I frankly don’t even know how this is nonsense is possible given that the most recent Bloomberg poll taken during and after the deal was announced shows that keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy is unpopular, with only a third of Americans supporting even temporarily keeping the highest tax rate low. By the same token almost every recent poll before the deal was announced, like this CBS News poll, showed the public is behind the original Democratic position about ending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 and oppose extending all the tax cuts.

The common approach is to look to House “leaders” as how they will play broadly in the country, whether they have the ability to excite the mass middle of the public. Yet we know that the identity of the number 2 Democrat in the leadership will have no bearing whatsoever on the fate of the House in 2012 and beyond. The leadership position is a legislative one, particularly the position of the Minority Whip, whose job mainly entails keeping the caucus unified on important votes.

The big-business-worshipping Blue Dogs are (along with Big Media allies like Lawrence O’Donnell) trying to push the myth that they lost big, not because they pressured Obama to go with a stimulus package that every economist worthy of the name said was too small, but because of (get this) Nancy Pelosi.

The Republican victory in the House was truly historic. It was one of the largest congressional swings in American history, but it should not have come as a shock to any Democrat in Congress. For almost a year it was plainly evident to the DCCC and others that the party had screwed up royally and was facing massive loses.

I’m updating nine House races to reflect the newest public polling and news reports. (Yesterday’s update can be found here.) Overall, the individual polling data today has not been good for Democrats. Each day’s new updates are highlighted in green.

Hotline on Call is the best place to watch for an assessment of how the campaign committees view the races around the country, and they have two interesting articles up.

One of the better ways to judge where the people paid to maintain seats in Congress think things are going is by monitoring the campaign spending by the leading political committees. Their judgments are not always correct – the $3 million to Tammy Duckworth in 2006 is a good example – but because candidates often need the outside support, where the money is going, and especially where it’s NOT going, makes a difference.

One of the better ways to judge where the people paid to maintain seats in Congress think things are going is by monitoring the campaign spending by the leading political committees. Their judgments are not always correct – the $3 million to Tammy Duckworth in 2006 is a good example – but because candidates often need the outside support, where the money is going, and especially where it’s NOT going, makes a difference.

Instead of letting his members know they were in danger, Van Hollen lied to them. He commenced a propaganda campaign to keep them from finding out the truth: that for many members, voting for the health care bill could very well mean the end of their political careers.

Would that the Attorney General cared more about that rule of law than chumming up to the opposition party.