Despite assertions at the beginning of the October from Democratic pundits and strategists that going into the last four weeks before the November 2, 2010 midterm elections the public would see the races tightening up and Democrats making headway into the lead the GOP held, the opposite has been occurring.With each poll taken by organizations like Gallup and Rasmussen, with each handicapper adjusting their projections, the field is narrowing even further for Democrats and even today, two weeks before election day, the news is still announcing the political map is expanding for Republicans.
The GOP needs a net gain of 39 to take control of the House of Representatives away from Nancy Pelosi and Democrats.
The Politico reports that 99 Democratic-held House seats are now in play. Taking just half would put the GOP in control, removing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and putting a stop to the one party rule that has allowed Obama's agenda to be jammed through the House and Senate.
THE SPIN
The political spin from Democrats and the Obama White House has already started, preemptively explaining the "losses" before election day even arrives.
Barack Obama, Democrats and liberal bloggers across the country have all tried to demonize outside political groups claiming "foreign money" was buying elections because some PAC'S allow foreign donations, until the big news hit that Democrats have benefited double the amount money wise from groups that are affiliated with foreign entities.
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate alleging GOP groups have funneled foreign money into campaign ads have seen their party raise more than $1 million from political action committees affiliated with foreign companies.
House and Senate Democrats have received about $1.02 million this cycle from such PACs, according to an analysis compiled for The Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics. House and Senate GOP leaders have taken almost $510,000 from PACs on the same list.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has publicly stated that the election are about "local issues", preemptively spinning a loss as not a referendum on Barack Obama and Democratic leaders policies, but only as local individual losses.
"I think that campaigns in this cycle are being run on a lot of local issues and issues that are important, not nationally, but to individual states and ... individual congressional districts," Gibbs said.
In a way he is right, it is about local issues, but those local issues; unemployment, the economy, Obamacare, the federal deficit etc.... all stemmed from Obama and Democrats passing legislation (stimulus) they promised would help by 2010 and has failed and to which the majority of Americans believe the economy is getting worse, not better, and believe the country is on the wrong track.
The next line of reasoning, from Obama himself is that voters will cast their votes because they are "scared" and not "thinking clearly" in what Michael Gearson calls the "most arrogant words ever uttered by an American president."
"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now," he recently told a group of Democratic donors in Massachusetts, "and facts and science and argument [do] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared."
Let's unpack these remarks.
Obama clearly believes that his brand of politics represents "facts and science and argument." His opponents, in disturbing contrast, are using the more fearful, primitive portion of their brains. Obama views himself as the neocortical leader -- the defender, not just of the stimulus package and health-care reform but also of cognitive reasoning. His critics rely on their lizard brains -- the location of reptilian ritual and aggression. Some, presumably Democrats, rise above their evolutionary hard-wiring in times of social stress; others, sadly, do not.
Though there is plenty of competition, these are some of the most arrogant words ever uttered by an American president.
Then there is the never ending political excuse that money is the be all end all of elections and those that have more, spend more, will win.
I took that myth to task back in September, but today I see a piece by David Brooks in the NYT takes those arguments a step further, blowing that myth away readily.
Let’s start with the current data. The vast majority of campaign spending is done by candidates and political parties. Over the past year, the Democrats, most of whom are incumbents, have been raising and spending far more than the Republicans.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats in the most competitive House races have raised an average of 47 percent more than Republicans. They have spent 66 percent more, and have about 53 percent more in their war chests. According to the Wesleyan Media Project, between Sept. 1 and Oct. 7, Democrats running for the House and the Senate spent $1.50 on advertising for every $1 spent by Republicans.
Despite this financial advantage, Democrats have been sinking in the polls. I suppose they could argue that the conditions could be even worse if they didn’t have the money edge, but this is a weak case. It’s more plausible to argue that the ad buys just didn’t make that much difference.
No doubt over the next two weeks there will be more spin coming from liberal bloggers, Democratic politicians and Barack Obama and all of it is meant to do one thing. (Explained below)
THE AFTERMATH
To give liberal pundits reason, excuses, justification and explanations to use in the aftermath of what might be historic losses in the House and Senate.
Midterms will be in direct reflection of how voters feel Democrats have run Washington for the last two years since Obama has been President and the last four years where Democrats have had the majorities in the House and Senate.
Would anyone like to wager that on November 3, 2010, one day after the midterms, one or all of the talking points listed above will be spewed relentlessly throughout the talking TV heads and blogosphere?
After all, they won't be able to simply admit that the current Congress, Senate and White House has angered and disappointed the American people by shoving legislation the majority of voters were opposed to down our throats, raised our deficit to record highs and spent money we do not have like drunken sailors, and the voters decided it was time to hand those politicians pink slips.
.
