Diegetics

Well, I can't understate it. This is simply not possible. Barack Obama is the greatest politician of all time (even though Firefox still doesn't recognize his name in the spellchecker), and he is flirting with being the biggest loser in the history of US politics. And he's going up against some figures that will be very hard to beat, but it looks like he is giving them a run for their money. Coming in, Baramba was widely thought among the dems to be the spark of up to 40 years of liberal dominance, and now looking back it lasted maybe 6 months depending how you want to add it up. It isn't possible, but it appears to be happening anyway. A deeply anti-intellectual move by Democrats putting him up over Hillary. Deeply anti-intellectual. Almost revelry in ignorance, to borrow a phrase. Hillary would have had us in gray smocks with little red books on the bedstand over a year ago.

It looks like Barack is Ba-roken.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144053/2010- ... -Past.aspx

So I can't get the graphics to post, so please read the graphs at the link. I see it all around me. People I never thought would vote GOP now talk about it enthusiastically, and I hear the phrase "I can't wait for election day" almost every day, from people who hated George Bush. I can't believe it.

So I cannot hazard a guess at how many seats. The numbers are all over the place. 50? Seems at this point that is quite lowball. Some say 100? Seems like too much. Who knows. Maybe 60-70, which I think would be a record. I would say the chance of the Dems retaining the house is under 10%.

At this point, I think there is only one person I know of who thinks that Democrats will pick up seats, and that would be Milo. I have no idea how he came up with that. For a guy who bases some of his biggest opinions on the consensus of professionals/experts, why he would depart radically from his MO is beyond me. Who knows. He may have a crystal ball. I don't, not anymore. Maybe 60 or so. We'll see.

I recall a saying that Americans vote with their pocketbooks.

There is no evidence they are. The evidence suggests they now oppose enormous government growth, and would like to stem what the CBO calls "unsustainable debt".

TARP [Troubled Assholes Relief Program] was signed into law by the Republicrat Bush Jr Admin, so I don't wouldn't expect any major changes post Nov 2 elections, copious sprinkling of magic fairy dust notwithstanding.

TARP was defeated by the House GOP first time it was voted on, to the surprise of almost everyone.

Joe Biden says he will spend the country out of bankruptcy. I have not heard the GOP say that.

Little sympathy for the current Demopublicans, however, it was the Republicrat Admin that signed TARP into law.

When it comes to politicians, one can discount what they say, it's what they do that matters.

It will be interesting on Tuesday for certain. Of course your Obama fallacy still doesn't work. He's not up for re-election and midterm party losses traditionally help the party's incumbent. So the Republicrats will take the House. The Demopublicans will keep the White House in two years. I am curious to see if they'll take the 39 seats they need.

On another note, I actually like the Republicrat Senate candidate in NY running against Gillibrand. Gillibrand is thoroughly unimpressive. But as she is taking the Citizens United ruling on head-on I may vote for her. I am somewhat ambivalent in our Senate races.

Ancient glory. :salute:

I think you're just being a "party" pooper.

That I certainly am. Can't understand why your people don't give both party syndicates the bum rush they so richly deserve.

We did, just not on the same elections.

Y, what do you think Democrats did to deserve a bum rush?

Y, I guess Euros are taking this all rather emotionally.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... id=twitter

Mr. P, how much did Clinton lose the House by in 94, before being re-elected President two years later?