By the numbers:

On the State legislative front, the Republican Party picked up across the country about 600 seats in 2010 as against about 300 in 1994.  Or so I heard on the radio this morning.  As these seats get less media attention and are highly charged to the most motivated voters, this is probably where the “Tea Party” activists (re: standard conservative activists) are most felt.  I suspect that in the coming couple of years, we will hear a lot about kooky things some of these new state legislatures are saying and proposing — it is the “Take over from the School Board on up” pattern of political activism.  See unelecting Iowa Supreme Court Justices — see the Texas Board of Education — see … Curbside Recycling.

 The House of Representatives:
In 1994, the Repulican Party picked up 54 seats in the House.  The House changed from a 259 to 204 Democratic advantage to a 230 to 177 Republican advantage.
In 2010, the Republican Party picked up… we wait to see for sure, but if we figure the candidate currently ahead will win in all seven outstanding races, 64 seats.  The House changed from a 255 to 190 Democratic advantage to a 243 to 192 Republican advantage.

On this score, the down-ticket ballot, the Republicans did better in 2010 than in 1994.  There are likely some nuances that can be looked at — certainly in both instances, the Democrats were wiped out in the South, with the key difference being that 1994 represented a change-over in which party held the majority of seats in the South, while today they represent a small faction.  Vast regional differences are extant, for instance that in 1994 Washington State was “Ground Zero” for the Republican Revolution, the Democratic Party losing 6 House seats in that state that year, switching from a 8 to 1 Democratic advantage to a 7 to 2 Republican advantage.  In 2010, we see a 6 to 3 Democratic advantage to to 5 to 4 Democratic advantage.

Up-ticket, the “Tea Party” “movement” bogged down Republican gains.  On the Senate, we now see Republicans grumbling that it cost the Republicans the Senate. 

The Senate:
In 1994, the Republican Party picked up 8 Senate seats on election night, followed by 2 change-overs after election night, and one Democratic victory later the year in a special election.  The Senate changed from a 56 to 44 Democratic margin, to a 52 to 48 then 54 to 46 then 53 to 47 Republican Margin.
In 2010, the Democrats started lost a special election early in the year, then lost 6 more on Election Night.  The Senate changed from a 59 to 41 Democratic margin to a 53 to 47 Democratic Margin.

Delaware Republicans knew full well that they were switching from a sure winner to a sure loser, and I guess that’s their perogative.  (Oddly, Sarah Palin insists Mike Castle would probably have lost too.  All we can go on is the polls — which showed a steady and sure double digit Castle lead go to a steady and sure double digit O’Donnell deficit.)  I do wonder now if Harry Reid might have beaten Sue Lowden, who is not that far away from Sharron Angle. 
The Democrats would probably be in a somewhat disproportionate-to-one-seat better mood if Pennsylvania or Illinois had gone their way.
Geographically, I can’t figure a drastic difference on how 1994 shapes up against 2010.  It’s worth noting that Harry Woffold’s special election victory came off the issue of pushing for Health Care Reform, and he was up-ended by Rick Santorum.  In 1994, the Republicans who didn’t win seriously contested races included Oliver North and Mitt Romney.

In 1994, 36 governors were up for election.
Heading into the election, there were 21 seats held by Democrats, 14 held by Republicans, and one by an independent. By the end of the elections, 11 seats would be held by Democrats, 24 by Republicans, and one by an independent.

In 2010, While Democrats did take five governorships from the Republicans (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, and Vermont), Republicans took 11 governorships from the Democrats (Iowa, Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).  Add Rhode Island to the Democratic column, and they picked up six governorships from the Republicans.

Note some other differences.  New York switched to Republican hands in 1994 from out of the hands of a Cuomo, where the Republican Party never had a chance, and indeed the nature of the Republican Party electorate (edging out your George Patakis) had them nominating a national joke.  Also note California went Republican in 1994, and Democratic in 2010 — Pete Wilson rode the immigration issue to re-election, a political hot potato which bogged down Meg Whitman (and in the meantime turned the state “blue”.
With all due respect to the Democrats of Wyoming, I doubt the national party is sweating much the change-over in that state.  Meantime, sucks to be Kansas and good luck to Governor Sam Brownback.

The problem for the Democratic Party and Barack Obama’s re-election bid is, of course, the land from Pennsylvania and Ohio and Wisconsin and Iowa.  (Who are now en route to nix high speed rail.)  But Obama is in better shape after this election than was Clinton after 1994, which, come to think of had him psychologically just two presidential elections away from a Democratic Presidential candidate who lost 49 states.

Meantime, the silver lining with Florida’s result is that the state elected a crook, and by the time Obama’s re-election comes in gear, it may be that running for a state with a Republican governor sliding toward Prison is a better bet than running with a middling carefully plodding Democrat.  (Hey.  It’s a thought.)

Item the first:

PENN: President Clinton reconnected with Oklahoma. And the President right now he seems removed. And it wasn’t until that speech that he really clicked with the American people. Obama needs a similar kind of, yeah.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:  (doesn’t even blink as he continues jammering away with Mark Penn.)

…………………
There’s a feeling I get when I look to the West and — (misheard lyrics).
………………….

Here’s MSNBC’s line-up, as they rebranded thesmselves — or branded themselves a bit more forcefully — as Fox News’s antithesis.  Ed Schultz.  Chris Matthews.  Keith Olbermann.  Rachel Maddow.  And Lawrence O’Donnell.

Lawrence O’Donnell is someone whose basic political moorings are based off of the Washington Beltway at the Hollywood / Washington Axis, who made valuable contributions to Aaron Sorkin’s West Wing for “how things really work”.  He favors Free Trade, and holds to the tact of sticking to the Center in explaining electoral results, and holds the 1980s Democratic Party as a model of a Big Tent that Got things done legislatively.
I saw his show once, regretably, and somehow caught another clip.  A terribly uninteresting interview with a politician who shall not be named who was sticking closely to his script (running against a former witch, he long took the “safe, gray flannel” approach in electioneering).  And a somewhat lively but pointless discussion with Alvin Greene, himself sticking closely to his script, though a lot more awkwardly and unprofessionally.  O’Donnell called out the latter a lot more easily than the former.  Nothing was gained from either interview.

You see Chris Matthews on that video not thinking twice as a famously cynical Clinton pollster makes the case for political opportunism off of political tragedy — a thousand 9/11 Truthers are flagging down Mr. Penn for future reference.
There is a clip from the Election Night which appears to be celebrated by Democrats and Republicans alike where he is interviewing Michelle Bachman.  Bachman, as is standard political habit, is speaking words that have no meaning — prompting Matthews to ask, “Are you hypnotized?”  Bachman retorts by alluding to something Matthews had once said about Obama in 2008 which has come to be a conservative chestnut, something about making his legs tingle — which, and herein lies a central problem with Chris Matthews — is similar to comments he made at the height of George W Bush’s popularity.

Today’s “Wait.  Is someone really publishing this crap?” item which is circulating about the blogosphere regards how supposed perceived sleights of various Washington Insiders is what is really tearing the Obama Administration down.
Be sure to catch Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Matthews as they dissect the implications of this real tragedy.

The cable news networks are not news networks.  If they were, they would be able to deviate away from the political world sometimes, or when they do they’d be able to slice through and examine the political process and its real world implications for policy.  CNN comes the closest to being an actual news network, or at least they have the capability to become one when neceesary, and as it is they’d do everyone a favor on this score by flipping the switch to air CNN International.

It is here that Keith Olbermann’s Suspension makes no sense.  It is not only that we’ve moved to a world of one sided political commentary for Tribal gratification —
— and in this world, Olbermann’s space becomes in defining a recognizable left point of some sort for the points made by Bill Maher against Stewart Colbert — or, perhaps against Lawrence O’Donnell —
It is that it made no real Business Sense.  It appears that Corporate did have the contractual right to let Olbermann go based on making political contributions to “controversial” candidates or causes (re: any), but not obligation — and they did so to their Number One Commercial Commodity at a time they’d decided to strengthen their brand.
Cynicism suggests a publicity stunt — can him, bring him back — his audience loves him more than ever.  (Cat’s out of the bag — now we know his political leanings!)  Further cynicism suggests, I don’t know,  a higher business politico motive.

Caveat:  I find Olbermann’s show more interesting before it became explicitly political.  But if you need a lynchpin to center five hours of non-stop repetitive rattling on hot button concerns, there he is.

A few weeks ago, sometime after dark — between 9 pm and 10 pm, I was walking downtown and saw an odd sight.  A woman flashed a high powered light over her across the street, illuminating herself out of the darkness, but rather briefly.

It was odd.  I looked over, glanced — suspected Solicitation for Prostitution based largely off of dress (nothing that would be out of place at a nightclub, I suppose) and circumstances (you don’t just flash a light over yourself like that, do you?) Is that how that’s done? — then diverted my eyes forward as I passed the scene of the whatever.

There have been a few grand new “Time Traveller” discoveries in old photographs and films.  There was the “What is this hipster doing in 1940?” item — if you’re here in 2010, this is the exact obscure thing you’d be dashing off to see.

There’s a woman with a cell phone in a Charlie Chaplin film!

‘Attending the premiere at Manns Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, California – the scene shows a large woman dressed in black with a hat hiding most of her face, with what can only be described as a mobile phone device – talking as she walks alone.

‘I have studied this film for over a year now – showing it to over 100 people and at a film festival, yet no one can give any explanation as to what she is doing.

‘My only theory – as well as many others – is simple… a time traveller on a mobile phone. See for yourself and feel free to leave a comment on your own explanation or thoughts about it.’

Chaplin’s The Circus was one of the master director’s final silent movies and won him the Academy Award in 1929 for ‘Versatility and genius in writing, acting, directing and producing’.

Or is there?
(I have to wonder why any time traveler would carefully don era-appropriate clothing, yet yak on a future phone in a very public place right in front of a film crew. Also, how was she getting service?)

The answer to the last question is pretty simple.  She came with several other time, and set up their Cell Phone Frequency towers theirownselves for their use.  It makes more sense than dismissing the spotty image as something other than a cell phone.

Here’s the “Stephen Colbert With a Hitler” sign at the Stewart / Colbert Entertainment Show at the Mall.  It’s actually a play off of the non-Larouchian “Obama Hitler” sign you’ll find if you google image Obama and Hitler — which has tended to be marked angrily as Larouches’ by Conservative bloggers and commenters.
… But, for the most part, Larouchies have grabbed it, and if you hear about the Obama Hitler, it’s a better bet than not that it’s their.

“My Cab Driver was a Larouchie.”
And I’ll be damned if we didn’t arrive at my final destination a little too soon, I was having fun talking with the guy. We both did what we could to commemorate the occasion: I gave him a big tip, he gave me a LaRouche pamphlet, and we parted ways.

The LYM versus Boomer dichotemy hits again  (See too.).  Some Boomers in Sycamose.

Organizer Judy Clark, who spent a few hours set up outside the post office with her husband Don, said the non-partisan [Wait.  I thought they were “FDR Democrats!!”]  group wants to see Obama removed from office. The Clarks live in Chicago and said they have traveled across the state and to Wisconsin, Minnesota and Missouri to spread the group’s message.
[…]  And all kinds of opinions!
Tamera Durst of Sycamore took fliers from Don as she left the post office.
She said the propaganda might bother those simply looking to get in and out of the post office.
“I thought I would be nice and stop and take their literature,” she said.
Doug Bolton of DeKalb took a photo of one of the group’s posters with the mustache and said he thought it was “hilarious.”
“I’m not a big fan of any politician,” he said. “… I think the dictator mustache is pretty clever.”

Anyway, you can see their picture there, and basic attitude toward their organization.  Compare that with  the LYM in Boston:

The Larouche supporters indicated that under no circumstance would they respond to questions from the press.
“I think the press are cowards,” one 20-something male said.
Another haggard- and somewhat nervous-looking supporter accused a Gazette reporter of “harassing us” and pulled out his cell phone as if to call police. Within a few seconds he closed his phone without having made the call.

Wel then.

The group alternately sang a harmonized ditty with the repetitive refrain “cut Obama’s mustache; it must be real, it must be real,” as well as “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

[…]

“We mourn the loss of six million Jews and countless others,” she claimed, but warned that if Obama’s policies are allowed to flourish “the whole world will go down and with it a lot more than six million people.”
That rationale mattered little to Doug White of Dighton. White had taken his 8-year-old son James along with him Tuesday and parked on the Green in support of Sean Bielat, Charlie Baker and other Republican candidates.

Looking at the picture, I take it they’re in a battling mood against wikipedia.

Your characterization of LaRouche’s views and policies is all defamatory Wikipedia fantasy-cruft. Readers who want to know what LaRouche says and does can go to blah de blah.

Skip to the expected “Kesha Rogers election result kooky” page and we get it again.

Presumably Deekoo considers America during the Franklin Roosevelt administration to have been a “fascist state in everything but name.” Believe it or not, there are some demented Libertarians that do make that claim. For any reader who wants to learn about LaRouche’s ideas first hand, rather than from some doofus spinning Wikipedia-style fairy tales, I recommend the blah de blah.

So, we go to the wikipedia and see the odd claims of the Larouche Wikipedia Editing Team:

Don’t let your paranoia get the best of you, Bill Masen. Do not think that i know what was going on in this article. I simply noted that noone – that’s: “N-O-O-N-E” would give a s**t about the reliability of an article with such sources. Got my point? 81.210.198.177 (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, i do not need to find a “book that supports Larouche”. Neither do i need books which do not support him.I prefer unbiased sources.Thank you, Sir. That will do. 81.210.198.177 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Loopy.  Or how about, this “always lurking about, posted anonymously before” guy:

The first sentence of the article is “Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. … is an American self-styled economist, political activist, and the founder of several political organizations known collectively as the LaRouche movement.”
I think the term “self-styled” doesn’t sound very neutral.  (It is a defining characteristic, I’d say.)
I think “self-taught” would be better, and better yet would be to drop “economist” from the first sentence, because the organizations he founded and his political activities are much more central to the article which follows.

After all this fighting to get him defined as an “Economist”. 

After the wikipedia mention, Howard Gibson chimes in with this:
This article is pretty much lying junk. Kesha got 30-percent in a 3-way race in Republican land, which is kind of high.
No it isn’t.  It’s pretty well your plus / minus off of the “Straight Democratic Ticket”, and the third party candidate received single digits.
Observe, for instance, the difference between the Mississippi Senate results between the seriously backed candidacy in 2008 of one candidate, who received 45.04 percent of the vote, and another candidate in the same cycle who the Democratic Party put no resources behind, who received 38.56 percent of the vote — a mere 6 and a half less.  A partisan floor, a partisan ceiling.  (The latter candidate is relevant here, as you can read in the wikipedia page — well, he must have lost because the people abondoned him when he rejected Larouche, right?)

See too, about Kesha Rogers:
I voted for her. I would rather elect a crazy person who supports my interests half the time than a sane person who is actively working against me.

So, what is the Larouche Org up to after the Republican Victories?
Apparently, as with the buil-up to the elections, playing some foreign press again:

LaRouche’s call for the 25th Amendment was the focus of a half-hour live interview with Liliana Gorini, chairwoman of Movisol, LaRouche’s movement in Italy, on Radio Padania, the official radio of the Lega Nord, today. Host Roberto Ortelli quoted LaRouche as a “soloist Democrat” at the beginning of his report, and then asked Gorini to comment on the election results, and explain why LaRouche’s movement would play such an important role after the elections. Gorini invited listeners to listen to LaRouche’s webcast on Saturday, which will give the necessary marching order to those Democrats who want to free America from the grip of a mentally insane President. She quoted LaRouche’s call to invoke the 25th Amendment, have Biden replace Obama, go for Glass-Steagall, all of this before the new Congress takes over in January, emphasizing that it would be fatal for the U.S. and the whole world to wait for the Presidential elections in 2012.

Initially, the interview was supposed to last only 10 minutes, but there were so many calls from listeners that it was extended to a half-hour. Questions ranged from “how can a mentally unstable President be in charge of the military in such a difficult wartime?” to “it sounds like he giggles instead of leading: can this be due to his young age and inexperience?” (commenting on the NSC meeting cited by the Ulsterman report), to “Is there a concrete danger of a social revolt and armed revolution in the next two months?” to an (unavoidable) question comparing Obama and Berlusconi (under investigation this time for an affair with a minor; Gorini said you cannot compare the two, but her advice as a woman and political leader to Berlusconi, is to stop being obsessed with young women and hookers, because it makes him vulnerable to political attacks).

ULSTERMAN!  The Deep Throat of the whole kookisphere.   (Sure to relay lots of stuff at the upcoming Historic Webcast.)
This “Citizen K” must have some real insider information, otherwise he wouldn’t be commenting.

Would the LaRouche-ites be playing the part of a useful idiot or the role played by a certain Franz Ferdinand, hater of a certain Arch Duke?

I would be interested to see where this goes. Theoretically, theorizing about putting the President out of office is, at least, a camel’s nose of treason under the hem of a tent, isn’t it?

This smells like something’s burning…

What would the metaphor be for a coup that was meant to fail so that the coup-ee can appear strong and decisive in the face of being coup’ed…

  Then there’s…

While Larry Brown approached the table with interest in their message, he ended up telling them, “I think you guys are a little over the edge.”

Nicole explained to another resident, “We’re building a military now to get Obama out of office.”

VFW Post 9791 Commander Dave Gilman responded, “We only have one military at a time,” before he walked away. Gilman also told them that he didn’t like their placement of a Hitler-like mustache on President Obama’s photograph.

 Building a Military?  Here’s the Military in action, shifting for supporters through…

One day, an older woman was talking to the faithful LaRouche supporter who stood in the blowing wind and sprinkling rain.
She said, “It took us eight years to get done everything we got done, and took him only twenty-two months to destroy everything.”
I felt my hair stand up. Literally.
Okay, this isn’t an Obama love-fest here, but I HATE seeing short/narrow mindedness in action.
What is the deal with Obama-is-Hitler image anyway? The only rationale I come up for that is somehow LaRouche has decided the social and economic circumstances in this country that led to Obama’s victory were in some way similar to those of post-WWI Germany. The economic devastation of proposed WWI reparations crippled Germany and left the populace ripe for a popular uprising by a charismatic leader.
IF this were a valid comparison, then the LaRouche supporter’s sympathizer wouldn’t be seeing eye to eye with him because then she’d have to accept that her guy did damage equivalent to post-WWI in order to usher in the charismatic new leader.
Yes, faulty reasoning and logic abound here (even my guess, I’m sure). But is it right to simply say: Obama is a socialist so he’s Hitler?
I saw many GW Bush is Hitler posters during his tenure, but it wasn’t because people thought he was a socialist.
I’d like to see some more creative political analogies, but I suppose if they tried to be more creative fewer people would understand what they were saying.
LaRouche is similar in that it attracts people who are disenchanted with the political and economic status quo, which these days is a lot of people. They will appeal to notions of patriotism and fairness, but when you get into their …

The battle for the Mind continues.  This is getting weirder, but I guess it’s the Great Military Clashings.

There is a Tacoma business owner who thinks LaRouche is discounted. This business owner is obviously insane herself. I don’t shop there anymore. She stole my cell phone and used twenty minutes of my air time to check all my messages to confirm I am not some part of a vast conspiracy. She too is insane. I reported her to the local prosecutor’s office as she was planning an attack against our prosecutor’s campaign signs.

And so…

Forget the ObamaNuts lambashing the Tea Party Movement being crazies…the LaRouche nuts are threatening a possible coup?  With elections coming around next week…are some of the acts of possible violence being instigated by LaRouchites like these brainwashed souls?

………………….

Other election results of note:
Summer Shields received no votes.
It’s probably not worth mentioning — does a disservice to Bielet, but if Sean Bielet had won the Larouchies would take it as their victory.  He lost quite easily, and if you consider that the Massachusetts Democratic Party had a pretty clean sweep of things — it was a bad night for Scott Brown.
Delia Lopez was in the lower 20 range.  She’s insane, and I guess will continue producing videos for her next campaign — whether the Larouchies decide to adopt her again we’ll have to wait and see.
Robert Lauten?  1.4 percent decided to take a stand against the Queen of England and for Glass Steagal in the California Treasurer election.  Or confused “AIP” for an investment firm.

As it has gone every election cycle for the past 40 years, in good Democratic years and good Republican years and everything in between, the Larouche Organization took a real drubbing at the polls — the American People have Spoken.

Sometime after the 2008 elections, I took my my sort of “corner of an eye” interest in the doings of Ron Paul’s supporters in various state Republican Party.  I took them to be the genesis of the “Tea Party”, though — in truth — they were rather superceded.

My repetitive line has become “But I thought the Tea Party was all about Fiscal Issues” with one cultural tone coming through after another. 

As one shifts through the 60 plus new Republican -critters, and shift out the “Tea Party” core of the lot, it’s worth looking about on where this new “Tea Party” force will bring pressure on the incoming Congress.

Co-founder Mark Meckler tried to pre-empt expectations among the faithful that Washington would shrink and the federal deficit would close overnight, instead alluding to a “forty-year plan” that the group was busy working out with its members. The plan, according to Meckler, was a highway with four lanes, only one of which was explicitly political. The other three were educational, judicial and cultural.

“All civilizations and empires have fallen because their cultures became decadent,” Meckler said. “We need to lift up conservative culture, family values and wholesome things by supporting conservative musicians, writers, artists and producers.”

As far as immediate steps, however, the group’s other co-founder, Jenny Beth Martin, announced that the Patriots would be hosting a freshman orientation, to which they were inviting incoming legislators of both parties. “If they uphold our values, we’ll give them the political backing to stand up to insiders in Washington,” Martin said. “If they don’t pay attention to that pressure, we’ll be back in two years to do it all over again and get people who will do it right.”

They’re going to save America by encouraging everyone to listen to Kid Rock and Pat Boone!

I’m reading the comments in the Oregonian “oregon live” articles on Jon Kitzhaber’s victory over — what’s his name?  His name is fading from my memory, not really being much of a basketball fan or anyone with enough wealth to be managed.  (Dear Republicans:  You would have won with Alan Alby, who — you know — has a record of some sort that could be compared and contrasted with the “dreaded” record of Kitzhaber).    I fairly quickly realize what a mistake it is to read the comments section of the online Oregonian.  We have accusations of voter theft, the Oregonian throwing the election, demands to know why the Urban counties take so long to count, rumblings about the power of Multnomah County against the Rural hinterlands with suggestion that something needs to be done to break this imbalance (maybe a county electoral college?), and…
… “Only Property Owners should have the right to vote, as they’re the only ones with skin the game.”
I see this line from time to time.  It’s a doozy, really.  Well, the last Republican Presidential Administration knew that encouraging home ownership was the way to build a Republican Majority — though, it was too bad he either had in mind home “ownership”, or didn’t know to stear it away from the shores of Speculative Bubbles.  But I doubt that was what the commenter is thinking about.

Reading the comments on Ezra Klein’s blog, I see a recurring line accusing him of being anti-Democratic and believing in “jamming unpopular legislation” and “manipulating legislative rules” to that end, questioning why pushing this or that bill would”exact political punishment”?  A curiously democratic feignt working against the anti-democratic impulse seen with figuring out worrying about the threat of the masses voting themselves welfare.

Never mind, the people are fickle and conflicted about what they want with their governing institutions.  The Independents are the worst of the lot, not apt to take in a long contour of events.  But roughly speaking, a President has two years to get some policy changes in effect, and then two years to .  Then his second term sucks.

Health Care?

I’d also note that the decision to pursue a comprehensive plan was as much a GOP choice as a Democratic choice. Numerous Democrats in the Senate were desperate for bipartisan cover and only mildly committed to comprehensive reform. If any Republican Senators had put a deal on the table, almost any deal at all, however puny, at least one of those Democrats would have jumped at it. But Republicans were following Mitch McConnell’s astute analysis that any bill with bipartisan support would become popular, and thus that withholding bipartisan support would hurt the Democrats but not Republicans. Republicans persistently followed an all-or-nothing strategy, and Democrats took all.

Which is to say, if Douthat is correct about his political premises, both parties had to choose between politics and policy. Democrats could have minimized their losses at the cost of sacrificing the health reform they wanted. Or Republicans could have minimized the scope of health care reform, at the cost of minimizing their potential wave. Democrats chose the best policy, and Republicans chose the best politics. I’m happy with the choice. Mitch McConnell won his election, and Democrats won health care reform. The latter is going to around a lot longer than the former.

Your comments:

The question is not if but how. What hurt the popularity of health care reform and by implication the president was not that it happened, but that weirdos like Ben nelson and Blanche Lincoln decided to use this as an opportunity to exercise their power as the rump of the senate majority, slow it down, hold out for silly deals, etc.
not sure what Obama could have done about that, but I think that was the problem.
on the bright side, if we were going to lose some senate dems, Lincoln was not such a bad person to see go.

AND

Bill Clinton tried to do healthcare, failed, and lost the House (and Senate). Obama tried to do healthcare, succeeded, and lost the House. Clinton is today considered a pretty adept politician, but his political skills didn’t help him keep Congress in Dem hands, and he wasn’t even staring down 10% unemployment at the time. Actually getting healthcare, yet losing the House, seems preferable to not getting healthcare, yet losing the House and Senate.

Meantime, link taken from Andrew Sullivan again:
Had congressional Republicans taken pragmatic steps on health reform between 1994 and 2008, PPACA wouldn’t have happened. President Bush’s reform of the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance alone would have made a significant difference, as would his plan for giving the states greater control over Medicaid. If you believe that the 111th Congress made many bad calls, Republicans in previous years deserve much of the blame. Major policy shifts are rare. But when it rains, it pours,” – Reihan Salam, NRO

Something similar might be said about Financial Reform, which — anyone railing against?

Those magical first two years of the Bush Administration, Bush’s domestic policy achievement was the Tax Cut.
Boehner and McConnell bring the suck.

Last night, in the wake of another landslide, incoming Speaker John Boehner sent a very different message: “While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it’s the president who sets the agenda for our government.”

The president? You’ve just been handed 60 House seats by voters disgusted with the president, and you’re deferring to him?

It’s good that to see their Political Strategy is laid out so transparently.

By the way, on the old line about “Hasn’t been another 9/11 under Bush’s watch”…

The Silver Lining for the Democratic Party?  How about this; it is the same silver lining the Republican Party in 2008.  Since the late 1800s, the ballot laws have ensured the two parties’ continued existence.  In the first century of the nation, the parties printed and distributed their ballots, a process which allowed for the orderly bankruptcy of the Federalist and Whig Parties.

[…]

The nature of the parties’ existence, on the other hand…

It appears the Republican Party has lost Majority Party status in Colorado, with an assist from Sarah Palin’s late endorsement of Tancredo.  That probably doesn’t change anything much, though.

The race I was watching closely was the Coburn / Rogers race in Oklahoma.  Unfortunately, Jim Rogers lost.  He ran a good race, though.  I’ll have to look up his Concession Speech.
…
Question of the day: Why is it, that every time I read down in the comments on some blog or news item about Tom Coburn, there’s a distinctive “God Bless Dr. Coburn” comment?  There appears to be a particular and peculiar type of “Coburn follower”, a sort of more religious version of the Paulites.

By the way — I’ll look up the Rand Paul ballyhoo from his crankier national base later.  But if you would, let me know where there’s a vast sea or collection of them.

  An orderly landslide.  The Republicans won all the seats they were expected to win easily, all the seats they were expected to win narrowly, a good share of the toss-ups, a handful of the seats the Democrats were expected to win narrowly, and one seat the Democrats were expected to win easily.  And Rasmussen was exposed as a Republican tool.
And the map that was before, geographically speaking, an even red and blue balance (as from the Republican rural advantage against the Democratic urban advantage) is now pretty well blood red.  In the turns of history, the public there comes back round to this view.
And so, she won.
The Blue Dogs have been cut in half, from 46 to 23.  And there goes Walt Minnick, the entire Idaho State Democratic party I gather.  This is inevitable in such a massive defeat.

What is fascinating about this election, and what is a little hard to figure out, the thing I noted a while ago, is the discreprency between the blow out in the House and the sort of middling level defeat in the Senate.  If these two results correlated, a 65 seat House turn-over should result in the Senate flip.  Conversely, a 6 Senate seat change-over ought to correlate with, maybe 40 House seats?
It makes some sense, though.  The lines of the districts are drawn fairly tightly, and consider the fate of the 23 Blue Dogs as representative.  They are routed out of the South, which already hold Republican Senate seats, and out of the Rural “Rust-belt” heartland, where Joe Sestack and Russ Feingold and on to Alexi Giannoulias attempted to stem the tide with urban and college-town centers.
The corporate backers of the “Tea Party Express” had better get to work figuring out the kinks of their machine.
Palin had a bad night, but it’s deceptive enough to make it seem like a good night.

The 2010 representatives of the 1994’s Mike Huffington / Oliver North — just a little bit too crazy to get elected in favorable election climates are… Sharron Angle and Ken Buck.

I have to suggest that the Republican losers had the most remarkably insane Concession speeches.  It’s an interesting trend.

Sharron Angle.
Christine O’Donnell, who — you know, destroyed the Delaware Republican Party, thus making the “Delaware Political System” never being the same with “The Republican Party never” being the same — which is, electable.
The race was good for her career, I gather.
Further, she made an appeal for Chris Coons to, um, re-instate the Bush Tax Cuts.  Watch the infomercial she botched in the delivery to air on Public Access.

Then there’s the Gracious Concession speech from Carl Paladino.  Er? 

Mellow out?  Or, you can’t.  Pot went down across the country.
California Proposition 19 was defeated.  This is good news for Pot Smokers, for these reasons.
Last night I asked my girlfriend’s 18 year-old son if he was going to vote for Prop 19, in what is his first opprtunity to vote. He surprised me with a no. His reasoning? It’s more exciting if it’s illegal.
AND
Any smart marijuana smoker would vote no on 19. By legalizing marijuana the prices would only escalate by the government. Therefore, underground dealers will also raise their prices. Paying more for the same stuff except it’s legal. Citizens would rather take the risk then spend more.
Hm.

Whatever Obama’s fortunes here on out — and I’d say he’s still the favorite to win the 2012 Race, based partially on a theory of Election politics which held his 2008 victory as rather uniquely a coalition of unlikely voters and his 2010 defeat based off a base off everyone who voted against him in 2008 —
— It may be that the midterm route, in the current political era, is by nature of the electoral beast heightened for Democratic Presidencies, but we’ve only two case studies for this.
Or it may be that we’re in an era of the depressed diaspora holds that the winner is the one who rides in off of rather fabricated well – marketed “Revolutions” —
Well, He’s Big In China.