Doonesbury: Our President is 'Serene' in the face of disaster.

[onehandle]

[northoftheborder]

1. Doonesbury at his genius best.

[uponit7771]

2. Recent polls and dem ground game give Obama cause to be 'serene' no?

[COLGATE4]

3. I don't see why. While there's been a slight uptick in at least

some of the polls and there are signs that the Dem ground game may not yet be on life support, the prognosis for November for us remains pretty damned grim, barring some October surprise or other miracle.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. Only if you buy the media narrative...

Which, obviously, you have done. Not that you're alone - everyone on DU seems to lap up what the media sells 'em when it comes to attacking the Democrats.

What I mean is that we're led to believe, as this cartoon suggests, there will be historical losses. Yet, outside of the media and Republicans saying this, if you actually did your own research, you'd see the 'historical' losses probably won't come.

For starters, it's looking like the Democrats won't lose the Senate. Bush did in 2006 and Clinton did in 1994. So if the Democrats hold the Senate, Obama has automatically done better than the last two presidents. Yet we're being told there is going to be historical losses.

How is that even possible?

Sure, the Democrats have a good chance of losing the House - but even that isn't as cut and dry as it seems. For starters, most generic ballots either have it tied or the Republicans have a slight edge (in '94, Republicans had a 10+-point edge in polls). It isn't a blowout. In other polls, head-to-head matchups, a great deal of the races are just too close to call. They've been too close to call for weeks now.

The worst scenario would be 1994 all over again.

But I don't see that happening because the Democrats won't lose the Senate and I think their House losses will be less than that. But let's say that happens - how is that historic if it happened a mere 16 years ago?

[Cha]

5. Especially the way the corporatewhore media spins it.