Obama pursued a fascist takeover of the private sector instead of jobs; now, it may be too late for him to save his party with jobs

Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama’s chief spokesman, got into hot water this week for daring to speak the truth – that the Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives in November. But it could be even worse than that.

Contrary to pretty much every projection until now, Democratic control of the Senate is also starting to come into question. While Mr Obama’s approval ratings have continued to fall, and now hover at dangerously close to 40 per cent according an ABC-Washington Post poll published on Tuesday, the fate of his former colleagues in the Senate looks even worse.

In the past few days polls have shown Republican challengers taking the lead over previously safe Democratic incumbents, such as Barbara Boxer in California and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. Indeed, given the uniformly negative direction in the numbers, it is now quite possible the Republicans could win the Senate seats formerly held by both President Obama in Illinois, and Joe Biden, vice-president, in Delaware.

Add to that the continuing woes of Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic majority leader, in Nevada, where the Republican party’s recent nomination of Sharron Angle, a far-right and highly eccentric Tea Party supporter, appear to have had no positive effect on Mr Reid’s prospects, and the Grand Old party has a good shot at taking control of both houses of Congress. Worse for Mr Obama, political scientists say that at this stage in the calendar, there is almost nothing he can do about it.

“If you ask me where the silver lining is for President Obama, I have to say I cannot see one,” says Bill Galston, a former Clinton official, who has been predicting for months the Democrats could lose the House. “Just as BP’s failure to cap the well has been so damaging, Obama’s failure to cap unemployment will be his undoing. There is nothing he can do to affect the jobless rate before November.”

RCP analayst: Dems could lose 80 to 90 House seats

I think those who suggest that the House is barely in play, or that we are a long way from a 1994-style scenario are missing the mark. A 1994-style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility - not merely a far-fetched scenario - that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn't be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.

Paul Ryan explains how system is being gamed

One of the most credible people to emerge in this whole debate is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), top Republican on the House Budget Committee. Ryan told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren last night, Democrats are still about 10 votes short.

“We still think they’re 10 down,” Ryan said. “There’s a common strategy being employed especially these days called the inevitability strategy. Make your team think you’re winning and if you’re going to vote against the team then it’s your fault for bringing the team down. Get the opposition on defense. Get the American people who are upset about this demoralized so that they don’t pick up the phone and call their Congressman. … The inevitability strategy is to try to win through bluffing. They are bluffing. They don’t have the votes. And they’ve got [until Sunday] to muscle this thing through until the President gets on a plane to Indonesia.”

WSJ: Aim was "a soothing, moderate political gloss to a government health-care takeover"

... the root cause of surging health-care costs is the irrational and regressive tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance only, and both parties left it virtually unmentioned. Mr. McCain missed an opportunity to point out that most people would have done better than they do now under his campaign plan that Mr. Obama savaged in 2008. The subject didn't come up until Democratic backbencher Ron Wyden's 11th-hour argument that "real reform changes the incentives that drive the system" and Mr. Coburn argued that "If we don't reconnect health-care purchasing with health-care payment, we're not going to get good value out of this system."

Mr. Obama also claimed that "Every proposal that health-care economists say will reduce health-care costs, we've tried to adopt," yet this is demonstrably untrue. The White House has delayed its own excise tax on ultra-expensive health plans (previously sold as the key cost-control measure) until 2018, well after Mr. Obama is out of office, assuming he wins a second term.

In the end, after all the bipartisan cooing, the President's 20-minute closing argument explained where the debate really is. Democrats won the election and they are going to do what they want to do, starting next week and on a partisan vote if they can shanghai enough Members.

The point of yesterday's session was to give a soothing, moderate political gloss to a government health-care takeover that will raise costs, greatly expand the entitlement state, and reduce choice and competition—the opposite of everything Mr. Obama claims.