I'd take it a step further and suggest no one bother reading anyone's analysis or polling over the next few weeks (include mine in that, if you want). Having been around for both the '82 and '94 midterms, I can assure you that gobs of spite and nonsense were spewed, with "numbers" to back them, none of which turned out to have much validity. In fact, W. aside, there's not infrequently an inverse correlation between the severity of the midterm losses and re-election prospects.

This is the thing that gets me the most about the reactions (from both the Left and the Right) on what this means long term.

A president who was swept into power on his rhetorical skills and anger at the previous president's mismanagement suffers punishing losses in his first midterms propelled by voter anger at poor economic conditions and high unemployment. He is able to salvage control of the Senate however. With legislative solutions to the economy largely cut off he's forced to rely on unconventional Federal reserve action to bring the economy back. Already there are whispers from within his own party of primary challenges and centrist are openly calling him to abandon his signature policies, while his party base questions whether he has the backbone to govern.

Quick who am I describing: Obama in 2010, or Reagan in 1982? I know that this stuff happened and I was fucking 2 at the time, it makes it all the more shocking when people who were actual adults when it happened seem to have forgotten.

Why is it necessary to feed into a 2012 media horse race narrative? Whatever seems to be the case now will quickly fade away. It's all a huge waste of time.

As I promissed, there will be postings of this comment on a regular basis.

Slightly OT, but I feel this is necessary to post regularly. You may see this on other threads. This is a paraphrase from Pachamama Alliance.

"I recognize the anger and frustration with the results of this election. I would like to offer a narrative for all of us to adopt:
Imagine you are speaking with your grandchildren and great-grandchildren in about 30 years (or someone else's if you don't have any). How would you answer their questions?
What did you do in your life to eliminate poverty, hunger, violence against others, homelessness and hatred? Can you identify the acts that you undertook and the words you spoke to create a better, more loving and peaceful world?

Do you have the courage to answer this question honestly? Did you vote for the candidates who addressed the issues of humanity or did you vote for the ones who preached hatred and division?
Ask yourself the questions and answer them honestly. Even if you don't speak them out loud, you will know in your heart how you answered.

Pass this question along to your friends and associates.
Ask your representative in government these same questions. Ask you children, now, how they think you might answer these questions.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john
Posted by st john at November 3, 2010 2:55 PM

WTF. 44% of registered voters would vote for Palin? I wouldn't have expected her to make it out of the single digits. That's messed up.

If I was not depressed enough about the results of the mid-terms, this morning my husband (A viet nam decorated veteran) with an illness related to agent orange had an appointment at a VA clinic to talk about compensation, the doctor said - with the half term elections, if you get your disability you should take the money and run - he also said that our senator Burr ( a former small appliance salesman) who is on the veterans affairs committee and one of the repubs re-elected for doing nothing - says veterans benefits are too generous!

If Obama chooses to fight for his base he will win in 2012. If, as he is signaling, he will further turn away from them and capitulate to the Republicans and corporate interests, they'll stay home again in 2012 and he will lose and Congress will fall deeper into Republican control.

It really is that simple, and the choice is entirely his. He's already snatched defeat from the jaws of victory once, I'm sure he'll let us down and do it again. Democrats are consistent only in their capacity to disappoint their supporters.

I really hope this is not representative, because any society that would rather be led by Mike Huckabee than by Barack Obama is one that has lost the capability to analyse what is in the national interest. And not long after that, surprise! You won't have a nation.

With all of the talk about the budget and deficits, having worked in the government for some time, I seem to remember that the budget year started in October for the following year, therefore the 2009 budget year started before Obama was sworn in, and this was the biggest because the 2.41 deficit was followed by a deficit of 2.29 which was Obama's first budget - someone tell me if I am right!

It won't be Mike Huckabee. The Tea Party may have been the shock troops here, but remember who holds the purse strings. If the candidate isn't someone rational enough for Big Business, they will back Obama again. Especially if we have any sort of a crisis between now and 2012.

They want someone more presentable and manageable. Someone said Big Oil is grooming Rick Perry of Texas, a dumber-than-Bush guy, and I say don't count our Jeb Bush. But if there is really something by the GOP that takes us to the brink of default, the biz guys may rethink their support of crazies.

Steve, you're great, but give it a break.

I wouldn't be too proud of doing well in a matchup with Moose Mom.