Sounds speculative, but Lois Lerner was targeting the Tea Party specifically to have this effect.

So, the burden should be on the side that disagrees with this thesis to prove their claim.

Did the IRS Tea Party allegations help Obama’s presidency?

Well, really, who cares...

...about a bunch of ignorant red-necks?

//…and then the aforementioned bicoastal ‘elites’ that actually run the Democratic party will scream, browbeat, fold, spindle, and mutilate the poor so-and-so because he dared go into a Wal-Mart because it’s a non-union shop that encourages non-bicoastal-Americans to think that they deserve to have stuff, too.  And that’s the problem. It’s not demographics, and it’s certainly not gerrymandering, and shoot, it’s not even Barack Obama. It’s that the people who run the Democratic party [expletive deleted] hate the South.

And Southerners have noticed.  It really does astound me that the national Democratic apparatus apparently thought that they could defecate on an entire section of the country for fifty years and still get that section to vote for them at the end of it.  What did they think Southerners are, hard Left progressives or something? Folks below the Mason-Dixon line have basic self-respect and dignity, is what I’m saying. Try to heap scorn on their heads, and they’ll vote with their feet.//

I'm sure that Democrats are beginning to wonder: Why do we even let whites vote?...

...particularly if they are all a bunch of racists.

//The Republican Party’s big wins in the 2014 midterm elections are due to the GOP’s substantial advantage among white, working-class voters, a recent poll indicates.

Sixty-one percent of white, working-class voters – those earning an hourly wage and without a college degree – said they voted for Republicans in 2014, while only a quarter supported Democratic candidates, according to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). The poll surveyed 1,399 individuals before and after the midterm elections.

There was a significant drop-off in white, working-class support for Democratic candidates from 2012. That year, Democratic candidates received 35 percent of the white, working-class vote. In comparison, 55 percent of voters in this group supported Republican candidates, giving the GOP a six percentage point gain in this demographic in 2014.

Democrats have long been losing their hold on white, working-class areas, where incomes lag behind the national average and college graduates are relatively scarce. The Democrats’ declining support among these voters began decades ago. In 1993, Democrats held 36 of the 71 districts in largely white, middle-class districts, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. Today, Democrats hold just 11 of 70 such districts among the House’s 435 seats.

Speaking at an event marking the release of the survey, Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, said GOP candidates did a better job of appealing to white, working-class voters in the North than their Democratic opponents. He noted that this helped change support within this demographic in the northern states, where it is widely considered a swing vote, in favor of Republican candidates and resulted in the widespread Republican success in the midterm elections.

“I doubt that came in the South,” Olsen said. “My guess without looking at data is that it substantially came in the North…. White, working-class voters, outside of the South, tend to be in play between the two parties. They tend to be morally moderate, which is to say that they have conflicting views on social issues but are moved on patriotism and issues of opportunity, and they’re moved on issues of support in the economy.”//

Tell people that you despise them long enough and maybe they stop supporting you.

Don't you wish he could show this kind of backbone to Russia or Iran?

Obama interrupts Biden in meeting with Republicans:

Friday’s two-hour meeting was tense at times, according to a senior House Republican aide. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, about to lose his grip on the upper chamber, barely said a word, the aide said. The aide said at one point as House Speaker John Boehner was making an argument on immigration, Obama responded that his patience was running out and Vice President Joe Biden interrupted to ask how long Republicans needed. Obama angrily cut Biden off, the aide said.

This is either a brilliant parody... 

...or unhinged idiocy.

To be fair, this is the longest he's ever held a job.

Obama never learned how to negotiate, and now it is too late for him to learn.

//Most notably, of course, he said he would take executive action on immigration by year's end unless Republicans passed a bill.  It’s certainly a bold negotiating tactic: You can do what I want, or I’ll go ahead and do what I want anyway.  This is how you “negotiate” with a seven-year old, not a Senate Majority Leader.

I’m not sure that isn’t what Obama thinks he’s doing, and I’m sure many of my left-leaning readers are chuckling right now at the comparison.  But Mitch McConnell is not a seven year old; he’s an adult, and he just won an election in which voters repudiated Obama and his party. (Temporarily, I am sure, but just the same: As someone once said, “Elections have consequences.")  McConnell is not  the proverbial Tea Party extremist who won’t negotiate; he’s an establishment guy, known as a strategist and a tactician, not an ideologue (which is why the Tea Party isn’t that fond of him).  In short, he’s someone who can make deals.  Responding to McConnell’s rather gracious remarks about finding common goals by announcing that you know what the American public wants, and you’re going to give it to them no matter what their elected representatives say, seems curiously brash.  It might chill the atmosphere today when he sits down with congressional leaders.

 I wonder if Obama even knows how to negotiate with Republicans.  It’s not as if he has a long, distinguished record of passing legislation in a mixed environment.  His later years in the Illinois State Senate enjoyed a solid Democratic majority, and he jumped into the U.S. Senate at a propitious time. Soon after he arrived came the wave of 2006, when Democrats controlled both houses of congress by comfortable margins, and Senator Obama was far too junior to be negotiating with the White House.  Then came the financial crisis, and another wave, and Obama spent the first two years of his presidency in a happy situation where he could get things done without needing the support of the opposition.  He didn’t even negotiate with his own party; the Senate negotiated his health care bill, and Nancy Pelosi whipped it through the House.

 Post 2010, of course, he also hasn’t had much practice negotiating.  I’m not interested in another tedious argument about who did what to whom; whatever the cause and whoever’s fault it may be, the fact remains that the president has spent the last four years in a stalemate: Neither party can leave, and neither party can win.

 It’s a little late in the president’s career to learn the fine art of making deals with people who fundamentally disagree with you, but might be willing to work on whatever small goals you might share.  I suspect it feels more comfortable to go along with the strategy that has worked decently well over the last four years: hold your ground, complain about Republican intransigence, and hope that Republican legislators give you another opportunity to play long-suffering adult in the room.//

Salon explains Wendy Davis's loss...

...by blaming white women.

Back on the plantation or we will "mean girl" you.

Another enabler self-identifies.

So, both Chris Matthews and Jon Stewart are really unhappy with the Harry Reid strategy of bottling up every bit of legislation that came from the House?

The odd thing is that you would think they discovered this strategy only after Tuesday because they seem to have been silent about it BEFORE the election, which enabled the meme of "Republicans don't have a plan."

//Comedian Jon Stewart railed against President Barack Obama and Democrats Thursday night for playing what he called a “chickens**t gambit” — a political tactic in which he said they refused to act on controversial issues before the election to avoid being negatively impacted at the polls.

“What was he doing before the election?” Stewart asked of Obama, claiming that decisions surrounding the selection of a new attorney general, immigration, tax reform and the Keystone Pipeline were intentionally delayed prior to Tuesday’s elections.

The “Daily Show” host went on to posit that the tactic was an intentional one used by the Democrats as a means to protect themselves in the midterm elections.

“Senate Democrats wanted to avoid votes on contentious issues, so they wouldn’t have to take unpopular [stances] that might cost them reelection and they got the president to go along with it,” Stewart said. “It’s a well-known political maneuver known as the ‘chickens**t gambit.’ It’s named, of course, for Senator Dickless H. Chickens**t.”

He concluded by accusing Democrats of adopting a do-nothing strategy and avoiding acting on what voters elected them to do.//

Not feeling that tingle anymore?

Chris Matthews is worried about illegal immigration?

I thought he wasn't supposed to use that term.

Bow down and worship the Wizard of Oz, peasants!

The President reminds everyone why he has led his party into disaster.

//President Obama is a singularly ungracious and non-self-reflective person. In his press conference today he refused yet again to acknowledge reality.

He tried to downplay the Democrats’ loss of the Senate by talking to the two-thirds of people who did not vote. He tried to insinuate that it was a bipartisan rejection. He reminded us several times that he is still president. (“I’m the guy elected by everybody.”) He boasted about an economy most voters think is rotten. He has, however, learned nothing. After a historic repudiation, he is staying the course and still threatens unilateral action by year’s end on immigration reform. One would have thought his policies were not on the ballot or that his party saw historic losses in consecutive midterm elections. He defiantly announced that he will veto some bills and that Congress won’t like his executive actions. He insisted it had to be his way: “If there are ideas that the Republicans have that I have confidence will make things better for ordinary Americans, the fact that the Republicans [are] suggesting it, as opposed to a Democrat — that’ll be irrelevant to me. I want to just see what works.” In other words he sees no reason to compromise; Republicans must agree with him.//

He's kind of a jerk.

The polls were skewed...

...in favor of the Democrats.

Perhaps, mid-terms are less predictable.

Sweet, sweet Schadenfreude...

Bookmark this before liberals start telling you that the election was not about Obama.

You have to wonder how people in liberal enclaves are processing the loss of the Senate...

...given the news blackout on the midterms imposed by the liberal media.

During those 2006 elections, there was a flurry of campaign coverage, as to be expected from news networks historically interested in covering the election process in America. From September 1 (the unofficial kick-off of the campaign season) through October 26 – almost two full months – there were 118 full reports on CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and ABC World News Tonight; there were another 86 stories that mentioned the campaign — for a total of 204 stories.

In the exact same time frame in 2014, there were 31 stories, a  disparity of more than six to one.

In 2006, NBC had 79 stories on the midterm elections. This year, 15.

In 2006, CBS had 75 stories. This year, 16.

In 2006, ABC filed 50 reports. This year, not one.

More non-news.

Mickey Kaus thinks that immigration was the decider in Election 2014:

FIND THAT MESSAGE: Obama’s policies were on the ballot — we have it on good authority (Obama’s).  That includes “comprehensive immigration reform,” as embodied in the Chuck Schumer’s Senate “Gang of 8″ legalization + immigration increase bill. So how did it do? Let’s see:

Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas voted for the Gang of 8 bill. He’s GONE.

Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina voted for the Gang of 8 bill. GONE.

Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado voted for the Gang of 8 bill. GONE

Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska voted for the Gang of 8 bill. Almost certainly GONE

Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana voted for the Gang of 8 bill. She will probably be GONE after a January runoff.

Alison Grimes supported the Gang of 8 bill in Kentucky. DEFEATED

Michelle Nunn supported the Gang of 8 bill in Georgia. DEFEATED

Greg Orman supported the Gangof 8 bill in Kansas. DEFEATED

Bruce Braley supoorted the Gang of 8 bill in Iowa. DEFEATED

Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Mark Warner of Virginia voted for the Gang of 8 bill and BARELY SURVIVED against longshot challengers.

Do you sense a pattern in there somewhere? Schumer would probably be chairman of the lucrative Banking Committee if he hadn’t pushed his amnesty bill.

Even if the press intentionally misses this message, the pols and their advisers won’t. Do you think that, say, Oregon’s Democratic Senator Ron Wyden will be eager to vote on the Son of Gang of 8 next year? He’s up in 2016. Yesterday, his state’s voters rejected a bill to provide drivers’ licenses to illegals — it lost by a margin of 68 to 32, with more votes cast against it than were cast in favor of any candidate.  It lost big in Democratic areas and lost in Republican areas. I don’t think Wyden wants to vote for another “comprehensive” bill.

P.S.: Click on the link under each candidate’s name if you don’t think immigration was an issue in their race.

Makes you wonder what people who only watch the mainstream news are thinking this morning...

...since NBC, CBS and ABC didn't think the mid-terms were worth covering.

Democrats sift through the debris.

Democrats on Wednesday morning began sorting through the wreckage of disastrous midterm elections in which losses eclipsed even their worst fears.

The scale of the defeats, taken together, was breathtaking: a Senate majority lost, more than a dozen House seats swept away, and Democrats ousted from governors’ mansions across the country.

The drubbing is sure to spark a round of soul-searching, as Democrats ponder whether President Obama is to blame — or whether something deeper has gone wrong in the party that could threaten its chances of retaining the White House in 2016.

“This is where the administration has to take a real honest look at its decisionmaking and its management. Between the Veterans Administration, the health care website. … It was a lot of things for the last two years that kept feeding this concern that Democrats aren’t able to manage this government,” said one Democratic strategist who requested anonymity to speak freely.

Finger-pointing had begun between Senate Democrats and the White House even before every race has been decided. The blame game is sure to get worse in the coming days.

“The president’s approval rating is barely 40 percent,” David Krone, chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told Washington Post reporters. “What else more is there to say? ... He wasn’t going to play well in North Carolina or Iowa or New Hampshire. I’m sorry. It doesn’t mean that the message was bad, but sometimes the messenger isn’t good.”

Democratic losses were staggering in the Senate. The hopes of party strategists that ominous final polls might have been overstating the Republican advantage proved hollow.

If anything, the reverse proved true: In Iowa, Republican Joni Ernst defeated Rep. Bruce Braley (D) by almost 9 percentage points; in Colorado, incumbent Sen. Mark Udall (D) went down to Rep. Cory Gardner (R) by about 5 percentage points. Even North Carolina, the battleground state about which Democratic strategists were most confident, fell: Sen. Kay Hagan (D) lost out to the GOP’s Thom Tillis there by about 50,000 votes.

Sweet, sweet Schadenfreude...

...Chris Matthews breaks down in hysterics and ADMITS that Harry Reid is the reason that nothing got done for the last 4 years.

Gosh...interesting that he raises this topic for the first time AFTER Harry Reid is effectively fired from office.

Goodbye Harry Reid and Hello Senate Investigations of Obama's Corrupt Administration.

Republicans take Senate.

A Democrat Senator using the IRS to undermine conservatives?

Welcome to the era of Hope and Change - Banana Republic-style.

If you haven't heard of this special election, that probably tells you how important it was.

NRO reports:

Republicans shouldn’t have won tonight. Their candidate, 41-year-old David Jolly, was easily caricatured as a former congressional staffer and Washington lobbyist. He was vastly outspent by Democrat Alex Sink and her allies, and ran a shambolic campaign that was ridiculed behind the scenes by GOP operatives. Sink was a moderate female who had carried the district when she was running for governor, just over three years ago. As Florida’s chief financial officer, she outshone Jolly in terms of government experience.

But Jolly was for total repeal of Obamacare and Sink was, well, nuanced in expressing her opinion that the law could be “fixed.” Voters weren’t buying that. Turnout was high for a special election and the enthusiasm was clearly with GOP voters. Democrats stayed home in greater numbers.