Democratic Party Lose Majorities – What’s Next?

Wise words from Morton Kondracke at Cagle Blogs:

At a forum on health care reform’s role in the campaign, Republican pollster Whit Ayres said, “this election is a rejection of Democratic governance, just like 2006 and 2008 were a rejection of Republican governance.

“Independents are particularly upset. It’s not just health care. It’s the auto bailout. It’s the stimulus bill. It’s the $1.3 trillion deficit … The problem is not marketing. It is what (the Democrats) did. It’s taking the country in a direction people didn’t want it to go.”

At the same event, sponsored by the journal Health Affairs, even Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said the Obama administration and Congress seemed to get “diverted from the public’s No. 1 concern, the economy,” to health care.

“They made the big mistake in 2009 of thinking that the stimulus was going to bring back the economy. They didn’t appreciate how difficult it would be. People thought the stimulus was just a one-shot and not a strategy.”

There is no question about it, Obama and the Democrats are going to lose and lose big tonight  – the next question becomes, are the Republicans going to continue to pore salt into the wounds of Democrats or are they going to take their majority in the House (and possible a majority in the Senate) and attempt to work with Obama to correct a pretty bad situation?

As Richard Albert recently commented in the Huffington Post:

[Here] is the paradox about the fate awaiting the Democratic Party in November: President Barack Obama actually wins if congressional Democrats lose. The President will find himself in a stronger position to face reelection in 2012 if his Democratic Party loses its congressional majority in the 2010 midterm elections.

Knowing this, what are the Republicans going to do next? Put the screws to Obama and their Democratic opponents, or build an opposing (and positive) policy agenda for the next two years?

Media Bias: Quit Blaming the Candidate, its the Media’s Fault!

The mainstream media in general is biased towards Obama and the Democrats – if you don’t believe that, your head is firmly in the sand.  Almost every media outlet I’ve encountered is indirectly (and in some cases, directly) fawning over Obama (and to a lesser extent, Biden) while at the same time gunning for John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin.

Columnist Michael Malone agrees, and tries her best to explain why:

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer — when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?