At this point would having the House be better? Flip a Coin

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

In the struggle over big important things the difference between the Republicans and the mainstream-left hasn't been this stark since the 1960s. The pug agenda would, if enacted literally, push the world into a deflationary stag-pression.

So it is horrid for such people to *win* anything.

But when I consider the alternative of Dems holding the house by two or three votes I am not sure I would give us the House if I were able to. It's a close call. The problem is that either way the pug-center coalition would control the results.

(The center-right controls the Senate also, but our organizational hold on the Senate is a very good thing. It is the difference between a few liberal judges versus zero liberal judges and some center judges versus center-right judges.)

The worst thing President Obama has done was to politically de-legitimize activist government and Keynesian economics, perhaps for a long time. If we still had the House that trend would have continued. We would have continued to own worthless center-right solutions that would be seen as "liberal solutions." They fail, as compromise-centrism must fail in a crisis, and then we have "learned" that liberal solutions don't work.

Perhaps more Dems in the House minority will feel free to propose what is right since they are no longer forced to pretend to think the cold gruel that has masqueraded as liberal activism is acceptable.

Also, losing the House does make Obama's re-election somewhat more likely. President Obama is not my cup of tea but the Presidency is very, very, very important.

If Dems could have gained seats a bunch of seats I'd jump all over that option, but if given the choice between blue-dog/pug rule with a D label and blue-dog/pug rule with an R label... it's a mixed argument in the big picture.