Custom Search
Showing posts with label Sweep. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sweep. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

"Feels Bad!" Obama Comments On 2010 GOP Wave














For Obama: OK, What Now?


When Republican Trent Lott sat down for lunch with Democrat Tom Daschle on Monday afternoon, mere hours before voters shellacked President Obama and his party in the midterm elections, it was more than just two former Senate gladiators getting together to reminisce about old times

Despite their many differences over the years, Lott and Daschle managed to find a way to work together during the bruising days of the Clinton and Bush administrations, where everything from impeachment to Iraq caused deep divisions between the parties.

"He and I are whispering back and forth," Lott told me of his conversations with Daschle.

The two still keep in close touch and are now working back channels to try to get Obama and incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to see that a divided government does not have to mean that the government comes to a screeching halt.

"Tom and I went through this situation on both sides," said Lott, who was the Senate majority leader while Daschle was minority leader. "We've been through three different iterations of circumstances where we found a way to get things done."

When Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, President Bill Clinton was still able to get a balanced budget and major welfare reform.

Lott and Daschle later hammered out a historic power-sharing agreement when George W. Bush was elected in 2000 with a 50-50 Senate. They ended up passing the president's tax cuts and signature No Child Left Behind education reform law, among other big initiatives.

And finally, after Bush's party lost both chambers to Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections, Lott worked with Daschle's successor, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, to come together to pass many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for intelligence reform and the first increase in the federal minimum wage in a decade.

"There are things you can do together," Lott said. "It doesn't have to be blood and guts every day. The rhetoric is over, now what are you going to do?"

It's the question hanging over Obama: What will he do next? And besides Lott, there are other senators who served with him on Capitol Hill who believe he will follow in the footsteps of Clinton and retool his message and move to the center.

"I think it is really incumbent on him to try and work with the Republicans," said former Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Florida. "Everyone talks about almost a reset button. You have to recognize you're not going to get it all your way. And the country is better for it."

Martinez says the president should pick off a couple of issues -- like a scaled-back energy reform bill and education reform -- and force Republicans to meet him halfway because they are on a short leash with voters as well. "I mean, you can't gridlock the place for two years," he said of both parties. "I think the key is to find two or three things that are not monumental and get them done."

The thinking is that this will build momentum for bigger issues, and it's a philosophy that, in the early hours after this election, is being embraced by some senior White House officials who see a chance to forge bipartisan agreement on various trade deals.

But it's clear the compromising attitude from the White House will extend only so far. The expectation among senior Democrats and Republicans is that Obama will acknowledge the need for some kind of move to the middle, but he is also expected to dig in on his principles and not give ground on making major changes to his health care reform or Wall Street reform packages.

"What voters told us in 2008 and 2010 is they're frustrated with Washington -- both times," a senior White House official said. "And what that means is we have to work together for them. [Republicans] will say they have a mandate to erase everything done over the last two years. That would be a total misreading of the situation."

In addition to what Obama says at Wednesday's news conference in the East Room, Democratic officials say we should expect another statement from Obama on Thursday before he leaves on a trip to Asia. Look for him to call for a bipartisan summit with congressional leaders later this month, possibly at Camp David, an idea first pushed by moderate Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, in a letter to the president last month.

"What's more important than the outcome of this election is that the Democrats and Republicans find a way to work together for the good of the country," Nelson said in a telephone interview.

Sharp campaign rhetoric

But getting both sides to sing "Kumbaya" is not going to be easy after a bitter campaign in which the president decided to elevate Boehner by relentlessly attacking his economic plan, while White House officials openly slammed the Republican leader as a tool of lobbyists and other special interests.

Boehner's hands, of course, are not clean either. The primary reason that Obama has thus far pushed through most of his agenda with essentially Democratic-only votes is because Boehner, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, have spent the past 22 months saying "no" to just about every Obama initiative.

"We're going to do everything -- and I mean everything -- we can do to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can," Boehner recently vowed about blocking the Obama agenda.

A far cry from the warm words each side expressed after Obama's midnight call of congratulations to Boehner Tuesday. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president was "looking forward to working with him and the Republicans to find common ground, move the country forward and get things done for the American people."

Boehner's side was also using all the right words, putting out a written statement saying it was a "pleasant conversation" and noting they discussed "working together to focus on the top priorities of the American people, which Boehner has identified as creating jobs and cutting spending."

It sounds good, but there are plenty of hurdles to following through on the promises to work together, especially with battles still looming over contentious issues such as whether to extend all of the Bush tax cuts -- including those for families earning more than $250,000 a year -- not to mention Boehner's vow to either repeal or at least radically scale back Obama's health care reform package.

On the conservative side of the spectrum, so many Tea Party favorites winning seats in the House and Senate enter the arena with the inclination to stake out principled ground on the right. "The influx of new people who will not want to compromise out of the box makes the leaders' job that much harder," Daschle says.

But there will also be pressure from the left, on Obama and leaders like Reid, to hold true to progressive principles and not moderate. Look at the tweet that former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich sent Tuesday night: "Repeat: Obama's next step isn't to 'move to the center.' It's to have greater courage of conviction."

Division among Democrats

It will be difficult for Obama to steer too far to the left, however, after conservative Blue Dog Democrats took a beating in the election for not sticking to the center on the economy and health care, among other issues. No fewer than 23 of 46 incumbent Blue Dogs were defeated at the polls, sending an unmistakable message to the surviving conservative Democrats who are facing voters in 2012 that they better be careful about casting liberal votes on key legislation.

Take Sen.-elect Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who helped Democrats keep control of the chamber by running sharply against Obama. Manchin ran a television ad in which he literally shot a bullet into a copy of cap-and-trade legislation to show his independence.

Manchin did not win a full six-year term, instead getting the final two years of the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd's term, which means he will face the voters again in two years. "He's going to be voting with us most of the time if he wants any hope of being re-elected in 2012," a senior Republican aide said.

Then there's Nelson, who took a lot of heat back home for voting in favor of both the stimulus and the health care bill, and is expected to face a strong challenge in 2012. Since Democrats will have anywhere from 51 to 53 seats in the chamber, depending on final results in Colorado and Washington, they will be several votes shy of the 60-vote supermajority needed to pass most legislation, and the math will only get more difficult when Nelson decides to vote with Republicans on various issues.

"You've got Ben Nelson there sitting in Nebraska, and he's in trouble on a good day, so you've got that wild card," former Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said in an interview. "It puts him in a tough spot on all the big issues."

Nelson rejects the notion that he's in as much trouble as his critics suggest. But he does make it clear that he will not be a rubber stamp for the White House on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, a sign of how difficult it will be for Obama to find consensus unless he moves to the center.

"I want to see them all extended," Nelson said of the tax cuts for people making below and above $250,000 a year. "One year is too short -- at least two years" he said of the extension period that has previously been rejected by the president.

Hope for bipartisanship

Hagel, who was always an iconoclastic Republican during his time in the Senate and is now close to Obama as co-chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, is hopeful that all of this pressure will help lead to the White House starting over with Republicans.

"You're going to see a whole different outreach, a Clintonian post-1994 approach," Hagel said. "They're studying what happened there, and I think you're going to see some shifts."

Clinton's approach not only helped him forge deals in the short term, but it also sealed his re-election two years later, which raises the question as to whether there is really an incentive for Republicans to work with Obama.

But all of the current and former senators interviewed for this article said that Boehner and McConnell -- who recently suggested that his top concern is making sure Obama is a one-term president -- are under pressure themselves to show results unless they want the angry electorate to turn on them.

"All this bravado and beating of the chests by McConnell and Boehner -- that runs into the wall of responsibility and accountability to govern this country," Hagel said. "The overriding issue is why can't these guys get together and fix our problems in an adult way? Republicans can't just beat their breasts. If Mitch or Boehner play those games, they're going to be in a lot of trouble in 2012."

A key player to watch in all of this is Obama's new chief of staff, Pete Rouse, who was Daschle's top aide during the time he worked with Lott on so many bipartisan compromises.

Lott fondly recalls the days when he and Clinton would fight over policy while actually developing a warm personal relationship, a bond that does not exist right now between Obama and any of the other leaders, particularly Boehner. "The first step is communication," Lott said. "When Clinton had something on his mind, he'd call me at the house ­ 9 p.m., 11 p.m., 2 in the morning. Literally, he called me one time at 2 o'clock in the morning about El Salvador. And when we were finished, my wife said, 'What was that about?' And I said, 'I'm not really sure.' "



Sources: CNN

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Michael Steele Predicts GOP Wave On November 2, 2010 (Videos)












Sources: Meet The Press, MSNBC

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Democrats Fight But Prepare For 2010 GOP Sweep: Obama's Low Ratings
















Preston On Politics: Democrats Prepare For The Worst: Decision 2010


It has been said over and over again: The 2010 midterm is the anti-incumbent, anti-Washington and by virtue of their position in power, the anti-Democratic election.

A sputtering economy, 9.6 percent national unemployment rate, housing crisis and little hope for a quick turnaround on the jobs front has forced Democrats on the defense heading into November.

OK, that is an understatement.

Democrats are under siege all across the country and are in deep danger of losing control of the House and if a massive wave develops on November 2, perhaps even the Senate.

Fueled by a huge fundraising effort by the Republican Governors Association, the GOP is also in position to reclaim more than a half dozen governorships including in states that President Obama easily won in 2008 such as Iowa, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

The new CNN/Time/Opinion Research Corporation Polls offers data that shows Democrats running for Senate seats in four key states are in dire straits and a president with little juice to help propel them to victory.

In all four of these states: Alaska, Arkansas, Florida and Ohio, Obama's job approval rating ranges from a low of 33 percent (Arkansas) to a high of 42 percent (Ohio). The anti-Washington, thus anti-Democratic, theme shines like a bright neon sign in each of these races.

And the GOP's rubber stamp argument seems to be resonating with voters, whether it is true or not: Sending, say, Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln back to Washington means she will be a rubber stamp for Obama. Lincoln, who stuck to her centrist views and beat back a strong primary challenge from her political left earlier this year, is trailing her GOP opponent, Rep. John Boozman, by 14 points.

In Ohio, Democratic Senate nominee Lee Fisher is down 15 points to Republican Rob Portman. And in Florida, GOP Senate nominee Marco Rubio has a 26 point lead over Democrat Kendrick Meek in a three way race that also features Charlie Crist. Crist is running an independent bid for the Senate seat and trails Rubio by 14 points.

(The National Republican Senatorial Committee is also making the claim to West Virginia voters that the popular Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin would be a rubber stamp for Obama if elected to the Senate).

But the Democrats running for governor in three of four of these states surveyed by CNN/Time/ORC shows that these candidates are either competitive or leading in their individual races. Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe has a 27-point lead over his GOP rival Jim Keet; Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland is up one point over Republican opponent John Kasich; and in the race for Florida governor, Democrat Alex Sink trails Republican Rick Scott by three points, which is within the poll's 3.5 percent margin of error.

So, I think it is fair to say -- outside of Alaska -- that Democratic incumbents and candidates in these three states are not being stuck in the same category as their Democratic counterparts running for Senate. That is not to say the national mood is not having a negative affect on these Democrats, it just hasn't been devastating.

As for the CNN/Time/ORC Poll, I dug a little deeper into the survey and found these interesting data points:

Alaska: Lisa Murkowski obviously faces a difficult challenge in having her supporters correctly write-in her name on the ballot on November 2. The poll shows that Murkowski and GOP nominee Joe Miller are tied at 37 percent, with Democratic nominee Scott McAdams registering support at 23 percent. But when respondents were asked if they might choose another candidate if they think the write-in procedure is too complicated, 3 percent answered yes. So, take that 3 percent away from Murkowski's 37 percent and all of a sudden Miller is up three points. Murkowski is still within in the margin of error, but as CNN Polling Director Keating Holland noted "in a tight race, this might be the difference between winning and losing."

Murkowski's greatest support comes from Anchorage and the Panhandle, while Miller wins Fairbanks and the Anchorage area when you expand it beyond the city limits.

Arkansas: How troubling is this for Democrat Blanche Lincoln? She is losing the woman vote to Republican John Boozman by eight points. She performs strongest in the east, while Boozman wins every other region of the state.

Florida: Republican Marco Rubio is winning independents by four points over Charlie Crist, who is running an independent bid. Rubio's lead is within the 6 percent margin of error. Rubio is also winning every corner of the state except southern Florida/Miami area where Crist holds a modest lead over the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek. In the governor's race, Democrat Alex Sink is losing every region to Republican Rick Scott, but is crushing him in the southern Florida/Miami area. Sink, too, has soft support with women. She leads Scott by five points with women voters, but that is within the 5 percent margin of error for that specific question.

Ohio: In the Senate contest, Democrat Lee Fisher is losing to Republican Rob Portman among men and woman and in every age category. Geographically, Fisher leads Portman in the Cleveland area by eight points, but that is within the 8.5 percent margin of error. Portman is winning in every other part of the state. As for the competitive governor's race, Ted Strickland is winning women, while John Kasich wins men.

Strickland has a 15-point lead over Kasich with voters who earn less than $50,000, while Kasich has an 11-point lead over Strickland with voters who earn more than $50,000. Kasich has an 11-point lead over Strickland with independents. As for geographic regions, Strickland is leading in the Cleveland area and the central part of the state (the latter is within the margin of error), while Kasich is carrying Cincinnati/Dayton and has a slight lead in Columbus. In the industrial north, the two candidates are dead even.



View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Politico, Google Maps

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

GOP Picks Up New Voters In 2010: Dems & Independents















CNN Poll of Polls: Likely voters Favor GOP Candidates By Six Points


According to the first CNN Poll of Polls in this year's battle for control of Congress, likely voters favor Republican candidates over Democrats in the midterm matchup that's just 27 days away.

The CNN Poll of Polls, compiled and released Wednesday, indicates that 50 percent of likely voters would choose a Republican candidate for Congress if the election were held today. Forty-four percent of likely voters say they would choose a Democrat.

The generic ballot question asks respondents if they would vote for a Democrat or Republican in their congressional district, without naming any specific candidates. It's used by many polling organizations, including CNN/Opinion Research Corporation surveys.

The latest CNN Poll of Polls is an average of four national polls conducted from late September to October 3: CNN (September 21-23), Newsweek (September 29-30), Gallup tracking (September 23-26, September 30-October 3), and ABC News/Washington Post (September 30-October 3). The Poll of Polls does not have a sampling error.

The GOP's single digit lead in the CNN Poll of Polls is similar to the three-point advantage that the party held in mid-October polls in 1994. By late October of that year, the GOP margin had grown to ten points, and in November the Republicans grabbed 54 seats back from the Democrats, winning control of the House of Representatives. They also captured the Senate.

In the battle for control of Congress, the generic ballot is arguably the most watched polling indicator. But it should not be considered one-stop shopping.

"The problem with interpreting the generic ballot is that a national poll cannot produce the same results that 435 separate polls in 435 House districts would produce," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "That's why analysts tend to look at other measures as well."

Among the other indicators to consider are the favorable ratings of the two parties, questions about which party should control Congress, ratings of the parties on major issues, and the president's approval rating.

"Some academic experts have done a good job forecasting the results of midterm elections with statistical models that pay little or no attention to the generic ballot," Holland says. "But if you're looking for just one number that tries to forecast what will happen in 435 different House races, the generic ballot is usually the one most analysts focus on."



View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, Youtube, Google Maps

Why Democrats Are Losing In 2010: Expecting GOP Sweep











The Sweep: What Went Wrong For Democrats


The House has just adjourned -- a week early -- to go home so Democrats can run for their political lives. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, ardent as ever, calls in a group of journalists to make her pitch about the productive Congress -- and begins with a list of achievements (health care, Wall Street reform, stimulus, small business jobs act).

"I'm so proud of it," she says, sounding like a parent examining a brilliant report card, beaming.

But near the end of the session, the tough, pragmatic Pelosi -- the one who has the uphill battle to keep her speakership, the one Republicans boast they want to "fire" -- let something slip through her relentlessly upbeat analysis. The unemployment rate, she admits, is a tough reality -- and manna for the Republicans.

"Any political party that can't exploit 9.5 percent unemployment ought to hang up their gloves," she says, knowing full well the GOP is punching, and hard.

Publicly, at least, Pelosi won't even nod to the possibility of losing the speakership.

"I would rather be where we are than where they are," she says, as if looking at some alternate universe of a united Democratic Party unthreatened by polling numbers. And what about that dispirited Democratic base? "I am the base," she declares, predicting Democrats will turn out and vote, once they fully understand the stakes (or choice, as the Democrats now put it) in this election.

It was easier to explain those stakes when Pelosi first took the gavel in January 2007. It was easy to campaign with a bumper sticker given the potent foil the Democrats enjoyed in George W. Bush. And it was so successful, in fact, that they gained an astonishing 55 House seats in the elections of 2006 and 2008, not to mention the presidency.

It looked, in many ways, like a majority built to last a generation.

Obama was elected as the corrective to the Bush years. Yet when you're the winner, the temptation is always there to see yourself as something more than just an alternative -- something larger, like a paradigm-changer or a transformational political figure. And Obama wanted nothing less than a change from conservatism to his own brand of 21st century activism.

"When you win an election," says political scientist Bill Galston, "you are always inclined to believe you won for the reasons you wanted to win."

In other words, you believe you won for the big stuff, not just because the voters didn't like the other guy.

And when you win with a large majority, it's more enticing. If the political control is universal -- as in, the White House as well as both houses of Congress -- the power is an aphrodisiac, feeding both the agenda and political ambition. There's a sense there may never be another chance to do what needs to be done, and that may be rational.

The question, of course, is always the time frame. In other words, did Obama need to do it all at once? And, in the end, was the overarching ambition -- no matter how understandable -- ultimately self-defeating?

Think back to the beginning. There's an economic crisis, which the public believes Obama inherited. Then there's his bucket-list of things he wants to get done. He has a choice: Handle the crisis or do the campaign to-do list.

And what does Obama decide? To do both. That is, the economy plus the rest of it -- including health care.

"The irony is he didn't even run on health care," says one Democratic pollster. "In truth, it wasn't a large part of the general election campaign."

Even so, Obama became convinced that solving the health care mess was key to solving the nation's economic problems, especially bringing the deficit under control. In fact, when he first spoke of the importance of health care reform, it was all about "bending the cost curve," a slogan lost on most of the public.

Still, for whatever reason -- given his majorities in the Congress -- it was now or never.

Maybe he overestimated his personal capacity and appeal. Or his mandate. Or the extent to which the nation is actually divided on both principle and policy. Some, including his own pollster, according to knowledgeable sources, counseled caution. People wanted the president to focus on the economy, some told the president: Don't go for it all now.

But he did, precisely because he was riding high, ready to use his political capital.

Remember, just five months into his presidency -- in May 2009 -- Obama's popularity was in the stratosphere, at 62 percent. The Democratic Party was so resurgent, in fact, that Republican Sen. Arlen Specter decided to leave the GOP and join Obama's team as a way to get re-elected. Not surprisingly, Time magazine was posing the political question du jour: "Are the Republicans going extinct?"

And why not ask it? The Democrats were flush. The GOP was in a funk, if not suffering from full-bore depression. "We were certainly diminished," recalls one GOP operative. "We were reduced to a small, Southern, white male party."

So small -- and fearful, in fact -- that GOP congressional leaders were unsure how to behave. At first, they were afraid to fight health care. "It's going pass, we can't stop it," was the initial thinking, according to one senior GOP House member. And then there was that seemingly invincible president: "His numbers were so high, we had these orders: Attack the policy, but don't attack the man," says one GOP strategist. He saluted and followed orders.

But by spring 2009, something was in the air. Over at the Senate leader's office, where polls are watched very closely, they knew something was up when the July polls were tallied: For the first time, the president had negative responses of 40 percent or more on his job approval, his handling of health care, the economy and the stimulus package.

"Anytime we defined the issue, we won" says a top Senate leadership aide. "We didn't have to have an alternative. All we had to do was explain why his plan was bad for the country."

By August, it exploded. Then came Arlen Specter's August town hall meeting.

The senator who had joined the Democrats was under attack. Newly minted Tea Party activists -- joined by a mutual distrust of government -- had found oxygen in every component of the financial bailout and the health care reform debate. And they came to attack Specter -- who eventually lost his primary -- as the embodiment of all that was wrong with Washington.

At the Republican National Committee in Washington, the TV sets were turned on.

"I remember it as a crystallizing moment," says Doug Heye, the RNC's communications director. "The Tea Party had always been there, but this gave it a direction and a raison d'être. Watching it live made one thing clear: The voters were frustrated and angry." Suddenly, the Republicans had a voice.

And they never stopped talking. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell gave 107 floor speeches on health care, and 25 speeches on why we shouldn't close the prison camp at Guantanamo. It was the first executive order -- a promise that was not kept, because it became messier than anyone thought. It was supposed to be a hugely popular idea, but within a couple of months, it just flipped: going from an 80 percent approval rating to an 80 percent disapproval rating.

"Once we beat him on that, we knew there was a chink in the armor," says a top Senate GOP leadership aide.

That chink emboldened Republicans to attack more frontally -- on everything. It's easy to blame Obama for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, but he's not alone.

"If we had been cutting deals [with the Democrats], our base voters would have deserted us," admits one top GOP campaign operative. "We had to prove who we were to get back on the map, and back in their good graces."

So they did. If conservatives were disappointed that Bush was a big spender, these Republicans would unanimously oppose spending, including the stimulus package. If voters were wary of big government, they would rail against any new government, especially health care.

"This was a matter of proving to our base that we could be trusted again," says this strategist.

So even when Congress debated financial reform, the GOP felt no danger in opposing it. And in the end, Obama got little credit. Why? The populism that fueled the 2008 campaign has been replaced with the anti-government sentiment of 2010. They don't trust the government to fix anything, even evil Wall Street.

The GOP frontal attacks were relentless. The Obama White House was wary of allowing its "post-partisan" president to get too partisan. "[Obama] let the Republicans beat him up for far too long without counterpunching," says Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin. "That's not happening anymore, but we let them [the GOP] get away with framing the debate for too long."

The problem for Obama was twofold: His ambitious agenda fed into the GOP narrative. And the GOP narrative was designed to reflect the public's overwhelming view of government -- ineffective and untrustworthy.

So at the time the president was proposing government solutions to problems, the nation's view of government was bottoming out. Only 20 percent trusted government to do the right thing all or most of the time. Even after Watergate, that number was at 36 percent.

When Dwight Eisenhower was president, trust in government was at 73 percent. Nowadays voters wouldn't trust the government to walk the dog.

Obama proceeded with a full-bore health care plan anyway, allowing Congress to spend nine months trying to work its will.

"Imagine what the New Deal would have been if FDR had only two years?" asks Bill Galston, who served as a domestic policy adviser to Bill Clinton. "He didn't even put Social Security on the table until his third year in office."

Maybe FDR knew what Obama did not: The system can't function on overload. Besides, Obama had delivered a promissory note to the American people that he would overcome partisanship. Health care only fueled the toxic atmosphere in Washington.

What's more, in the new-Obama-open-secrets-Washington, voters felt like they weren't even part of the conversation. Meetings were held behind closed doors. Democrats battled each other. Republicans complained they were left out.

"Health care seemed like a totally inside-the-beltway deal," says a Democratic pollster. "That went against his own brand."

And that's a dangerous thing for any leader, especially one whose persona was tied to a different way of doing business.

After spending nine months debating health care, the Democrats had no choice but to try and pass something. Yet instead of going for a scaled-back version -- as then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had counseled -- they went for the whole thing.

They won. But if there are any Democrats campaigning on the wonders of reform this cycle, they can all fit in one VW.

The latest goal: to make sure the Democrats themselves don't become a small caravan, reduced to a minority in the House and maybe even the Senate. The president is finally out there, swinging away at Republicans. And Democrats -- who once aligned with the campaign of hope and change -- are now, race by race, engaged in hand-to-hand combat.

Sure, they may brag about their achievements that make Nancy Pelosi so proud. But this is about survival. So they're busy hurling character attacks at their opponents, in nasty ads, looking for any opening to change the political conversation.

And all because they haven't changed Washington.



View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Young Turks, Youtube, Google Maps