Housekeeping note: If my flight left on time, at this moment I'm in Seattle, visiting the Pacific NW for a quick day trip. I won't be posting again until Sunday morning (or perhaps late tonight).

Sixteen minutes of space shuttle Endeavour countdown and launch condensed into three, featuring CNN's Miles O'Brien and NASA astronaut Janet Voss. It's worth watching, if only to find out what Miles is drinking. (Hint: it's the world's nastiest purified water.)

YouTube link

This is somewhat reassuring (NYT):

Advisers to the onetime rivals for the Democratic nomination confirmed Friday that President-elect Barack Obama had met with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday afternoon at Mr. Obama's transition office in Chicago and discussed the secretary of state job.

The prospect of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state, perhaps the most prestigious cabinet position in any administration, sent people buzzing. But associates to both Democrats cautioned that their conversation included other cabinet possibilities and that no job was offered. Democrats said late Friday that Mr. Obama had also met with another oft-mentioned candidate for the post, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, to discuss the secretary of state job.

Still, the fact that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton had even met to discuss such a possibility left even some of their closest advisers and allies talking about the pros and cons of so close a partnership, and about how it would be complicated by a third wheel: Mrs. Clinton's globe-trotting husband, former President Bill Clinton.

My emphasis.

They've now counted 66,738,562 votes for Barack Obama. That's already 1.2 million more than was estimated for him after election day.

Daily Kos commissioned a poll in Connecticut on Joe Lieberman's popularity, or lack thereof. It was conducted by Research 2000 (which was one of the two most accurate pollsters in the 2008 presidential campaign).

The results surprised even me:

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 11/11-13. Likely voters. MoE 4% (6/30-7/2 results)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Lieberman is doing as U.S. senator?

Approve 36 (45)
Disapprove 61 (43)

If the 2012 election for U.S. Senate were held today would you to reelect Joe Lieberman would you consider voting for another candidate or would you vote to replace Lieberman?

Reelect 35
Consider Someone Else 18
Replace 48

If Joe Lieberman loses his committee chairmanship at Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and switches his allegiance to the Republican Party would you that make you more likely reelect Lieberman more likely to consider voting for another candidate or more likely to vote to replace Lieberman?

Reelect 31
Consider Someone Else 15
Replace 52

As Markos puts it:

So Lieberman can threaten all he wants to caucus with Republicans if he doesn't get everything he wants. Fact is, he's in shaky electoral territory, and it would only get worse if he decided to become a Republican.

Call his bluff. Give him another committee chairmanship in an area where his ideology matches up with the Democratic Party. He won't leave the Democratic caucus. It would be career suicide.

Also, both Leahy and Sanders (who as an independent doesn't have a vote) have come out against rewarding Lieberman's support for McCain with the homeland security chairmanship.

I'm a sucker for blastoffs. You can watch live on NASA.gov.

I still have no knowledge of anything, but I have noticed that CNN reported from two different reporters that based on sources, HRC left her meeting with President-elect Obama with the impression that the SoS job was hers.

Now, in addition to the marvel of a sentence with three different three-letter acronyms, that is notable for the fact that the only way somebody would know what impression Clinton was left with is if that person were close to Clinton.

So that means the leakers are close to Clinton. That doesn't mean the leaks are false, but it does tell you where they are coming from, I think.

So it could be much ado about nothing. I still don't understand the thinking here. Meanwhile, as the chattering rages on, the thing I'm really concerned about is the economy, and what the Bush administration is (and is not) doing while we wait for Obama to take power. We're going to need a massive stimulus plan, including overhaul of the health care system, and it seems to me we need HRC's expertise on health care in the Senate. Meanwhile, someone like John Kerry might make a better fit in Foggy Bottom.

According to Nico Pitney, two Democratic officials have said Obama has already offered the job to Clinton, and that she's mulling it over. And on CNN, Gloria Borger says HRC "believes the job is hers if she wants it."

Assuming that these stories are accurate (and they probably are, because otherwise Obama-land would be denying them), I'd like to hear something from someone close to Obama soon explaining his thinking here, because it's not self-evident.

I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but I still think the vetting issues needs exploring. And I'm a bit confused because Obama-land criticized Hillary for not having any foreign policy experience during the campaign.I'm not jumping off the ship or anything, but this is something that could use some explanation.

Adam Serwer takes a look at how Tom Perriello defeated Virgil Goode in Virginia's 5th CD.

He's still a jackass.

Worth reading:

To pull us out of this downward spiral, the federal government will have to provide economic stimulus in the form of higher spending and greater aid to those in distress -- and the stimulus plan won't come soon enough or be strong enough unless politicians and economic officials are able to transcend several conventional prejudices...

The Obama administration will almost certainly take office in the face of an economy looking even worse than it does now. Indeed, Goldman Sachs predicts that the unemployment rate, currently at 6.5 percent, will reach 8.5 percent by the end of next year.

All indications are that the new administration will offer a major stimulus package. My own back-of-the-envelope calculations say that the package should be huge, on the order of $600 billion.

So the question becomes, will the Obama people dare to propose something on that scale?

Let's hope that the answer to that question is yes, that the new administration will indeed be that daring. For we're now in a situation where it would be very dangerous to give in to conventional notions of prudence.

On the question of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, one thing that will -- or at least should -- be a big issue is the vetting process. The reality is that Bill and Hillary Clinton -- particularly Bill -- have some potential conflicts of interest that need to be identified and resolved.

Specifically, I'm talking about things like Bill's links to Kazakhstan, Colombia, and Dubai. There's a number of questions relating to his presidential library as well.

My aim here isn't to slam the Clintons. I'm just saying that to be our nation's top diplomat will require a level of vetting similar to that of a vice presidential candidate, and it's something that needs to be done so that we can be sure that there won't be any problems that crop up either in the confirmation process or after taking office.

"Highlights" from Palin's Thursday press conference in Miami:

YouTube link

Wow. Hillary Clinton could be Secretary of State. Ben Smith notes that Clinton aides aren't knocking the rumor down.

Update (8:51PM): I'm wondering if this was a false rumor. My first reaction was, well Obama-land never leaks unless the story is true, so it must be true. Upon further reflection, the truth is that Obama-land never leaks. Period. But that was the campaign. This was the transition, and the rules of the game could be different. My guess is that if there is a leak and it's accurate, it's coming from Rahm Emanuel. If the leak is innaccurate, I'd bet the first sign would be a member of the transition team getting fired.

Greg Sargent reports that Senate staffers are seriously considering including health care reform in any economic stimulus plan.

The general idea -- again, this is very preliminary -- is that a stimulus package of $300 billion or more, which is being suggested in some quarters, would be very hard to spend. So around $150 billion of it could go to health care reform, perhaps in the form of a big tax credit to employers covering employees for the first time, among other things.

The basic concept is that spending now to boost the economy -- and spending on health care reform -- would get our money double value. Economist Dean Baker has a good piece explaining the idea right here. More as we learn it.

The thing I like most about this idea is that we could provide a boost to the economy while simultaneously dealing with one of its long-term problems.

What do you think?

Bumped at 6:49PM. I'd inadvertantly scheduled another post that bumped this one, originally published at 5:32PM.

Callie Shell, who took this photo, describes the scene:

Waiting: Obama listens from a back stairwell as he is introduced in Muscatine, Iowa. It was his second or third speech of the day. Unlike many of the politicians I have photographed in the past, I find it is easy to get a photograph of Obama alone. He lets his staff do their jobs and not fuss over him. Nov. 7, 2007.

There's many more photos by Shell at digitaljournalist.org.

Andrea Mitchell continues to ask good questions, pressing Saxby Chambliss on his 2002 TV ad comparing Vietnam war hero Max Cleland to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Chambliss, of course, stands by his nasty smear as "truthful in every way."

YouTube link

She took four questions and spent a grand total of 2 minutes, 8 seconds answering the questions.

Her first answer was 25 seconds long. Her second answer was 51 seconds long. Her third answer was 28 seconds long, and her final answer was 24 second long.

She spent most of the time saying she didn't want to review the 2008 presidential campaign. She then went on to deliver a speech in which she mostly reviewed the 2008 presidential campaign.

Half of the GOP governors showed up. They see her as the leader of the party. I'm loving it. More, please!

President-elect Obama's statement:

It has been one of the highest honors and privileges of my life to have served the people of Illinois in the United States Senate.  In a state that represents the crossroads of a nation, I have met so many men and women who've taken different journeys, but hold common hopes for their children's future.  It is these Illinois families and their stories that will stay with me as I leave the United States Senate and begin the hard task of fulfilling the simple hopes and common dreams of all Americans as our nation's next President.

From President Bush's speech on world economy, as prepared:

It will require more time for these improvements to fully take hold, and there will be more difficult days ahead.  But the United States and our partners are taking the right steps to get through the crisis, and they are working.

From President Bush's speech on world economy, as delivered:

It will require more time for these improvements to fully take hold, and there will be more difficult days ahead.  But the United States and our partners are taking the right steps to get through the crisis.

The NYT chronicles the adventures of Martin Eisenstadt, a fictional McCain adviser who managed to create quite a name for himself.

Yeah, but that's the problem.

From a cute segment on CNN this morning:

The NYT writes up Bailout 2.0 here.

I have to admit, I feel like a sucker. It's not that I've come to the conclusion that a bailout was a bad idea, but rather it's that I believed that they would do what they said they would do. Paulson is now basically saying he knew that he was lying when he proposed the original plan. I gave him far more credit than he deserved.

This all may yet work out. And with the Obama administration taking over, I am cautiously optimistic that it will.

But this is no way to build confidence in government. It was a bait-n-switch job, and that's inexcusable.

Update (9:28PM): Begich now leads by 814 votes.

Original post:

If Begich can hold this lead, Sarah Palin can stop daydreaming about the Senate.

Falafel Bill O'Reilly today made a rather curious assertion, claiming that Sarah Palin has gotten more coverage than Barack Obama. Well, let's take a look-see at just how wrong Bill is. Here's the number of mentions of each name from 11/9 to present on the cable networks:

Iran bans a newsweekly for placing a photo of a smiling Barack Obama on the cover.

Politico puts the spread online.

Here's the way I think about Joe Lieberman's pursuit of the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee: as a senator and as a Democrat, has he earned the job?

Lieberman has no constitutional claim to the job, after all. The committee chairmanship and structure is determined in an organizational vote by the party in control of each chamber of Congress. The question Democrats now face is whether or not Lieberman should be rewarded with a return appearance as homeland security chairman, or whether there is a better role for him within the caucus.

The notion that there are some Democrats who want to remove him from the caucus altogether is false. That's not an option on the table. Nobody -- at least nobody outside of the GOP -- wants to kick him out. Lieberman has threatened to quit the caucus if he doesn't get his way,  but that's just a negotiating posture. Only the naive fail to discount his threat with the reality that if Lieberman were to become a Republican, he would almost certainly lose his re-election.

So the real question is whether he has earned this particular chairmanship, and in my view, there's nothing to suggest that he has. It's not just that he has relentlessly attacked Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. It's also that he has not done a good job as chairman of the committee.

Combine those two things together, and it's clear that the responsible thing to do is to find a replacement. Senator Byrd relinquished his chairmanship of appropriations when he realized he wasn't the best senator for the job.

Lieberman has been unwilling to take that step himself, so he's forced the issue upon the Democratic Caucus, which will act on it next week. If Democratic Senators do decide to award the chairmanship to another senator -- as I think they should -- Joe Lieberman still has a role to play within the Democratic caucus, perhaps as leader of another committee or subcommittee.

There's no reason to kick him out, but there's also no reason to award him with a prize that he does not deserve -- especially when we don't have to.

To take such a course of action might receive plaudits from the pundits and conservative politicians, but if we've learned anything over the past few years, it should be clear that rewarding Joe Lieberman's behavior will do the Democratic Party -- and more importantly, this country -- no good.

We should be about results, and Joe Lieberman hasn't delivered them.

7 in 10 Americans have  confidence in the Obama Administration's ability to handle the economy. DemFromCT runs through that and other numbers, but it's worth remembering that these two months of transition will at times be tough, because the Bush Administration is still in charge, even though all eyes are on Obama and what he'll do when he takes office.

What a complete mess Bush is leaving behind:

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Two American soldiers were shot dead and six others wounded by an Iraqi soldier on Wednesday following an altercation in the northern city of Mosul, according to Iraqi security sources and witnesses. The shooter was immediately killed by other American soldiers, the sources and witnesses said.

AP:

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said Wednesday that the $700 billion government rescue program would not be used to purchase troubled assets as originally planned.

Mr. Paulson said the administration would continue to use $250 billion of the program to purchase stock in banks as a way to bolster their balance sheets and encourage them to resume more normal lending. In addition, he said the Treasury's capital infusions through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, might also be aimed at other kinds of financial institutions.

From the Arizona Republic:

Billionaire T. Boone Pickens said that his Texas wind farm is on hold because natural-gas prices have dropped but that his plan for wind power and natural-gas vehicles is still viable to reduce foreign oil imports.

It's hard to be surprised by Pickens' reversal. After all, it's coming from the swiftboat king.

I don't really know enough about the auto industry to have a good sense as to whether or not the bailout being proposed by Congressional Democrats and supported by Barack Obama is a good idea.

Instinctively, I hate the idea of America losing the auto industry, but I'm also not particularly fond of the notion of bailing out business after business without having a coherent overall plan. But if these statistics in the WaPo are even close to accurate, it seems like bankruptcy is not an option:

A GM bankruptcy would reverberate through the U.S. economy, GM supporters contend. One in 10 American jobs is related to auto manufacturing. Automakers are the biggest buyers of U.S.-manufactured steel, aluminum, iron, copper, plastics, rubber and electronics.

Tens of thousands of suppliers and dealers depend on the automakers. Bankruptcy could push suppliers into bankruptcy as well, hurting other automakers who depend on them for similar parts.

A failure at GM, which represents about half of the U.S. auto industry, could eliminate 2.5 million jobs and $125 billion in personal income in the first year, according to a report published last week by the Center for Automotive Research. In three years, the government's tax loss could total more than $108.1 billion.

What will it take to stave off bankruptcy? According to the WaPo:

GM is lobbying for enough money to tide it over until 2010, when it shifts the multibillion dollar annual cost of retiree health benefits to an independent trust as part of an agreement with its labor unions. In the meantime, it is exploring all options to prevent a bankruptcy filing.

The question I have as that even if we do a bailout, and it works, how long will it work for? And just as importantly, how can we ensure that it does not allow GM to feel comfortable continuing to produce cars that fewer and fewer people want to buy?

And if a primary reason for the bailout is to buy GM time until it can offload health care costs, what are we doing to reduce health care costs on a national basis? Surely, GM is not alone in this problem.

Just 49% of voters this year were confident that their ballots would be counted accurately. I'm one of those 49%, but unless that number is approaching 100%, we've got a crisis in confidence. With the economy rightly taking center stage, it will be easy to forget about the importance of election reofrm, but we can't afford to not address it at some point in the next couple of years.

I swear, I'm over Sarah Palin, but Keith O.'s review of her interviews over the past few days was so damn funny that I couldn't resist posting it.

WaPo's Ben Pershing on the Obama camp's handling of Lieberman (my emphasis):

Of course, it's not all peaches and cream for Obama. Liberal blogs -- AKA the "Netroots" -- are not happy about this, and they may not be satisfied with anything short of complete excommunication for the Connecticut Senator.

The post to which he links and cites as evidence for his claim was written by Markos. Here's his key point (my emphasis):

Greg Sargent seems to take this as pro-Lieberman. I see it exactly the opposite -- it's a generic, "Reid can do what he wants in his Senate" type of statement. Nowhere does Cutter say that Lieberman should keep his chairmanship, and nowhere does he demand that Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. Saying "we'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats" isn't any huge shakes because, quite frankly, no one is seriously demanding that Lieberman be kicked out of the caucus.

Boston Globe: Obama puts leash on lobbyists for transition.

Joe Lieberman has got every right in the world to support Barack Obama's policy agenda, and there's nothing wrong with him doing it as a member of the Democratic caucus.

His behavior over the past year has raised questions about whether or not he's capable of doing that, however. And he's demonstrated that on national security issues, he's not an ally -- he's an opponent.

The Democratic Party is big enough for such disagreements, but the idea that Lieberman expects to maintain his leadership position on a committee that deals with national security is quite laughable.

Democrats have no more incentive to award him the GAC chairmanship than Barack Obama does to name him Secretary of State. But that doesn't mean Democrats want to kick him out of the party.

It's just a question of putting him where he can make the most positive impact. Let's be clear about one thing: if Senate Democrats don't offer him the GAC chairmanship, they won't be expelling him. They'll simply be saying that he isn't the right person to lead that committee.

If Lieberman then decides to quit the party, he's being a spoilsport. That's his right, and it's his decision. It will reflect on him -- not Democratic senators, and not Barack Obama.

Hopefully, Joe will be mature enough to put pettiness aside, and to put the country first.

It's worth remembering that as the Sarah Palin does all these morning shows, gearing up for 2012 (isn't it insane that she and the GOP are starting the next campaign now, admidst this economic crisis?), her rehab mission is essentially irrelevant.

Palin doesn't control her 2012 destiny: Barack Obama does. As long as he has an effective first term as president, Palin can rehab herself all she wants, but she won't be able to win, because the pursuit of the 2012 nomination will simply bea contest to win the right to lose to Obama.

Crazy:

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship. 

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Obama, now 19,869 shy of 66 million votes. He'll get there, guaranteed. (Update: CNN already has him over 66.)

Now, if we could just will Al Franken along...

I'm back home from the drive up from San Diego. I'm still getting my bearings (my sandals finally dried out after they took an unintended soaking in the Pacific yesterday afternoon), but I loved this picture of Obama entering the White House as the President-elect.

^{Photo: Doug Mills / NYT}

This is an amazing segment from tonight's 60 Minutes. The thing that really struck me more than anything else was that here you have the top aides to President-elect Obama, speaking to 60 Minutes at 1AM on the night of Obama's victory, and they are all still working as hard as ever.

I can only imagine how much they wanted to be out partying the night away, reveling in victory. But they seem to have a firm understanding of the fact that the hard part is just beginning. There is much work to be done. And they are ready to do it. What an extraordinarily dedicated group they are, and what an incredible job they did.

H/t: icebergslim @ This Week With Barack Obama

Naming your newborn Barack is all the rage says Jennifer 8. Lee.

Oh man this is fun. Palin wants her 15 minutes to continues -- she'll be on FOX's Greta Van Susteren tomorrow night. I'm sure it'll be a total softball interview, which will make it all the more funny if she says something dumb. Then again, if she does say something dumb, FOX probably won't air it.

Also, earlier on FNS Kristol said her question about which countries were in NAFTA slip was part of a briefing on NAFTA and CAFTA that was "very reasonable" because it was the end of the day. He said that her comment that Africa was a "country" was a slip of the tongue in the middle of a well-informed discourse on the state of affairs in Africa.

And Juan Williams said that it was obvious that she could learn these things later, and that the only reason she didn't know them was that she wasn't on the national stage, and that feminists should be outraged at her treatment.

Interesting bit from FNS this morning:

CHRIS WALLACE: I want to put something that liberal economist Paul Krugman wrote in the NYT this week. Let's put it up. [Krugman chyron reads "This year's presidential election was a clear referendum on political philsophies, and the progressive philosophy won."] Do you agree?

JOHN PODESTA (transition co-chair): Yes, I do. The program that the Obama-Biden ticket put forth in the campaign focused on opportunity for everyone, focused on the common good, and I think that's in the progressive tradition in this country. It was alive and well in both parties. It sort of got extinguished in the Republican Party over the course of the last couple of decades, but I think that progressive vision of providing opportunity for people who work hard, for proviing for the common good, helping people succeed in their lives I think was what he layed beofre the American people, it was in that great tradition of progressive politics in this country, and it's a tradition of reform, and I think he'll deliver on those elements.

Wallace didn't follow up.

Almost immediately after last Tuesday's election, pundits crawled out of the woodwork to make the case that 2008 was 1992 all over again, and that to be succesful, Barack Obama needed to avoid the mistakes made by Bill Clinton that led to the disastrous 1994 midterms.

Here's one such example from the WSJ's Gerald Seib:

Some Democrats, seeing the margins of victory they have rolled up, doubtless now will start pushing for new economic policies, new financial regulatory structures, new government plans for health care and a new strategy for dealing with the lingering war in Iraq, built solely on Democratic terms.

Yet history provides warning signs in front of such thinking. Simply consider the paths of the last two newly elected presidents, Bill Clinton of the Democrats and George W. Bush of the Republicans.

Mr. Clinton won in 1992 with friendly Democratic majorities in Congress strikingly similar to those Sen. Obama will enjoy: 258 House seats and 57 Senate seats. He did, in fact, reach across the aisle to Republicans initially to balance the budget and promote free trade -- policies that had durable and lasting support precisely because they had a bipartisan foundation.

But he then fell into the trap of leaning on the power of Democratic votes, and ignoring the animosity of minority Republicans, to try to push through the single biggest domestic effort of his first term, a wholesale remaking of the nation's health-care system. It was an overreach, which Republicans drove home by reminding voters that Mr. Clinton had won office with just 43% of the popular vote, thanks to the votes siphoned away by independent candidate Ross Perot.

The backlash was instant, and painful. Democrats lost 54 House seats and 10 Senate seats in 1994, just two years after Mr. Clinton took office.

There are many problems with Seib's argument, but perhaps the biggest is that the 1992 election has little in common with the 2008 election, starting with the fact that unlike 2008, 1992 wasn't a Democratic wave election.

In 1992, Democrats actually lost seats in Congress (though they gained one in the Senate), and although Bill Clinton won 370 electoral votes, as Seib noted, he didn't achieve a majority of the popular vote. (One can "blame" Perot for this, but remember that Reagan still managed a majority in 1980 despite a strong third-party bid.)

In 2008, on the other hand, Democrats have gained at least 19 seats in the House. In the Senate, they've gained at least six seats. And Barack Obama assembled the strongest Democratic presidential coalition in decades.

Roughly 28.3% of the voting age population voted for Obama, a number exceeded only by Reagan in 1984 and Nixon in 1972 in the ten elections since 18 year-olds were given the right to vote. (Bill Clinton won 23.7% of the voting age population in 1992.)

Obama's victory was marked by depth as well as breadth. If you add up the electoral votes in all the states in which he won by at least 10 points, you get 262 of the 270 EVs he would need to win re-election. (Keep in mind that the distribution of EVs will change slightly after the 2010 census.)

It would take only two additional states to get over the 270 threshold, Iowa (which he won by 9 points) and Colorado (which he won by just under 7 points).

Comparing Obama's victory to 1992, if you look at the states that Clinton won big -- by 10% or more -- he only takes in 188 EVs. Even if you just look at two-party vote (a dubious method of factoring out Ross Perot), Clinton only gets 230 EVs.

Obama's victory wasn't just impressive for its electoral geography. Obama did best among young voters, most of whom will still be able to vote in 2012. (Not to mention the influx of another four years worth of younger voters.)

At the same time, Obama did worst among the oldest voters. I hate to be this blunt, but not all of those voters will live long enough to cast ballots in 2012.

Looking at these factors, Obama has about as rock solid an electoral coalition as an incoming first-term president could have.

Combined with the returns on senatorial and congressional campaigns, the notion that Obama in 2008 is in the same political situation as Bill Clinton in 1992 is laughable on its face. Obama is in a much stronger position.

What's more, the GOP will have a tough time arguing that Obama wasn't elected to accomplish a progressive agenda. After all, Barack Obama won despite dire warnings from Republicans that he was a socialist interested in "spreading the wealth around." Notice that Obama's response wasn't to deny these attacks, but rather it was to mock them.

So now when Republicans make the argument that somehow Obama needs to govern from a "center right" perspective or else Democrats will face a repeat of the 1994 mid-term elections, they are living in a bit of a fantasy world. No doubt they believe in their fantasy, but it's nothing but a fantasy.

In fact, the only thing that could possibly lead to widespread electoral disaster is if Democrats fail to enact the progressive agenda upon which they campaigned.