Machiavellian demographer, that's a perfect way to describe what Murphy struck me as.  I get prickly when I hear someone who's got blinders on for the electoral process, the only viewpoint he seems to have on any topic (granted they were talking electoral process, but he did say "then you break his neck in NH"). Makes me wonder how useful answers from such consultants are, whether they ever go back to run quant/qual analysis of their assumptions, and if they EVER see ANY potential for something to happen that doesn't fit their model.  I might be caught up in the idea that this GOP primary is revealing a new paradigm (see http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/21/why-this-primary-season-different/), but it's worth considering/hoping.

One issue w/ comments between Lileks, Delingpole & Long on no democratic mechanism in EU negotiations:  

It is scary how the cabal of big bankers + statist pols are simply negotiating deal points with other people's money, but the pols job is to handle these details; all western democracies are blended democratic representative governments, i.e. electing reps to make decisions, then voters lobby/reelect to respond to choices (esp. the case for any kind of negotiating, deal making).

The central issue is our insane pattern of democratic behavior: 1) philosophical misunderstandings by reps about the purposes of their institutions (e.g. statism vs. constitutional republicanism), 2) govt reps collectively over long periods taking the easy way out by borrowing and then inevitably being beholden to the lenders, 3) voters going along w/ the charade b/c they think it's always someone else's problem to fix (and to pay for the voters' security, e.g. Greece/French riots, Ohio).

Democratic involvement like the Greek referendum now will most likely bring #2-3 in play: voters say "NO," pols won't act and wait for some good option to come along (like you guys said of current negotiation mindset).

I'd say temporary, but the battle-within-the-war metaphor is the most useful way of assessing what happened (besides waiting for good polling data).

Part of Prof. Rahe's point in that episode, I think/extrapolate, was that the left's ideology was taken as final victory, a new dawn for progressivism (Pelosi & Schumer regularly talked like Gingrich '94, i.e. fundamental shift in the American electorate). They reached WAY too far, making their ideology obvious, but America has never taken to far-leftism when sold explicitly.

Given the tsunami of bills coming due and the economy, people seemed to have gone to their mod-con roots nationally, but America as a whole is simply not that philosophically driven for major, intentional ideological shifting in a few election cycles (if ever). So I would expect the general trend to continue electorally (of reps) to the right.  However, specific issue-based elections/battles like yesterday can be much more easily spun (worker's rights v. anti-union, mother's rights v. anti-choice) by the left in their favor.

3+ HUGE points by Prager c.46min mark, RE: rare opportunity to move US anti-left:

1. DP: NOBODY knows if Romney is a conservative

   Me: question, of course, is which other candidate to back
    

2. DP: we've suffered more from GOPers not understanding conservatism than Dems understanding leftism

   Me: he IDs almost EVERY GOP prez; a mod-con prez can do as much domestic damage as a hard lib because he tries for BOTH con causes AND to moderate libs by "only" giving them half the moon; result: inconsistent initiatives, HUGE BUDGETS w/ both welfare state & defense spending through the roof

   JPR (JAMES-PETER-ROB), PLEA for podcast (and maybe an Unc Slash Knowledge) on this issue of the results of our moderate presidents
    

3. DP: we've forgotten what America stands for

   Me: he hits on what I assess as an underlying identity/citizenship crisis of the Tea Party explosion; not that people understand what America is, they don't, but now many are realizing they don't and that they should; the optimism and opportunity is that so many are actively trying to rectify their ignorance and aimlessness (self included and so many @ Ricochet)

Seemed to be clear Ohio was THE focus for Dems, especially HIGHLY motivated unions (bleeding dues elsewhere).  I didn't donate to Con causes to Ohio because I don't think out-of-staters should make it a habit of trying to influence state votes that way, which meant I stopped looking at appeal emails.  But, about the only place I got any word of what was happening on the ground in Ohio was from those emails, nothing in traditional media or blogosphere.

Prez primary has taken over, especially now that voters seem to be coalescing around a few candidates, and Cain's issues have completely sucked the air out of the Con room right now.