Monday opinion.
Scott Rasmussen:
Central to the Democrats' electoral woes was the debate on health-care reform. From the moment in May 2009 when the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president's plan would cost a trillion dollars, most voters opposed it. Today 53% want to repeal it. Opposition was always more intense than support, and opposition was especially high among senior citizens, who vote in high numbers in midterm elections.
Millions of dollars spent to lie about it will do that, and that spending has not stopped.
EJ Dionne:
If enough incumbent Democrats like [Patrick] Murphy survive on Tuesday through sheer energy and preparation (and I confess it's hard not to be swayed by his jaunty optimism), they will contain the damage of a difficult night.
The party believes it is gaining traction by warning voters to be wary of Republicans supported by undisclosed money from mysterious special interests that will be looking for post-election payback. Its "made in America" campaign against outsourcing has shored up some Democrats like Murphy in the old industrial states. And Tea Party extremism may be frightening the base out of indifference.
But this Tuesday will still be very different from that glorious evening for Democrats four years ago, and much of the post-election analysis will focus on ideology, on whether Obama moved "too far left" and embraced too much "big government."
And will be wrong. At 6% unemployment, this discussion doesn't exist. And if Republicans do take the House, they'll have to scramble to actually come up with something that will help the economy.
NY Times on the 6 billion at the Rally for Sanity and/or Fear:
But beyond the goofiness, the rally seemed to be channeling something deep — a craving to be heard and a frustration with the lack of leadership, less by President Obama than by a Democratic Party that many participants described as timid, fearful, and failing to stand up for what they see as the president’s accomplishments.
"I’m proud of Obama, but the Democrats in Congress, they’re just running for cover," said Ron Harris, a lawyer from Laguna Beach, Calif., who came to celebrate his 64th birthday. "They couldn’t sell bread to a starving mother if God was standing next to them."
A commonly shared view, one that we can relate to.
WaPo:
Federal Reserve's, Bernanke's credibility on line with new move to boost economy
Posted without comment.
Via the Hill:
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who will likely become committee chairman if Republicans take control of the House on Tuesday, said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday that the administration handled the threat "perfectly."
"In this particular matter, I think the administration has handled it perfectly," he said, acknowledging his history of calling out the administration.
Rare honesty.
NY Times:
The most expensive Senate battle in the country. A chance for Democrats to win the governor’s office for the first time since 1986. Two Congressional seats once thought to be safely Democratic now viewed as vulnerable.
Those are just some of the themes in play as voters in Connecticut head to the polls on Tuesday.
Except that Blumenthal will beat McMahon and the seats formerly held long term by Republicans Nancy Johnson and Chris Shays (for years and years) were never auto Dem seats and we've have a Republican Governor for almost 2 decades (1991). Aside from that, accurate article.
Added (blockquote from Morning Score):
As soon as the 2010 elections are over and done with, the GOP establishment plans to turn on former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin with a vengeance, Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei report: "There is rising expectation among GOP elites that Palin will probably run for president in 2012 and could win the Republican nomination, a prospect many of them regard as a disaster in waiting. Many of these establishment figures argue in not-for-attribution comments that Palin’s nomination would ensure President Barack Obama’s reelection. ... The gathering presidential campaigns-in-waiting anticipate what amounts to two competing GOP primaries: one to win the backing of the party's establishment, another to represent the tea party crowd. In past elections, voters of Iowa and New Hampshire have been resistant to highly partisan candidates, and GOP presidential nominees have historically gone to establishment-backed candidates over insurgents. Then again, that has also been true of GOP Senate primaries — which decidedly was not the case this past year."
Too late. She's yours, Republicans.