for a reason, and Cohn's argument as to why makes sense.

Where Firebagging Is Going

Just as it's predictable that a GOP Congress would attack Obama from the right,  it's entirely predictable that the Royal Order Of Those Who Think Obama Is Just Not Progressive Enough will go after him from the other direction.  With Pennsylvania Dem Gov. Ed Rendell openly saying that a deteriorating situation inf Afghanistan may lead to an Obama primary challenge in 2012, it's important to put the Useful Idiocy in perspective.  Steve M:

I understand the disgruntlement. I just wonder if there's any chance whatsoever that a primary challenge will either get a more progressive person elected or push Obama leftward and then get him elected. I really can't imagine either of those things happening.

But there will be a clamor. And my guess (as I said a while back) is that Russ Feingold, integrity narcissist, is the guy who'll be urged to run. I could see him going for it (even though, yeah, I know, he may not even win his own race this year).

Whoever it is -- if not him, maybe the primary fans will rally around Howard Dean, or Dennis Kucinich -- I think Obama will win the nomination, possibly quite bloodied. And then I think Ralph Nader -- who you just know is going to run yet again -- is going to start looking surprisingly good to a lot of disgruntled lefties. But, hell, I think we could a Constitution Party candidate (especially if Romney gets the GOP nomination) and a Bayh/Bloomberg ticket and Lord knows what else, so this really could be a free-for-all.

I'd be more sympathetic to this course of action if I felt that a strong and durable sense of progressivism had started to spread in the heartland. But that hasn't happened -- every liberal can be demonized as a liberal, and even heartlanders who've been favorably disposed to that person will inevitably begin to flee when the anti-liberal propaganda gets cranked up. That's because, at best, we get heartlanders to vote Democratic, but we don't get them to understand and embrace liberalism (even though many of them have skepticism about the power structure that we could tap into). Even Obama has suffered because of the public's unwillingness to rally around liberal ideas. That's what we have to reverse.

In other words, 2012 is going to be a glorious disaster.   Personally you have to like Obama's chances to come out ahead against the likes of Evan F'ckin' Bayh, Moose Lady, Russ Feingold, Newtie, and Ralph Nader (The King Of All Useful Idiocy).  But yes, I certainly expect some sort of primary challenge and while Steve thinks it will be Feingold, I have to say that Hillary's name will be the one thrown around the most by the Village.

Still, Steve has two valid points:  Obama will not be pushed further to the left, and people have to believe in progressive ideas as the solution, not the problem.  30 years of "godless, commie liberals" is not going to be easy to undo.

Just In Case You Hadn't Heard

Evan F'ckin Bayh is leaving the Senate, and has written a long, rambling apology where he blames everybody in Washington other than himself for the intolerable conditions.

Challenges of historic import threaten America’s future. Action on the deficit, economy, energy, health care and much more is imperative, yet our legislative institutions fail to act. Congress must be reformed.

There are many causes for the dysfunction: strident partisanship, unyielding ideology, a corrosive system of campaign financing, gerrymandering of House districts, endless filibusters, holds on executive appointees in the Senate, dwindling social interaction between senators of opposing parties and a caucus system that promotes party unity at the expense of bipartisan consensus.

Many good people serve in Congress. They are patriotic, hard-working and devoted to the public good as they see it, but the institutional and cultural impediments to change frustrate the intentions of these well-meaning people as rarely before. It was not always thus.

While romanticizing the Senate of yore would be a mistake, it was certainly better in my father’s time. My father, Birch Bayh, represented Indiana in the Senate from 1963 to 1981. A progressive, he nonetheless enjoyed many friendships with moderate Republicans and Southern Democrats.

One incident from his career vividly demonstrates how times have changed. In 1968, when my father was running for re-election, Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader, approached him on the Senate floor, put his arm around my dad’s shoulder, and asked what he could do to help. This is unimaginable today.

And while he does have a point -- the Senate is broken --All this does is draw attention to the fact that Evan F'ckin Bayh's brilliant solution to all this in the name of America is to ragequit the Senate like a jackass.

Birch Bayh must be so proud.

An Early Post-Mortem

The WSJ wastes no time assigning blame for the loss of America's Greatest Senator, Evan F'ckin' Bayh, to the failed rotting corpse of the failed Obama Presidency that failed so badly that it failed decades before Obama was elected (only to fail.)

The political retirement of Evan Bayh, at age 54, is being portrayed by various sages as a result of too much partisanship, or the Senate's dysfunction, or even the systemic breakdown of American governance. Most of this is rationalization. The real story, of which Mr. Bayh's frustration is merely the latest sign, is the failure once again of liberal governance.

For the fourth time since the 1960s, American voters in 2008 gave Democrats overwhelming control of both Congress and the White House. Republicans haven't had such large majorities since the 1920s. Yet once again, Democratic leaders have tried to govern the country from the left, only to find that their policies have hit a wall of practical and popular resistance.

Democrats failed in the latter half of the 1960s, as the twin burdens of the Great Society and Vietnam ended the Kennedy boom and split their party. They failed again after Watergate, as Congress dragged Jimmy Carter to the left and liberals had no answer for stagflation. They failed a third time in the first two Bill Clinton years, as tax increases and HillaryCare led to the Gingrich Congress before Mr. Clinton salvaged his Presidency by tacking to the center. 

Those are pretty harsh words considering the "centrist" policies of Bush led to a near meltdown of the country and a recession we're still digging out of, a recession that the WSJ and other Right Wing Noise Machine outlets believed can be best solved by doing nothing and allowing the same practices to continue unabated.  That was the very real failure preceding this Presidency.  To the robber barons here, it's just another uncomfortable recession instead of the worst "crackup" in modern American history.  And yes, Bayh deserves his fair share of scorn for that.

A fourth crackup is already well underway and is even more remarkable considering how Democrats were set up for success. Inheriting a recession amid GOP failures, Democrats had the chance to restore economic confidence and fix the financial system with modest reforms that would let them take credit for the inevitable recovery. Yet only 13 months later, Democrats are down in the polls, their agenda is stymied by Democratic opposition, and their House and Senate majorities are in peril as moderates like Mr. Bayh flee the scene of this political accident.

Democrats have responded by blaming "obstructionist" Republicans, who lack the votes to block anything by themselves; or a failure to communicate the right message, though President Obama is a master communicator; or even Madison's framework of checks and balances, though this system has worked better than all others for some 225 years.

John Podesta, who ran Mr. Obama's transition and heads the Center for American Progess that has supplied the Administration's ideas, summed up the liberal-media mood last week when he told the Financial Times that American governance now "sucks." If you can't blame your own ideas, blame the system.

This raises three more points:

First, does anyone believe when we were hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month in early 2009 that Obama and the Democrats were being set up for success by inheriting that mess?  If it was so easy to fix, why didn't Bush do it earlier?  Why was the recovery inevitable?  And yes, Bayh responds by running away.  That's his problem, not Obama's.

Second, with the illnesses of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, and the months it took to seat Al Franken, it still took a party switch by Arlen Specter to give the Dems 60 votes, and that was only for a couple of months.  Once again that's now gone.  And once again the Republicans are continuing to wreck Washington and the country, this time by blocking the jobs bill.

Finally, if the battle is a battle of ideas, it seems the ideas of the GOP were soundly rejected by the voters by giving the Democrats the largest margin in decades.  Isn't that an even larger failure of the conservative ideals of the last thirty years since Reagan?  If these ideas are so good, why isn't John McCain our President, since we're equating electoral loss with the failure of government?  In this case, we're equating bad poll numbers with the failure of government...so Bush's poll numbers were a complete failure of conservative governance by that logic.  And let's not forget that voters are still pissed at the Republicans in general.  More Americans identify themselves as Democrats even today.  Doesn't this mean that Republicans have failed even worse than Obama?

Evan Bayh left because he couldn't hack it.  He wanted out.  He left at the last moment because he wanted attention.  Your problem,, WSJ Editorial Board, is not with the failure of Obama or even of liberal governance.  Your problem is simply the failure of Evan Bayh, lousy Senator.

Fin.  Exeunt.

Last Call

Why is Evan Bayh pandering so hard to the Teabaggers and against the Dems when A) he still has 9 months to go in office as the son of Indiana's most famous politician (making him the definition of insider and incumbent) and B) the Bayhs are die-hard Dems and have been for decades?

He absolutely denies running for another public office.  But he's clearly campaigning for one, and he's doing so as anything but a Democrat.  He's certainly not going to able to be a lobbyist after his tirade on MSNBC today denouncing special interests.  The second he does that, the Teabaggers will destroy him.

On the other hand, the Teabaggers already hate him and are salivating at replacing him with Dan Coates.  I don't see the win here.  The people of Indiana aren't going to reward him for this.  Nationally the Republicans will never trust him and he's burned his bridges with the Dems.

What play does he have quitting now, in this manner, other than throwing a hissy fit?

Bye Bayh Blackbird, Part 4

Take the money and not run, our Evan.  His $13 million war chest?  His to decide what to do with.

There's been some talk that Bayh might run for president, so maybe he'll hang onto the money for a campaign in 2012 or 2016.

And then there's the future of his seat -- Bayh was expected to win reelection this year, but face one of the toughest campaigns of his political life to do it. With him out, most professional prognosticators have said the seat is more likely to be a GOP pickup in November, meaning that any Democratic nominee will need all the money he or she can get. A $13 million cash infusion to the Indiana Democratic Party could give the Senate nominee a needed boost.

As Politico reported last night, national Democrats are already salivating over the thought of getting some of the money donors gave Bayh so he could run for Senate. The DSCC wouldn't comment to Politico officially about the money but a "strategist close to the situation" urged Bayh to do the right thing for the committee.

"Bayh's $13 million would certainly be useful to other Democratic candidates who face a strong headwind this November," the strategist told the paper. 

What he does with the money will indicate what he plans for 2012, yes?   Any Hoosier readers actually donate to this jagoff?

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

Evan is a naughty boy.

"If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months."

-- Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), in an interview with NBC News, giving one more gift to Republicans.

He's running in 2012.  Count on it.  At some point he will take a swing at the Obama pinata.  The only question is will it be in front of or behind the name Clinton on the ticket.

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

When the going gets tough, the tough quit, pretend to be political outsiders, and deny running for President until of course the voice of the people gets loud enough to convince them to serve America once again...

[UPDATE 3:38 PM] Best Bayh Line of the day goes to CNN:

One source said Bayh could consider another bid for Indiana governor. Bayh "hates the Senate [and] hates the left bloggers," said a friend of the senator's who also has been a longtime adviser. "They are getting their wish [of] pure Democrats in the minority."

I totally take responsibility for making Evan F'ckin' Bayh quit.  I cause earthquakes and traffic jams too.

Bye Bayh Blackbird, Part 2

Greg Sargent surveys the aftermath of Indiana's Dems scrambling to replace Evan Bayh with the signature and filing deadline on Friday.

Because Bayh apparently gave national Dems no heads-up on his retirement, that leaves Dems in a pickle: No replacement candidate is likely to be able to bring in the 4,500 signatures needed by this week’s deadline. That means that under party rules the state party has until June 30th to pick a replacement candidate.

The three leading contenders for national and state Dems, according to a Democratic source: Dem Reps Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill, and Evansville mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel.

The Dem source describes all three as “strong” contenders and says conversations are under way with them. More in a bit.

Weather in Indiana right now certainly isn't helping.

So, Hoosiers...who would you want to see run for Bayh's seat?

[UPDATE 2:45 PM]  Tamyra d'Ippolito has been quietly running a campaign to be the progressive alternative to Bayh, and she has about 3,500 of the 4,500 signatures needed already as Eric Kleefield reports:

"Just so you know, the Democratic heads in Indiana, there are 92 counties, they have been working against us all this time because they have been for the incumbent, Evan Bayh," said d'Ippolito. "So we are calling on them now - it was only Evan Bayh running as the Democratic candidate - and asking them what will they do now. So this does not give us much time."

I asked d'Ippolito whether she expected the party to work against her signature efforts, in order to preserve their ability to select a new candidate. "Well from what we've been dealing with so far from Evan Bayh, I would have to say yes, unfortunately," said d'Ippolito. "Though they would have the choice - I'm a lifelong Democrat, to choose me as the candidate. I would be glad to do that. But they have been fighting me every step of the way."

"So I have no idea what they will do, but they have not been cooperative so far," d'Ippolito added. "It would be nice if they turned around and became cooperative, but I don't know."

If you're in Indiana, especially Brad Ellisworth's district, see if you can help Tamyra out.

Bye Bayh Blackbird

I won't have Evan F'ckin Bayh to kick around anymore on this blog.  He's not running for re-election.

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh will not seek re-election this year, a decision that hands Republicans a prime pickup opportunity in the middle of the country.

"After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so by serving in Congress has waned," Bayh will say.

Bayh will announce the decision at a press conference later today. He was first elected to the Senate in 1998 and was re-elected easily in 2004. National Republicans had recruited former Sen. Dan Coats to challenge Bayh in 2010 although polling suggested Bayh began the race with a 20-point edge. He also had $13 million in the bank at the end of the year.

Best part?  Indiana Democrats now have until tomorrow to come up with a candidate to run against Dan Coats or the GOP will get the seat uncontested.  A final up yours to the Dems from Bayh.

Nice.  I won't miss the guy, and now he has the rest of 2010 to tell Obama to go screw himself too.

Watch.

[UPDATE 11:55 AM]  Steve Benen:

And for those keeping score, there are now six Republican Senate incumbents who have decided not to seek re-election, and three Senate Dems. Expect the media to characterize this as a mass Democratic exodus.

Assuredly.  Keep an eye on the calls of "Democrats running for the hills" when it's the GOP who has more retirements.

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

Evan F'ckin Bayh does not like to be referred to as "Evan F'ckin Bayh" by Dirty F'ckin Hippie bloggers who apparently want him to stop being Joe F'ckin Lieberman.

Who knew?

You Say Bad Bayh, I Say Hello

The Republicans have figured out they really don't need to run hard against Evan Bayh.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has announced on his Facebook page that he will not run for Senate this year against second-term Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh.

"After much prayer and deliberation, I have decided to remain in the House and to seek reelection to the 6th Congressional District in 2010," Pence writes. "I am staying for two reasons. First because I have been given the responsibility to shape the Republican comeback as a member of the House Republican Leadership and, second, because I believe Republicans will win back the majority in the House of Representatives in 2010."

A Rasmussen poll released yesterday had shown Pence with a 47%-44% lead over Bayh in a hypothetical match-up. Against the Republican candidates who are currently in the race, Bayh had a slim lead of 47%-44% over former Rep. John Hostettler, who lost reelection in 2006, and a 45%-33% lead over state Sen. Marlin Stutzman.

But Pence is immediately announcing he's out.  It possible there's a rat here.

Now, I can see Pence going for the brass ring in 2012.  But knocking out Evan Bayh would be a pretty huge win for the GOP.  On the other hand, given Bayh's Republican lite voting record, the RNC could care less.  They win either way.

I think Pence figures Bayh is Republican enough.  He'd be right.

[UPDATE 3:06 PM] In the "News That Should Surprise Precisely Nobody" department, Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln are all warning they won't vote for health care fixes through reconciliation.  (If you're curious, you can go ahead and pencil in Joe Lieberman too in the no column too.)

I'm Afraid You May Have a Toomey, Pennsylvania

If the you believe the lesson of Scott Brown is "There ain't no safe seats for the Dems" then this Rasmussen poll may be worth looking at.

Republican Pat Toomey now leads incumbent Senator Arlen Specter 49% to 40% in Pennsylvania’s race for the U.S. Senate. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters also finds Toomey with a 43% to 35% lead over Democratic challenger Joe Sestak.

A month ago Toomey led Specter by four and Sestak by six. In the state’s Democratic Senate Primary race, Specter now leads Sestak by 21 points.

But here's something I overlooked however out of the Rasmussen camp this week that may be far more interesting from Rasmussen analyst Larry Sabato:

With Tuesday night’s upset by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the GOP gained more than just a 41st vote to disrupt the Obama agenda. As attention turns to the midterm elections in November, the Republican Party has strong momentum. A few months ago, even GOP leaders said that taking over the Senate was a pipe dream, and it is still not probable. But as some independents sour on the Democratic Party, the possibility for a GOP majority can no longer be dismissed out of hand. More likely, next year’s Senate will still have a Democratic majority but be much more closely balanced between Democrats and Republicans.

In fact, it is likely that the Republicans will gain at least 3 to 5 Senate seats in November. Even more startling, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts special election, Republicans would do even better IF the general election were being held today. The Crystal Ball projects that the Democratic majority in the Senate would be reduced to just 52 seats if November’s contests were somehow moved to January. 
 
Luckily for the Democrats, the election is not today. By November the economy may be in much better shape, and some of the current controversies may appear less significant. Contests that would tip to the GOP today could easily wobble back to the Democrats (such as Missouri and Pennsylvania). That is why we still classify them as toss-ups overall.

At the same time, given Tuesday’s Bay State results, the Republican Party will search for, and possibly find, credible challengers for some Democratic senators believed to be safe until now. Imagining themselves as Scott Brown (on the victory stage, not in a Cosmo photo spread), a few “A” list Republicans might take a second look at the Senate and decide to jump in.

Among the senators who could be endangered by a new wave of Republican entries are Evan Bayh (Indiana), Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Patty Murray (Washington), and Russ Feingold (Wisconsin).

Now that's interesting.  Rasmussen believes the Republicans would pick up 7 more seats:

Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Harry Reid (NV)
Mike Castle (DE)
Mike Bennett (CO)
Arlen Specter (PA)

...would all lose, and Obama's old seat and Byron Dorgan's seat in ND would flip to Mark Kirk and John Hoeven respectively.

48 Senate Republicans would put heavy pressure on Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman to flip parties like Specter did last year and give the Republicans 51, is the unsaid message.

I do indeed have to wonder.

That Other Non-Obamacare Stuff

Meanwhile, funding the rest of the federal government before the end of the year will proceed as the Dems managed to beat back a Republican filibuster that would have shut the government down...barely.

The Senate cleared a key parliamentary hurdle Saturday on a spending bill that finances almost half the federal government and increases funding for the agencies it covers by an average of 10 percent.

The Senate voted 60 to 34 to close off debate on the must-pass omnibus spending bill. But in order to end a Republican filibuster, Democrats had to hold open the 15-minute vote for an additional 50 minutes so 92-year-old Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) could attend and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) could walk to the chamber from his synagogue in Georgetown.

Byrd has been ailing most of this year and votes only on important matters. Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, honors the Sabbath by refusing to drive and by rarely working on Saturdays unless absolutely necessary.

"Shabbat shalom [peaceful Sabbath]," Lieberman said to photographers as he entered the Capitol, after attending morning services on the second day of Hanukkah and then walking more than three miles to the Capitol on a cold December morning. He cast the 60th vote -- the minimum number needed -- for the $446.8 billion spending bill covering the Justice and State departments, among other agencies.

A final vote is scheduled for Sunday afternoon. The House passed the measure last week, and President Obama has indicated he will sign the bill.

All but three Senate Republicans opposed the measure, citing what they consider to be wasteful spending on domestic agencies at a time of war. Three Democrats -- Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Russell Feingold (Wis.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) -- joined Republicans in supporting a filibuster of the bill.

Now, Evan F'ckin Bayh I can see pulling this crap, but Claire McCaskill should know better, and Russ Feingold is doing this from the left. I don't agree with him, but I at least respect the reasoning behind it. The Republicans really could have caused havoc on this, but didn't. In the end, Joe F'ckin Lieberman earned himself another big fat credit chit with the Dems. How lovely. I'd rather have seen McCaskill or Feingold swallow their pride than have Joe F'ckin Lieberman win another round, being the guy that saved the Dems from a government shutdown.

He'll want payback for that. He'll get it at our expense, of course.

In Which Zandar Answers Your Burning Questions

Bob Cesca wonders:

I wonder if the conservadems realize that by forcing Reid and the healthcare leadership to entertain and perhaps accept such an awful compromise that they're risking failure for the entire reform effort and consequently endangering the congressional majorities. I simply don't see the House progressives supporting triggered whatevers. Just a bad, bad idea.

Oh that's been the entire plan all along, Bob.  You think Evan F'ckin Bayh gives a purple reflective damn if the Dems are in charge or not?  He's a Bayh.  Same goes for Joe F'ckin Lieberman.  You think these guys are going to do anything to jeopardize their fat lobbying contracts, board appointments for their spouses, think tank grants and lucrative private sector jobs once they get off The Hill?  Not me.

You honestly think these guys are going to put the unwashed, non-Beltway masses in their states in front of Wellpoint or BCBS or Roche or AstraZeneca?  Not me.  Will it effect them if they are minority party Senators?  Not in the least.

Double G Versus Evan F'ckin Bayh

In today's must-read, Glenn Greenwald rips Evan F'ckin Bayh a new one over Bayh's bloodthirsty war hawk stance on Iran and Afghanistan, and yes, virtually every other stance Bayh has taken in his career as a "Democratic" Senator.

It's impossible to find a more perfectly representative face for the rotted Washington establishment than Evan Bayh.  He is the pure expression of virtually every attribute that makes the Beltway so dysfunctional, deceitful and corrupt.

Bayh wants to send other people into every proposed war he can find and keep them there forever ever without ever bearing any of the costs himself -- not in military service for him or his family nor even in higher taxes to pay for his glorious wars.  Sacrifice is for everyone other than Evan Bayh and his friends.  He runs around praising himself as a "deficit hawk" while recklessly supporting wars and indefinite occupations that the country can't afford and which drive us further into debt.  He feigns concern over the "deficit" only when it comes time to deny ordinary Americans benefits which he and his family already possess in abundance.  He is a loyal servant to the insurance and health care industries over his own constituents -- as his wife sits on the Boards of numerous health care giants, who, right when Bayh became a Senator, began paying her millions of dollars in cash and stock.  And this Sermonizer of Personal Responsibility is the ultimate by-product of nepotism, following faithfully and effortlessly in the footsteps of his Daddy-Senator, whose seat he now occupies.  The fact that he's a Democrat -- and was Obama's close-second choice for Vice President -- just underscores how bipartisan these afflictions are.

When the sad and destructive history of the U.S. over the last decade is written, the coddled, nepotistic, self-serving face of Evan Bayh should be prominently included.  It embodies virtually every cause.

Now, I've long had my problems with Evan F'ckin Bayh, he's earned the StupidiTag several times over with his Republican Lite/John McCain act.  Indeed, Bayh was floated as Obama's Veep, which I said at the time would have been a disaster.

In a way it's almost nice to see Bayh has been nothing but repeated problems over the last year for Obama.  At the same time, Bayh has been a de facto Republican for years and has already negatively affected legislation in the Senate.  For all intents and purposes Bayh should have an R after his name.

Unfortunately there's just no serious challenge to Bayh in the primary, for all the reasons Glenn listed.  We're stuck with the guy...or a potential worse Republican senator.  There's a reason why the GOP isn't trying too particularly hard to unseat Bayh.  What I want to know is why Indiana progressives aren't trying.

He's Lame Evan Bayh These Standards

Yes, The Hoosier Daddy of ConservaDems is back, polishing his Sensible Centrist hall monitor badge over at CNN today, complaining about the national debt:

The path of least resistance that we have trod for so long is the path to national weakness. If you have the same people and the same process, you are going to get the same results. 
For this reason, I will vote "no" on raising the debt ceiling unless Congress adopts a credible process to balance our books and eliminate the red ink.

Oh, so now Evan F'ckin Bayh is Evan F'ckin Bayh, Fiscal Conservative?  My ass.

There are, however, some issues to consider. For example, it was none other than Evan Bayh who recently voted to "reform" the estate tax, cutting taxes for the extraordinarily rich, at a cost of $750 billion over the next decade. To pay for it, he recommended ... nothing. The costs would simply all be added to the deficit. Given this, I hope he'll forgive my skepticism about his credibility on the subject of fiscal responsibility.
For that matter, I know everyone is always supposed to believe at all times that "both sides are equally to blame," but Bayh's shorthand is lazy and wrong. Democratic policymakers cut the deficit and created a surplus. Republican policymakers were the single most fiscally irresponsible officials in American history. Yes, Dems are running high deficits now, but only because the alternative is a wholesale economic collapse. Skipping over this history is, at best, misleading.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the president's budget proposals already project deficit reductions, and health care reform would further bring significant reductions to the deficit.

But perhaps the biggest question I have for Bayh is: why wait? If the Indiana senator and his cohorts wants to put together a deficit reduction strategy, why not put pen to paper and present a plan?

Because the only thing "fiscal conservatives" hate more than "red ink" is pissing off their corporate constituents by cutting industry subsidies...or pissing off voters by raising taxes.

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

While I can certainly understand Sens. Jeff Sessions, Kent Conrad, and Mark Warner (and especially understand Joe F'ckin Lieberman and Evan F'ckin Bayh) all basically holding the debt ceiling hostage unless they get major Medicare and Social Security cuts, my question is what the hell DiFi is doing hitching her wagon to these idiots.

Cuts in Social Security and Medicare will not only ripple through the economy in the form of reduced spending, they'll also ripple through younger generations, who will fill the gap lost by the cutting of government benefits with money out of their own pockets to help their elderly relatives make ends meet and get the treatment they need.

Feinstein is embracing Hooverism, putting Democratic gains at risk, and threatening to make our economic crisis permanent. Of course, in doing so she's merely going with the flow in both DC and Sacramento, so it's not like she's some kind of outlier.

Still, this kind of insane policymaking has to be stopped. Pelosi should call Feinstein's bluff. Anyone here who thinks Feinstein would actually enable a debt default, please raise your hands. Didn't think so. Pelosi already got rolled once this month by a block of regressive Democrats willing to risk future elections in order to roll back rights and screw the poor and the middle class. She shouldn't let it happen again.

I don't get it. Handing over Social Security and Medicare funding over to an independent council who will make massive cuts will only have every Republican in America falling in love with Socialist health care all over again, and they'll ride that right back to the top. It's not only stupid from a political perspective, it's stupid from an economic one as well.

What the hell is she thinking?