Have begun a new project so blogging will be lighter than it has been the last month or so. Today just wanted to share some dots that, when connected, make an interesting picture for the Democrats.

First, Sean Trende at RCP captures true scope of the Democrats’ debacle in the election.

As you can see, the Congressional Democrats were hit hardest in Appalachian and Deep South districts in 2010. This has been widely reported. But note that Democrats in these areas are also running well behind their 2002 and 2004 showings here. These Democrats were immune to any anti-Obama sentiment in 2008; indeed Deep South Democrats got a bit of a boost from the increased African American turnout produced by the Obama candidacy. But now that we’ve seen Democratic weakness at the Presidential level seep thoroughly into statewide and congressional tickets in these segments, we can probably conclude that these voters are lost to the Democrats, at least in the short-to-medium term.

Less well reported is the weakening of the Democratic coalition in suburban and working class areas of the country. These are areas that weren’t particularly warm to Bush-style Republicans, and had been moving toward the Democratic Party (in the case of working class voters, moving back toward the Democratic Party) since the 1992 election. That movement seems to have stalled, and even reversed.

Democrats in working class districts had their worst showing all decade – perhaps ever.

They are losing ground across the board. And in response to this debacle, they have decided to continue on this self destructive path by electing the same old, tired liberal leaders. If anyone could save the GOP, it was the liberal democrats.

The future of Democrat liberal policies are clearly evident in California – the model of liberal economic destruction:

America’s strapped states and cities took another hit Wednesday, with California seeing tepid demand for its latest bond sale and other governments pulling about $700 million worth of borrowing deals this week as investors continued stepping away from the municipal bond market.

The normally staid market has grown volatile the past week, posting its sharpest selloff in nearly two years, as investors demand higher interest rates to buy paper issued by states, cities and counties to finance their operations. Localities have been hammered by a drop in tax revenue amid the downturn—and unlike the federal government, most are barred constitutionally from running deficits.

The era of big, bloated and wasteful government is over. As they say, follow the money to see where the new trend will be. And if you follow the money regarding global warming, you find the one year anniversary of Climategate also marks the death of the US carbon trading exchange, a nice little bit of snake oil that was going to rake in billions of dollars for Gore and Obama cronies:

Nothing more poignantly reflects the collapse of the great global warming scare than the decision of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, the largest in the world, to stop trading in “carbon” – buying and selling the right of businesses to continue emitting CO2.

A few years back, when the climate scare was still at its height, and it seemed the world might agree the Copenhagen Treaty and the US Congress might pass a “cap and trade” bill, it was claimed that the Chicago Exchange would be at the centre of a global market worth $10 trillion a year, and that “carbon” would be among the most valuable commodities on earth, worth more per ton than most metals. Today, after the collapse of Copenhagen and the cap and trade bill, the carbon price, at five cents a ton, is as low as it can get without being worthless.

Also to mark the one year anniversary in the total collapse of credibility for global warming alarmists (and their shoddy science with massive hidden error bars), we discover a government-press propaganda cabal that would make the Nazi’s Joseph Goebbels weep with pride:

The story begins in autumn 2004 when the government’s hysterically warmist chief scientific adviser Sir David King successfully persuaded the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to put action on global warming at the heart of UK government policy. This resulted in the creation of a propaganda body called The Climate Change Working Group which in turn sought PR advice from a company called Futerra communications.

Futerra – Britain’s answer to Fenton communications in the US – recommended the following policy:

Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.

To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken [emphasis added].

The above snippet comes from this UK Article.

Liberal Democrats are crashing on a wide range of fronts – from their shoddy economic ideas, to their shoddy health care ideas, tot their shoddy global warming ideas. The brand on the left is getting hammered – and deservedly so.

Finally, the epitome of vague liberal ideas built upon a foundation of inexperience and naivete is found in our young president. Who seems to have some trouble brewing of his own from the center left portion of his emaciated party.