... because, surely, losing a couple of seats in the House, winning a couple of governor races, and doing well in the PA judicial elections is a national tidal wave trend for the GOP.

Of the new federal congressional elections, the democrats took both.

How, exactly, was this a loss for the Democrats? Ohhh...that's right. A few judgeships in PA and two terrible governors lost their seats.

Oh noes. It's like a retroactive McCane victory.

That's it, fark Obama. I'm a Fark Independent now! Wooo! Suck it libs!

Pundits and the media are the only people gleefully cheering (and completely making up) a conservative ascension right now.

• the GOP wins in VA against a feckless dem candidate and in a state that ALWAYS goes the opposite of the party in the WH during an off-year gubernatorial election
• the GOP wins in NJ against a candidate mired in an ethics scandal and weighed down by a lousy approval rating
• the GOP loses a house seat held by republicans for more than a century even after throwing the full might of the teabagger movement behind it

now, i don't know about you, freepmitter, but most sentient creatures would look at that and tell you that it's a wash at best - and at worst, it's an embarrassing loss for the GOP.

Did the pundits punch their mothers in the face when she tried to get them into rehab?

seventypercent: Did the pundits punch their mothers in the face when she tried to get them into rehab?

I took care of that.

"The 2009 election"? There were like 7 races. To an extent the Republican spokespeople need to talk up their victories, but making such a big deal out of these results, like it's the start of some big trend (especially considering the nature of the races) is making them look a bit desperate for something to cling to.

So when does Sarah Palin get sworn in?

what_now: Of the new federal congressional elections, the democrats took both.

How, exactly, was this a loss for the Democrats? Ohhh...that's right. A few judgeships in PA and two terrible governors lost their seats.

Oh noes. It's like a retroactive McCane victory.

Well, we've seen this logic before in elections.

2004: Bush gets 50.7% of the vote: "ZOMG, MANDATE!!!"

2008: McCain/Palin lose by 9,000,000 votes. Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia go blue for the first time since before most Farkers were born. The GOP barely hangs on to Missouri by the skin of their balls. Obama splits Nebraska's electoral votes: "WE ARE STILL A CENTER-RIGHT NATION!!!"

Sgt Otter: 2004: Bush gets 50.7% of the vote: "ZOMG, MANDATE!!!"

They also specifically said Obama did NOT have a mandate with 52.9%. The same people who said Bush had a mandate not only in 2004, but in 2000 with 47.9% as well.

Sgt Otter: 2008: McCain/Palin lose by 9,000,000 votes. Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia go blue for the first time since before most Farkers were born. The GOP barely hangs on to Missouri by the skin of their balls. Obama splits Nebraska's electoral votes: "WE ARE STILL A CENTER-RIGHT NATION!!!"

Well, the US is sort of a center or center-right nation.

However, instead of recognizing Obama as a centrist, they think he's to the left of Stalin while Glenn Beck is a moderate.

And I actually heard Ben Stein the other day say he didn't think Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh were "that far right".

Their problem isn't necessarily that they misidentify the overall political climate as center-right, it's just that they have no idea where the center is, and hence don't know what center-right actually means.

This article is about a year or so too early. Speculating is nothing new however, so relax.

All politics is local.

This whole narrative is because the media needs a story to keep the political puppets...I mean parties to seem competitive against each other.

Thoughts of a permanent Democratic majority were just as ridiculous as thoughts of a permanent Republican majority.

Insertwitty Namehere: Thoughts of a permanent Democratic majority were just as ridiculous as thoughts of a permanent Republican majority.

I refuse to believe the multitude of Fark political scientists who told me this was true may have been just a little bit wharrrgarbly on that.

All candidates that ran negative campaigns lost. McCain's campaign was largely a negative one, and he lost too.

Perhaps the people are trying to send out a message that biatching about the other guy instead of telling us what YOU would do for us is not the way to win.

When times are bad, people are looking for leaders, not finger pointers.

But hey, go ahead and keep pointing those fingers. It's bound to work again sooner or later.

quick, someone post the mission accomplished banner for the republicans!

Wow, so how more green-lights are we going to get about this specific topic?

This is like the GOP acting as if they have little money to pay a bill, they see a nickel on the ground, but while trying to pick it up they lose a dime and then parade around how finding the nickel 100% takes them out of debt.

Krauthammer? (Checks link). Krauthammer.

Insertwitty Namehere: Thoughts of a permanent Democratic majority were just as ridiculous as thoughts of a permanent Republican majority.

I know of no one (aside from the local internet pundits) that believe in the idea of a "permanent" Democratic majority. There WERE some high-ranking Republicans that had the gall to believe such a thing about their side.

Ahahahahahaha

Keep typing, Asshammer. We'll keep passing bills.

God how I love the way Krauthammer makes Libs froth and flail.

Lando Lincoln: When times are bad, people are looking for leaders, not finger pointers.

Like B..BB....BBBUT BUSH?

This has been a problem for Obama (any a good majority of lefties on Fark) since January.

I do admire the "if we keep saying it, it will be true" attitude.

HotWingConspiracy: Keep typing, Asshammer. We'll keep passing bills.

Like health care and cap-and-trade you mean? Ha ha ha ha.