David,

A quick correction to what you wrote:

"Together, the three government-employee unions will have spent nearly $172 million campaigning for Democrats in the course of this election cycle. That outstrips by more than $30 million what the Chamber of Commerce and the Rove network combined are pouring into the 2010 campaign."

It's 172 million vs. 142 million (at least according to the source).

Of course, at the same time as the three public unions don't encompass all of the union expenditures on this election cycle, neither does the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove represent the total spending on the part of business interests. I wonder where the Koch brothers figure in all of this?

I would be careful about cherry picking your examples - we won't actually know what business related election spending was until corporate statements come out next year.

Thanks for the correction. I've corrected the story.

"Democrats hungering for a change"

Yah, that would be the left democrats, who wanted an end to both wars, shut down of Gitmo, prosecution of the bankers who committed Fraud with the MBS, and foreclosures, a single payer health plan, or at the bare minimum a public option, an end to the discrimination of Gays and Lesbians specifically the "Don't Ask Don't Tell idiocy.", a public works program similar to the WPA and CCC instead of 99 weeks of unemployment, actual banking reform, like putting back Glass Stengal rules, Federal money for passenger rail, wind and solar technology, an end to the Stem Cell ban.

So the party in power, with a majority in both houses and control of the presidency can't manage a single thing in this laundry list of progressive ideas and that same party wonders why we'd like a change?

Ralph Nader in 2000 was right, there isn't a shred of difference between these two corrupt parties.

And if you think I'm nuts to bring up Ralph, go watch his documentary, "An Unreasonable Man" and tell me that the main stream media isn't in on it too. ie 34,000 people turn out at Madison Sq garden, paying to see a candidate and it makes A14 of the NYTimes. Al Gore never had numbers like that.

David, so much to fear!! :)

•••

What is the historical track record or polls. I assume that they must be fairly good as polls are so widely used. But what are the facts? Your story is based on polls and imagination. The latter, yours, is always vivid but how about the polls? In general? Over the past 40-50 years?

So "media narratives" failed to have their intended results. I bet its because:

1. The "media" has lost credibility and the public takes their "narratives" with a consider-the-source grain of salt.
2. A great many people in this country - thankfully - pay no attention to the masturbations of Hollywood D.C.

Readers might also be interested in this interview with Lawrence Goodwyn, a historian with what appears to be a progressive viewpoint.

http://www.alternet.org/news/148582/lawrence_goodwyn%3A_the_great_predicament_facing_obama

The general overview is that the Republicans will win this election but that by 2012 nothing will have been fixed and Obama will get his grove back and finally tell it like it is.... in my dreams.

garyp, re. ralph. yup, the only honest man, and I lean conservative fiscally. as to mcginns war with gregoire over the tunnel, didn't this tunnel get voted down decisively by the voters in favor of refitting the viaduct? if you want a reason why voters are angry, thats a big reason, a political class who govern by some devine right, oblivious to and contemptuous of the masses. just got back from Paris, lovely city, river down the middle, with highways running along side of it and zero attempt to doll it up with cheesy parks and condos.

You may not have taken into account the GOTV effort mounted by state Democrats and other blue groups. As my grandnephew would say: it's awesome.