Here's a look at Karl Rove's latest US Senate race map.  As you can see, there's a lotta' red there.  And, of course, keep in mind that Massachusetts was "solid blue" just two weeks ago.

Larry Sabato also has a list of current projections up on Rasmussen's site.  He's currently showing a 7 seat gain for the GOP, for what it's worth.

Of course all this stuff can change in a heart beat one way or another, (as Scott Brown demonstrated).  And the election is a full 9 months away...which is an eternity in politics.  But given the current environment...and if the GOP puts up the right candidates which stick to a real conservative message, it should be a good November.

 You really have to love it when these people get so worked up (say, about losing "Ted Kennedy's seat") that they step all over their message with quotes like this:

“Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?”

That’s Chris Van Hollen, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, meaning to help Coakley win Teddy Kennedy’s seat, and running right off the road into a ditch called Chappaquiddick.

(h/t Instapundit)

Imagecolumn: 

There are two groups of people that have reason to be scared over Tuesday's election results: moderate Democrats and Republican leadership.

Why any Democrat should be concerned is obvious.  They're the current majority party and they're in control of Congress and the White House.  Off year elections are normally bad for the party in the White House, but Tuesday's election results point to something big next year.

In Virginia, a state Obama carried by five percent, the Republican candidate for Governor wins by eighteen percent - a twenty-three point swing.

In deep blue New Jersey, a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by two to one; where the Democrat incumbent outspent the Republican by three to one; where Obama himself won by fifteen points and made multiple campaign stops, the Republican wins by four points - a nineteen point swing.  read more »

The latest Rasmussen survey has an interesting analysis of the race up in Ny-23 and what it says about the GOP.  The most interesting aspect of it was what it says about what the party base has to say about the Republican leadership - specifically those in Congress.

According to the survey, 73% of Republicans believe that the congressional GOP has lost touch with the party's base.  Which just pins a number of what we've known and experienced for the last several years or more.

What's even more interesting, or perhaps revealing, is the way the folks on the other side of the aisle feel...

...while Republican voters say their congressional representatives are out of touch, a plurality (47%) of Democratic voters view their members of Congress as roughly in the same place they are ideologically. Just 27% say the average Democratic member of Congress is more liberal than the average Democrat, while 19% think the average Democrat in Congress is more conservative.

In other words, Democrats in Congress are more representative of their party's base than Republicans are.  And when you consider that twice as many Americans self-identify themselves as conservatives, it better explains the level of anger and frustration that's bubbling up all across the country.  read more »

"We're going to let you die."

As incredible as it may sound, those are the words of Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, in a speech given two years ago whose premise was "what a Democrat presidential candidate would say if he wasn't worried about getting elected".

You don't say.

His remarks were caught on audio, (much to the chagrin of those pushing Obamacare right now), and you can listen to them by clicking the "video" below.  A transcript of his comments is posted below as well, (via WSJ).

It's interesting how, as you listen to his comments, you can see how much of what he says looks an awful lot like some of the elements of (and logical consequences of) current Democrat health care proposals.

Enjoy... and pass it on!

TRASCRIPT:

I will actually give you a speech made up entirely--almost
at the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say
if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other
words, this is what the truth is, and a candidate will never say, but
what candidates should say if we were in a kind of democracy where
citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship, and
they were educated in terms of what the issues were, and they could
separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:

That is correct, we are now the terrorists; that is according to the far left African-American wing of the Democratic Party.

I am, of course, referring to this absolutely asinine rant here.  I would quote that bunch of nonsensical prattle on this blog and respond to it directly; but I am afraid that my emotions would get the best of me and I would say something that I might regret later. Leave it to the idiotic Socialist Liberal Democrats, to turn a fact finding mission, about an admitted Communist, who said everything and I do mean everything; under the damn sun about white people into a "White vs Black" witch hunt; starring of course; Glenn Beck.

The truth is folks, this had nothing to do with "White vs Black" and everything to do with Right vs Wrong. In fact, here is Glenn Back's Statement about Van Jones's ouster:

The American people stood up and demanded answers. Instead of providing them, the Administration had Jones resign under cover of darkness. I continue to be amazed by the power of everyday Americans to initiate change in our government through honest questioning, and judging by the other radicals in the administration, I expect that questioning to continue for the foreseeable future.

In anticipation of the humiliating defeat of their socialized medicine scheme, Democrats are feverishly working to get their legislation passed by cheating.

Their plan, known as “budget reconciliation,” works as follows: (1) have Senate committees expand Medicaid, cut Medicare, force individuals to buy and businesses to offer insurance, give subsidies to low-income people and tax credits to small businesses, levy new taxes, and do everything else Democrats wanted to do in their health care bill but knew would never pass; (2) lump it all into a budget reconciliation bill; and (3) pass it with 50 votes and no filibuster.

The bill would also contain language to support enactment of a health care overhaul, but because provisions unrelated to the budget cannot legally be included, the Senate parliamentarian will likely strike these from the bill.  According to the New York Times, which favors the reconciliation swindle, it is unclear whether two key elements will be allowed in the bill: the requirement that insurance companies accept all candidates and charge the same regardless of condition, and the creation of a government health insurance exchange.

The Times eggs Democrats on to declare that these two provisions, while irrelevant to the budget, “are so intertwined with other reforms that they are [necessary] for other provisions that do affect spending or revenues.”

If that ruse doesn’t work, the Times notes, then the process could “leave the reform package riddled with holes—perhaps providing subsidies to buy insurance on exchanges that do not exist, for example.”  In this eventuality, Democrats would pass a second bill, subject to filibuster, that fills in gaps where budget-irrelevant provisions were removed.  read more »