It's somebodies fault

With just a couple days to go before election day things are looking grim for the democrats, regardless of what polls you look at.  Yesterday  morning The New Republic tried to put a positive spin their prediction that the Democrats would only lose 45 seats in the House Of Representatives.  Their argument in How To Tell If Obama Blew the Election, Or If It Was Blown At All was that unless more than fifty seats were lost, Obama hadn't done bad at all.  It's his first Mid Term and the economy's bad, what do you expect?

First of all, a loss of over 50 House Seats is seats in a midterm is rare.  It has only happened three times in the last eighty years. Once in the last fifty. that was in 1994 when the GOP picked up 52 Seats.  Since, TNR is one of the most liberal of the liberal websites, I figured I'd better look elsewhere.

The Current House make up is 255 Democrats, 178 Republicans and 2 Vacancies.

If The New Republic is correct the end result would be  213 Democrats and  223 Republicans.  That's either wishful thinking or pure liberal propaganda. 

Real Clear Politics, a much less biased source is currently suggesting the Democrats have 171 reasonably safe seats, the Republicans are up to 224.  Another 40 are too close to call.  That means the Dems would have to take almost every single one of the tight races for it not be a disastrous election for Obama.  Possible. but highly improbable.

I think a more likely scenario will be a GOP pick up of between half and two thirds of the current Toss Up Districts.  The biggest single loss of seats in a midterm since 1932, almost, but not quite a complete reversal of the current balance of power.   Combine this with a loss of 8 or 9 Senate Seats and Barack Obama is about to make history, and get told what Americans think of his performance and agenda.

How will the President react?  Predictably, three days after the election he's skipping the country and heading to Asia until the heat dies down.  There is going to be a lot of heat, and finger pointing.  The blame game is already underway. 

Does this mean the end of Barack Obama's Presidency and re-election chances?  That is up up to him, the last President to get beat up like this was FDR in his first mid-term.  He went on to win the Presidency three more times.  After Bill Clinton got smacked with the loss of 52 House Seats in 1994 he worked with Congress, got re-elected and had a successful Presidency.

I may be wrong, but I don't think Obama will recover like Roosevelt, Clinton or Ronald Reagan, who also took a beating his first midterm.  His arrogance won't allow it, he'll blame democratic voters for not supplying enough votes.  He'll blame the Party itself for not being supportive enough, he'll blame the evil corporations and the demonic Tea Party for undermining his Presidency.  The thought of he'll say about FOX News is scary.  Mostly he'll blame the American People for being to stupid to appreciate him, wisely he'll temper that somewhat by saying he didn't make his message clear enough.   

The warning signs are already there

"This from News Week; "Obama Clings Again! Blames "Scared" Voters" on October 17th

"Uh-oh. President Obama seems to have learned nothing from the disaster of the "cling-to-guns-and-God" talk that almost derailed his campaign in 2008. He's back at it—blaming voters for failing to "think clearly" because they're "scared" about the economy:"　

Remember what he said at that  Labor Day gathering in Milwaukee, when he complained that the special interests treat him badly.

“They’re not always happy with me,” he told supporters. “They talk about me like a dog — that’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true.”

Lately from White House insiders we've been hearing more and more about the discontent surrounding the President.  Advisers are fleeing the White House before, not after the impending November 3rd disaster for the President. What might be most telling is in a editorial by Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, two liberal pollsters and published in the very liberal Washington Post.  Here's a telling excerpt from their article Our divisive president, redux 

We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office: Richard Nixon.

 We write in sadness as traditional liberal Democrats who believe in inclusion. Like many Americans, we had hoped that Obama would maintain the spirit in which he campaigned. Instead, since taking office, he has pitted group against group for short-term political gain that is exacerbating the divisions in our country and weakening our national identity.The culture of attack politics and demonization risks compromising our ability to address our most important issues - and the stature of our nation's highest office.


Indeed, Obama is conducting himself in a way alarmingly reminiscent of Nixon's role in the disastrous 1970 midterm campaign. No president has been so persistently personal in his attacks as Obama throughout the fall. He has regularly attacked his predecessor, the House minority leader and - directly from the stump - candidates running for offices below his own. He has criticized the American people suggesting that they are "reacting just to fear" and faulted his own base for "sitting on their hands complaining



Liberals are comparing Obama's behavior unfavorably to Richard M. Nixon's is a bad sign for the Country and for the President personally.  In 1970 America, except for the radical left America still trusted Nixon, they showed that in 1972 when the Silent Majority got him re-elected.  America's Silent Majority has evolved.  In 1994 they gave Newt Gingrich his Contract with America.  They're not silent anymore either, they are the basis for the Tea Party.

How will Obama react to the election?  Once again Caldwell and Schoen give us a clue;

"We are also disturbed that the office of the president is mounting attacks on private individuals, such as the founders of the group Americans for Prosperity. Having been forged politically during Watergate - one of us was the youngest member of Nixon's enemies list - we are chilled by the prospect of any U.S. president willing to marshal the power of his office against a private citizen."

Once again a reference to Nixon, a disgraced President who resigned from Office,  I suspect they're right. Without a Democratic Congress to protect him,  his attacks on individuals and media outlets will not be overlooked.    The Washington Post isn't alone. I mentioned News Week earlier and recently even the New York Times has been less than complimentary. When liberal media starts to question the motivations of a liberal President, I believe we might have a problem.   I don't think that's happened since Jimmy Carter, and no one Compared him to Richard Nixon