New Poll Finds Deep Distrust of Government

Hey, maybe the contradictions of capitalism are ripe for revolution.

At New York Times (via Instapundit):

With Election Day just over a year away, a deep sense of economic anxiety and doubt about the future hangs over the nation, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, with Americans’ distrust of government at its highest level ever.

The combustible climate helps explain the volatility of the presidential race and has provided an opening for protest movements like Occupy Wall Street, to highlight grievances about banks, income inequality and a sense that the poor and middle class have been disenfranchised.

Almost half of the public thinks the sentiment at the root of the Occupy movement generally reflects the views of most Americans.

With nearly all Americans remaining fearful that the economy is stagnating or deteriorating further, two-thirds of the public said that wealth should be distributed more evenly in the country. Seven in 10 Americans think the policies of Congressional Republicans favor the rich. Two-thirds object to tax cuts for corporations and a similar number prefer increasing income taxes on millionaires.

On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office released a new study concluding that income distribution had become much more uneven in the last three decades, a report that could figure prominently in the battle over how to revive the economy and rein in the federal debt.

The poll findings underscore a dissatisfaction and restlessness heading into the election season that has been highlighted through competing voices from the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements, a broad anti-Washington sentiment and the crosscurrents inside both parties about the best way forward.

Not only do 89 percent of Americans say they distrust government to do the right thing, but 74 percent say the country is on the wrong track and 84 percent disapprove of Congress — warnings for Democrats and Republicans alike.

Also:

Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats, two-thirds of independents and just over one-third of all Republicans say that the distribution of wealth in the country should be more equitable...

Hey, that Obama-Pelosis class warfare really works!

RELATED: At The Blaze, "RADICAL BILL AYERS SPEAKS TO OCCUPY CHICAGO PROTESTERS ABOUT REVOLUTION & THE TEA PARTY."

'Proven Leadership'

Rick Perry's new ad, via Althouse:

Actually, Perry's fortunes are starting to slide a bit. But keeping with our thesis on the Republican enthusiasm for change, no matter who the nominee is, this administration's toast. See Gallup: "In U.S., Slight Majority Now Blame Obama for U.S. Economy."

Romney Leads in Latest Reason-Rupe Public Opinion Survey

At Reason, "Romney Edges Perry in New Reason-Rupe Poll; Obama's Approval Rating at 47% and Congress' at Just 14%; Nearly 75% of Voters Open to 3rd-Party Candidate." Well, polls sure are more interesting when you have such lovely ladies analyzing the results:

No Rally 'Round the Flag Effect on Libya Airstrikes

This is strange. One of the most common phenomena of public opinion and war is for the public to rally dramatically behind the president upon the commitment of U.S. troops to action. But according to polls on President Obama's use of force against the Gaddafi regime in Libya, this administration's action is seeing the lowest "rally 'round the the flag" effect compared to at least nine military operations since President Reagan's bombing raid against Gaddafi in 1986. See Gallup, "Americans Approve of Military Action Against Libya, 47% to 37%." Today 47 percent back Obama's authorization of force against Libya, whereas in 1986 a whopping 71 percent supported President Reagan's decision to strike Gaddafi's compound during Operation El Dorado Canyon. As Gallup notes:

Support for the current involvement in Libya is also much lower than support for U.S. airstrikes against Libya in 1986 in response to the Libyan bombing of a German nightclub that killed two American servicemen.

The president is also not benefiting from a personal "rally 'round the flag effect," which is the surge of approval for the president's job handling during the use of military force. David Weigel reports, "No Obama Poll Bounce from Libya." And progressive pollster Nate Silver does his best to put Obama in good standing, "Poll Finds Tentative Support, Potential Risks for Obama on Libya." The explanation for Obama's lackluster numbers could be war fatigue, but the president's indifference and relatively muted public statements can be contrasted unfavorably with previous administrations more comfortable with the projection of U.S. military power. In other words, presidential leadership matters and this White House is lacking.

That said, CBS News has an outlier with some higher levels of support: "Nearly 7 in 10 support air strikes in Libya, CBS News poll finds." It's probably a flawed sample, given the wide discrepancy, but at least Obambi will have something on which to pin his hopes.

The Absentee Administration: Obama Falls Silent Amid World Crises

I've forgotten now, but I saw some progressive network bloviator the other day defending President Obama's lame Brazil trip while the rest of the world was literally melting down. The jokes write themselves at this point: Hillary Clinton campaigned against Barack Obama's unpreparedness for the crucial "3:00 AM" moment, and then she ends up announcing she won't hang around for a second term at precisely the crucial foreign policy crisis where Americans would have preferred she was answering the red phone. Kimberley Strassel was on this the other day, "President 'Present'." And here's this classic summary from Donald Sensing:

There is nothing at all in Obama's pre-presidential resume that shows he ever made highly difficult decisions that depended, at the end, on his own personal reservoir of wisdom and experience. So he does not tackle the inbox because its contents are above his competence. (One is reminded of Obama telling Rick Warren that when an unborn child gets human rights is "above my pay grade.") He tends instead to lesser matters that match his lower level of competence, such as filling out basketball brackets and flying down to Rio on a five-day trip of little importance, but which conveniently corresponds to his daughters' spring break. So tourism time will be a heavy feature of the agenda. But will anything presidential be accomplished?

See also, Rex Murphy, "When crisis strikes the world, Obama falls silent" (at Memeorandum).

Majority of Americans Against Public Employee Unions

Here's this from CBS News, "Lawmaker: Gov's plan has torn Wisconsin apart" (via Memeorandum). State Senator Jon Erpenbach is cited there, and he's at this AP clip:

Gov. Scott Walker is destroying neither the unions nor the state of Wisconsin. We're in tough economic times, but there's more to the union backlash. It's also the thuggery and authoritarianism that's central to the progressives' political agenda. Gov. Walker nailed it yesterday when he said that by fleeing the state, Democrat state senators had broken their vows to the people and the public good. From President Obama on down, progressives have excoriated Gov. Walker, often using the exact same Hitler comparison the leftist media exploited to marginalize the tea parties.



This is unconscionable, as Rep. Michele Bachmann warned. We're at the tipping point in American politics, and the backlash is growing. A new survey has the numbers: "Clarus Research Group: Clarus Poll: 64% of voters oppose government employee unions":

WASHINGTON -- As President Obama has joined the political battle in Wisconsin that pits Republican Gov. Scott Walker against public employee unions, a nationwide Clarus Poll finds that a substantial majority of Americans believe government employees should not be able to belong to labor unions. In the Clarus Poll, sixty-four percent of voters polled said government employees should not be represented by unions. Twenty-nine percent of voters said government employees should be represented by labor unions that bargain for higher pay, benefits and pensions.

The full pdf is here: "CLARUS POLL: 64% OF VOTERS OPPOSE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNIONS WISCONSIN FIGHT SPOTLIGHTS ISSUE."



It's interesting that even MFM outlets are getting the message. At Los Angeles Times, "Unions Losing Their Grip in Stronghold":

The bill proposed in Wisconsin to remove collective bargaining rights from government workers is similar to measures advancing in other Rust Belt states. Such battles are part of a nationwide backlash.

The pampered nature of public employees is obviously not helping their cause. See Astute Bloggers, "TEACHERS IN WISCONSIN MAKE MORE THAN TWICE THE PER CAPITA INCOME OF THEIR FELLOW WISCONSINITES." And Jennifer Rubin responds to the left's attacks on Gov. Walker, "Who's been overreaching?":

Walker's proposal to limit collective bargaining rights of public employees is bold but hardly original. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels did the same thing. A similar effort is underway in Tennessee.



I would suggest it is not Walker who has gone too far, but public employee unions who for years have ruled the roost in many blue states. The voters sent a signal last November not only to Washington, but to Madison, Lansing, Columbus and elsewhere. We're going to see whether their will, or the ambitions of union leaders, prevails.

See also, Phil Boehmke, "Wisconsin Madness as Seen by the ‘Little People’."



Okay, a little roundup of today's developments:

Ann Althouse warns against outside activist seizing the spotlight in Wisconsin: "There's a Tea Party rally in Wisconsin today — pro-Scott Walker — and I'm a bit wary," and "'Keep our protest CIVIL/Don't become Incited/THE NATION IS WATCHING/And so are our children!'."

Well, let's hope she's not too prescient: "Bloggers For Peace Flotilla Arrived In Madison…SITUATION TENSE…UPDATE: Thousands of Walker’s Supporters Are Here!"

And from Glenn Reynolds: "READER BOB WIRKA SENDS THIS PICTURE from the Madison Tea Party rally in support of Gov. Walker."

RELATED: At Big Government, "'Winning the Future' Means Winning in Madison."

Expect updates ...

Michele Bachmann: 'This is Outrageous, Beyond Conscionable'

Jeff Poor has the full report at Daily Caller.

Rep. Bachmann hammers both the derelict Wisconsin public unions and the Obama-Democrat-OFA thugs now raping the democracy:

“They have the support of the White House, but I don’t believe they have the support of the people of Wisconsin,” Bachmann said. “Remember what we’re talking about. These are public servants. They serve the people of Wisconsin. In Greece, for instance, we saw beneficiaries of government checks who took to the streets because the retirement age was going to be raised from 61 to 63. In this instance, [Fox Business Network host] Eric Bolling was on earlier, showing this is simply a contribution being asked to pay for part of their health insurance, not even the full part that the private sector counterparts pay for, and part of their pension. This is something that happens every day in the private sector. So now we are at the tipping point. This debate needed to come. It’s good that it came. What’s shocking is that the White House is weighing in, taking sides, and bringing in a campaign apparatus to set this up.

Plus, at Hot Air, "Video: Union activist demands Walker “come to the table” on CNN, but …"

PREVIOUSLY: "Socialist Public Employees Call for Revolution in Wisconsin."

Socialist Public Employees Call for Revolution in Wisconsin

These folks are from International Socialist Organization, revolutionary Trotskyites committed to global anti-capitalist struggle. What's fascinating is how the lady speaks about how "all of our members" are up every morning organizing for the dictatorship of the proletariat. That's amazing, since I thought we only had imaginary communists in America:

So with that, here's a roundup of reports that you won't be seeing in the Democrat-Media-Industrial-Complex.



First, check Ed Morrissey, "WSJ: Unions about power, not democracy." There's good commentary and a link to "Athens in Mad Town, at the Wall Street Journal:

For Americans who don't think the welfare state riots of France or Greece can happen here, we recommend a look at the union and Democratic Party spectacle now unfolding in Wisconsin ...



The battle of Mad Town is a seminal showdown over whether government union power can be tamed, and overall government reined in. The alternative is higher taxes until the middle class is picked clean and the U.S. economy is no longer competitive. Voters said in November that they want reform, and Mr. Walker is trying to deliver. We hope Republicans hold firm, and that the people of Wisconsin understand that this battle is ultimately about their right to self-government.

There's also a wonderful background report from Stephen Hayes, at Weekly Standard, "Scott Walker vs. Public Sector Unions." The proposed reforms are moderate and Wisconsin public employee benefit contributions would be smaller than the national average. But get this:

... beyond the thousands of protesters in Madison, several hundred protesters even showed up at Walker’s personal home in Wauwatosa to register their displeasure with his leadership (and, perhaps, intimidate his family).

It's thuggery. Michelle has more, "Apocalypse Now: Wisconsin vs. Big Labor; Plus: More out-of-state union recruiting & another teacher speaks up for Walker; police order for AWOL Dems." The entire essay's a gem, and that's not even mentioning the fabulous updates. More on those later. Plus, John Hawkins reports that Speaker John Boehner's house is also being targeted by progressive terrorists: "Call The Civility Police: Liberal Threats and Violence Surge."



Now let's go to Ann Althouse, "I went down to the demonstration this morning... just now..." She'll be uploading, so check back over there. And check the succinctly awesome William Jacobson's essay, "Gadsden Flag Bad, Egypt Flag Good." And I couldn't agree more, "Obama Acted Stupidly In Picking Sides Against The Taxpayers."



I'll have updates this afternoon. Michele Bachmann is speaking with Megyn Kelly as this post goes live. She says: "This is outrageous... now we are at the tipping point."



RELATED: From Doug Ross, "Top 15 Photos From the Wisconsin Hate Rallies You'll Never See in Legacy Media."

Where News is Power

"Aides Fight to Be Well Armed," at NYT (FWIW):

WASHINGTON — Bobby Maldonado has the morning routine of a well-trained marathoner.

With the help of three alarm clocks, he gets up at 4 a.m., is showered and out the door in less than an hour, and scans his BlackBerry almost constantly as he makes his pretimed 12- to 13-minute trek to the Red Line Metro stop where he catches the first train downtown.

He knows exactly where to stand so he can get into the car that deposits him just steps from the escalator at the Farragut North station. “It’s an efficiency thing,” he explained, “so I don’t get stuck behind people, so I hit the crosswalk at the right minute.” Cutting diagonally across Farragut Square, he arrives at his office at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on H Street just after 5:30 a.m. There, in a darkened cubicle, he scans the Internet for the day’s news and condenses it into a two-page memo that he shoots off to Thomas J. Donohue, the Chamber’s president, and other top executives before 8 a.m. He is never late.

Mr. Maldonado, 26, is one of the dozens of young aides throughout the city who rise before dawn to pore over the news to synthesize it, summarize it and spin it, so their bosses start the day well-prepared. Washington is a city that traffics in information, and as these 20-something staff members are learning, who knows what — and when they know it — can be the difference between professional advancement and barely scraping by.

“Information is the capital market of Washington, so you know something that other people don’t know and you know something earlier than other people know it, is a formulation for increasing your status and power,” said David Perlmutter, the director of the University of Iowa’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication. “So any edge you can use to get stuff faster, earlier, better or exclusively is very important.”

This is interesting.

There's more at the link, but I like this passage especially:

Getting up early is nothing new, but the lightning speed of news on the Internet and the proliferation of outlets like Politico, which place a premium on “winning” the day, has made the job more demanding and pushed the mornings ever earlier.

I can spend all day blogging and searching for a scoop, so this hits close to home. An interesting study might be to examine how much greater a premium political actors put on up-to-the minute information today than in earlier years. It's not like this kind of thing is new. Back in the '60s, President Johnson had three televisions set up so he could flip back and forth between the major networks. And since at least Bill Clinton's administration, political campaigns have deployed rapid response teams working, ready and able to have "fact-check" ads on the air within 24-hours. But that quote with Politico recognizes a new qualitative dimension, illustrating the changes in the news cycle wrought by Internet technology. That is different.

RELATED: From Jake Tapper, "J ‘Accuse! President Obama Says Chamber of Commerce Using Foreign Funds to Influence US Elections, " and Doug Ross, "Ruh Roh: In 2010 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Gave 43% of its Contributions to Democrats."

Gov. Jan Brewer Delivers Emotional State of the State Address

The full text is here.

And at New York Times, "Governor Strives to Restore Arizona’s Reputation," a discussion of Brewer's speech at the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce's annual luncheon:

TUCSON — Gov. Jan Brewer had intended to use her speech at the Convention Center here on Tuesday to talk about the severe budget shortfall that Arizona faces, after two years in which she had been identified with a series of contentious issues, particularly immigration.



But no. “Today is not a day for politics or policy,” Ms. Brewer said. For a fleet eight minutes, Ms. Brewer, looking sober and saddened, paid tribute to those who were killed and injured in a mass shooting on Saturday — and also offered something of a defense of a state whose reputation has been under a cloud.



“I want to speak to you about the Arizona I know, the place we saw again even on such an awful Saturday,” she said. “It is a place of service, a place of heroes, a place with a bruised, battered heart that I know will get past this hideous moment.”



Her remarks, a downstate reprise of the official State of the State address she gave to lawmakers in Phoenix on Monday, illustrate the challenges Ms. Brewer faces. She is eagerly trying to defend a state whose reputation has been battered in recent years, particularly since the massacre here on Saturday.



But fairly or not, Arizona’s image has been forged in part because of Ms. Brewer herself, who has been identified with the tough law aimed at illegal immigrants, budget cuts that include denying aid to people who need life-saving transplants and laws permitting people to take concealed guns into bars and banning the teaching of ethnic studies in public schools.



“She faces some real challenges where the image of Arizona is concerned,” said Nathan Sproul, a Republican consultant here. “I think this is the darkest time for Arizona, per the way the nation looks at us, since when we repealed the Martin Luther King holiday in the 1980s. That took Arizona a decade to overcome. I think this presents Arizona with the strongest challenge since then.”

That's a clever use of quotations from the Times' Adam Nagourny. Public opinion data do not support the notion that Gov. Brewer's leadership left the state's image in tatters. It's the opposite, actually, and Brewer cruised to reelection last November. That said, the massacre itself won't recede from the American psyche for years, although my sense is that the crisis will bring out the best in some of our leaders --- Jan Brewer for sure, and perhaps President Obama as well. He's expected to deliver an address to the nation tomorrow night.



See also, "Brewer Visits Tucson Shooting Victims in Hospital."



RELATED: "Tribute to Rep. Giffords Will Affirm the First Amendment as ‘Bedrock’." (Via Memeorandum.)

State Republicans Split on California's Support Federal Immigration Law Act

Hey, I'm all for it.



The text of the law is here. And the full story: "California Republicans Are Split on Possible Anti-Illegal Immigration Measure."

A Happy Thanksgiving From Michele Bachmann!

I've been a supporter of Michele Bachmann since she first gained national notoriety (following an appearance on MSNBC's Hardball). And I received this greeting from her today:

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family!

As Marcus and I sit around the Thanksgiving dinner table with our five children we have a lot to be thankful for. As a family tradition we go around the table and name a blessing that we are thankful for. I have given a lot of thought to what I am going to say this year as I have too many blessings to count.

First, my husband Marcus and my five children, Lucas, Harrison, Elisa, Caroline and Sophia for your support and love over this past year!

Secondly, you and the volunteers and staff who worked around the clock to get me re-elected in the sixth district.

Thirdly, the number of supporters around the country that have supported me and donated to my campaign to promote the message of Constitutional Conservatives.

Finally, The biggest blessing of this year and every year is our freedom that so many men and women have fought and died for to protect. My family and I daily give thanks and pray for the men and women in our armed forces who are home and abroad ensuring our safety and selflessly protecting our God given rights to live as a free people.

Thank you for your support and rest assured that this Thanksgiving this country is stronger because of you. I continue to work to make this nation strong on the principles and blessings that so many of us are thankful for today.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family and God Bless America!

The 'WTF' Election

Mark Schmitt is only half right at his dismissive essay, "The "F-You Election" (at Memeorandum). It's true that voters gave the Democrat-Socialists the epic middle-fingered salute last night, but not for the reasons Schmitt elaborates:

Tuesday's election, and months of Tea Party and other well-funded rebellions, brought back to power the F-You Boys, the F-You Men, and -- if exit polls confirm a narrowing of the gender gap -- F-You Women as well, exemplified by Sarah Palin's "mama grizzlies." Economic frustration is on the rise, and the results tracked it -- in the Midwest, in the border South, and particularly in the Rocky Mountain West, states like Arizona and Nevada that once believed they were "recession proof" are now enduring unemployment rates well over 10 percent. But there were also F-You Billionaires, like the Koch Brothers, whose principal economic frustration is that their inherited fortunes might be modestly taxed; and the F-You Wall Streeters, who two years ago supported Barack Obama, and whose industry was saved by government bailout, but who now seem to have convinced themselves that they were the passive victims of a hostile takeover.

Based on the survey research of Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, the "F-You" bloc is basically a vulgarized iteration of the working-class populist vote that has historically supported efforts such as the Reagan-Democrat electoral coalition and later Ross Perot's "United We Stand" movement that took 20 percent of the vote in 1992. Schmitt excoriates these constituencies because they are the exact opposite of the urban-arugula elites who look down their noses at down-market electoral demographics as modern-day Know-Nothings. Frankly, folks like Schmitt --- and his readers at the socialist American Prospect, and across the progessive fever swamps --- are simply devastated that their big goverment, we-know-what's-good-for-you agenda has been brutally repudiated. Yeah, voters said "F-You," but that after saying "WTF" for the past 18-months, as the Obama administration ran up the largest peacetime budget deficits in American history, while the unemployment rate skyrocketed to 10 percent, and while the Democrat Party passed an enormous and enormously-unpopular healthcare bill that sought to put the U.S. on the path to nationalized medicine.

Schmitt is right that the coalition of voters that ousted the Obama-Socialists is a largely unattached demographic that won't easily translate into long-term partisan gains for the GOP. But we already know that. Schmitt would be better off looking inward to examine why far left-wing progressive government got the boot on Tuesday. It's more likely that --- in coming elections --- the Democrat state-socialist ideology will continue to get the big "F-You" at the polls. And the frustrated working-class electorate will continue to demand good government and economic perfromance, exactly what hasn't been delivered amid the Obama interregnum.

How's That Leg Tingle Doing Tonight?

I had actually clicked over to this exchange last night while watching the returns . Michele Bachmann's great. In fact, her comment from a couple of years ago on MSNBC is what put her on the national radar (below). I sent money immediately. At the video above Chris Matthews asks Bachmann if she's "in a trance tonight," and she comes back with a shot over the left-field wall and right out of the stadium.

Obama's Post-Election Press Conference — UPDATED!!

More than anything, the election was referendum on U.S. economic performance, and thus Barack Obama's leadership as steward of American prosperity. Election 2012 starts right now. See, "For Obama, Daunting Challenges of 2012 Start at Once."



I'm listening to the press conference at the White House page. I tuned in just a few minutes ago, so the discussion is mostly policy at this point, but he's nevertheless whining about how "dedicated public servants" who supported his ObamaCare train wreck have been sent packing: "We were doing the right thing." I'll update this post later with responses. Also, I have a lot of thoughts on last night's national tidal wave, and I especially have some harsh words for the voters of California. So check back later:

RELATED: Ed Morrissey, "Open Thread: Obama’s Post-Election Presser."



**********



UPDATE: There's a Memeorandum thread now. And see Steve Benen, "HEALTH CARE AND 'THE NEXT TWO YEARS'..." Plus, at ABC News, "President Obama Takes Responsibility for Democrats' Loss, Saying, 'I've Got to Do a Better Job': House Shifts to Republican Control, Dems Cling to Senate Majority."

Turnout Reports Alarm Democrats: Obama Plans Election Post-Mortem

We're seeing scattered reports around the country of weak Democrat turnout in battleground states. At the Scranton Times Tribune, "Turnout steady, voters cite negative campaigning as Election 2010 theme." And at Ballot Box, "Endangered Democrat: 'Turnout isn't where we need it to be'." And especially, at Washington Wire, "Coons Camp Expresses Turnout Worries" (via Memeorandum).

Turnout is stronger elsewhere around the country. Either way, President Obama, bracing for the worst, is planning a major national address tomorrow. At NYT, "The President Plans a Post-Mortem":

President Obama plans to talk about the results of Tuesday’s elections at a news conference Wednesday afternoon in the East Room of the White House, his staff announced.

Aides said they expected Mr. Obama to call for an end to the division that characterized the campaign and for a renewed focus on bipartisanship to solve the nation’s economic and other problems.

The White House is bracing for a bad night, anticipating an outcome that has virtually every political specialist predicting that the Democrats will lose the House but possibly hang on to the Senate. The White House wants to use the news conference the next day to help Mr. Obama reframe his presidency and signal that he heard what the voters were trying to tell him.

More at the link.

President George W. Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld after the 2006 midterms, and it's not clear that Obama will go that far, although he should and then some.

Rebel Movement Takes Center Stage

Late polling shows Sharron Angle leading Harry Reid 48 to 45 percent in the Nevada Senate race. While few analysts expect the GOP to take the upper chamber, a loss for the Democrats' current Majority Leader will be one of the most prized GOP trophies of the election. And of course Sharron Angle is at the forefront of the tea party wave that's shaking the political system to its foundation (and proving the naysayers not only wrong, but plain old mean, with their relentless and unprincipled attacks on citizen patriots as bigoted backwoods hicks). We'll see how some of the other grassroots tea-party style candidates do, but Americans haven't seen this kind of change in decades, if not centuries.

The Wall Street Journal discusses the "rebel movement" in its Tuesday morning lead story:

For America's political establishment, Scott Brown's victory in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts became a warning flare: The tea party was a force to be reckoned with.

For Larry Lynch, it was a personal awakening.

Mr. Lynch didn't even live in Massachusetts. He was 1,100 miles away in Brunswick, Ga. A retired immigration enforcement agent, he had joined the Golden Isles Tea Party, he says, because "the government has gone too far" in spending and bailouts to big companies.

"All of us plain ol' Joes who worked all of our life—we got what we got because we worked for it, not because it was a handout," he says.

Mr. Lynch had never donated to a campaign or so much as put a bumper sticker on his car. But he sent $100 to Mr. Brown, hoping a victory in Massachusetts would make a statement to the nation. When Mr. Brown won, Mr. Lynch believed something in the country had shifted. Soon he had written checks to tea-party candidates in three other states.

"There was just this feeling of solidarity, that people are finally waking up," he says. "It was this feeling that, 'Yeah, we can make some changes. We can make a difference.'"

Whatever the result of Tuesday's races, 2010 will be remembered as the year of the tea party. In part, that's because of Mr. Lynch and the thousands like him who, in a time of national crisis, decided to throw themselves into politics. The movement, barely 12 months old at the start of the year, became the most dynamic political force of 2010.

Tea party-backed candidates didn't win every race they entered during 2010—and undoubtedly won't prevail in every race Tuesday. But in a spring and summer of surprises, they did displace at least a half-dozen long-time incumbents.

More broadly, the movement re-energized—and in some cases, scared—conservatives demoralized and dispirited in the aftermath of the Bush presidency and Obama victory. It brought dozens of new politicians to the fore, and redefined the debate on issues including health care and spending in a way that put Democrats on the defensive.

More here.

There's a lengthy discussion of the role of Tea Party Express in boosting Sharron Angle's prospects in Nevada.

It's all simply amazing, especially since I've been involved at the grassroots in many of the major political developments of the last 18-months. Today's going to be a huge day in American political history. I'm unbelievably excited.

Candidates Pull Out All the Stops

From this morning's LAT.

Pulling out all the stops, as far as I can tell, means going as extremely negative as possible. As I was headed out the door this morning, I saw both of these spots back to back on KABC 7 Los Angeles. Negative ads work, which is why candidates don't pull 'em, even after repeated calls to lighten up:

With Victory, Republicans Would Face Uncertainty

From John Harwood, at New York Times:

If voters engineer the Congressional makeover that strategists in both parties now expect, the implications for governance over the next two years, and for America’s political future, remain a mystery. Ascendant Republicans will have to juggle the Tea Party’s determination to block President Obama’s agenda with centrist voters’ desire for the two parties to work together on jump-starting the economy.

“The looming victories for Republican candidates next Tuesday is not a validation of the Republican Party at all,” former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida said in an interview. Instead, he argued, they would reflect “a repudiation of the massive overreach” by Mr. Obama and Democrats and “disgust with the political class” for its failure to cooperate and deliver results.

“It could create a middle ground,” Mr. Bush concluded. “Or it could create a dismemberment of our political parties.”

In this fractious environment, the Senate race in Florida may represent the best-case situation for Republicans. After insurgent conservative Marco Rubio overtook Gov. Charlie Crist for the Republican nomination and built a general election lead, top Democrats were reduced to trying vainly to persuade their own nominee, Representative Kendrick B. Meek, to abandon the race to help Mr. Crist’s independent candidacy stop Mr. Rubio.

The equally chaotic Alaska Senate race could become the worst case. After Joe Miller, a Tea Party favorite backed by former Gov. Sarah Palin, defeated the incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, for the Republican Senate nomination, party leaders swung behind Mr. Miller and threatened to strip Ms. Murkowski of her position as the ranking member of the Senate energy committee after she announced that she was still running.

Now that missteps by Mr. Miller have left him plummeting in the polls, some Republican strategists are openly rooting for Ms. Murkowski’s unorthodox write-in campaign as their best hope for preventing an upset by the Democrat Scott McAdams.

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, reflecting the fervor of his party’s base, recently declared that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

But former Governor Bush said Republicans must make clear that their top priority is increasing employment and economic growth. In particular, he advised Republicans to seek common ground with Mr. Obama and Democrats on trade and energy policy.

See more at the link.

Jeb Bush is mostly right, although governing instability next year is not going to destroy the parties. Folks should read Scott Rasmussen's essay, "A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP," especially the bottom line: "Elected politicians ... should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.

GOP Likely to Capture Control of House

From the last pre-election survey from Pew Research, "Record Republican Engagement Drives High Turnout Forecast." The GOP leads among likely voters 48 to 42 percent on the generic ballot, but I love the discussion of Republican enthusiasm:

Many of the patterns apparent throughout the 2010 campaign remain clearly evident in its final days. First, the Republicans enjoy a substantial engagement advantage. The GOP's overall lead is only evident when the sample is narrowed to likely voters. Among all registered voters, preferences are about evenly divided -- 44% Democrat, 43% Republican.



This represents one of the largest gaps in preferences between all voters and likely voters ever recorded in Pew Research Center surveys. As was the case earlier in the campaign, this is more a consequence of unusually high engagement among Republicans than disengagement among Democrats. Since September, a growing number of Democrats say they have given a lot of thought to the election, but they still lag Republicans by a wide margin. The current levels of Democratic engagement are fairly typical for a midterm election, though they are somewhat below what they were in 2006, when the party regained control of Congress.



Second, the engagement gap notwithstanding, the Republicans owe much of their lead to strong backing from independents and other non-partisan voters. As in previous polls, likely independent voters favor GOP candidates by a wide margin -- currently, 45% to 32%. Shortly before the 2006 election, independents backed Democratic candidates by a 42%-to-35% margin.



Third, compared with 2006, the GOP has made gains among many segments of the electorate, but especially men, voters ages 65 and older, and whites. The Democrats hold substantial leads only among African Americans, younger voters, those with low family incomes, union households and the religiously unaffiliated....



In the final weeks of the campaign, there are no signs that the large engagement gap favoring the Republican Party has narrowed. Republican voters continue to be far more likely than Democrats to say they have given a lot of thought to this year's election (70% vs. 55%); more Republicans than Democrats say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting in this year's congressional election (61% vs. 41%); and Republicans are eight points more likely to say they are following campaign news "very closely" (39% vs. 31%).



These measures suggest that overall turnout is likely to be as high this year as in the 2006 midterm elections....



On many measures, the Republican engagement in 2010 is surpassing long-term records. Fully 70% of Republicans have given a lot of thought to this election, the highest figure recorded among either Republicans or Democrats over the past five midterm election cycles. And the differential between Republicans and Democrats is larger than ever previously recorded.



Because of this large engagement gap, the likely electorate is skewed toward voting blocs that favor the GOP. While 16% of all registered voters are younger than age 30, this age group makes up only 8% of likely voters due to their lower levels of interest and commitment to voting. Similarly, lower income Americans, who tend to favor the Democrats, make up a smaller share of the likely electorate due to their lower engagement levels.

The full report is at the link. But reading this discussion, especially the data on likely turnout among young and lower-income voters, suggests that all this recent talk of a last minute Democrat surge has been heavily exaggerated. Again, I'm reminded of Democrat strategist James Carville's extreme resignation at the party's expected losses, and his hunch that sometimes the tide is so large that all the corrupt detritus of the majority gets swept out.



CNN released a new survey today as well, "CNN Poll: Large Advantage for GOP as Election Nears." Republicans enjoy a 10-point lead among likely voters in the generic ballot, 52 to 42 percent. The CNN survey did not gauge voter enthusiasm, yet reports out tonight indicate sparse crowds for some of the days big-ticket political rallies. See, "Thin Crowd for Cleveland Campaign Rally," and "Thousands of empty seats for last Dem voter rally by Obama, Biden" (via Memeorandum).