It's all about playing down expectations

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs warned on Sunday that there is a concrete possability the Republicans could take back the House of Representatives in November. This is one of the first public admissions of political trouble from the Democratic establishment. Conservative pundits were quick to jump on the prospect of the Obama Administration sounding the alarm so early in the election cycle, citing the weakness of their position. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has repeatedly asserted the Democrats' House majority is not in danger, citing individual house races, but her statements have only become more positive following the completion of the health care debate.

Pelosi has a point here. Though the national trends have the GOP at a slight advantage, there are numerous reasons to suggest they will fall short of a majority. The individual House races that feature vulnerable Democratic incumbents are polling better for the majority party than would be expected. The Democrats also have a massive fund-raising advantage. Above all else, the Republicans are not viewed as a good alternative to the Democrats by the electorate. The nomination of people like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul does nothing to improve their standing in this area.

Furthermore, the White House statements about the Democratic Party's chances in November are likely to play down expectations. The Republican Party has been trumpeting their inevitable win so loudly that anything short of a sweep in November will make them look bad. It is likely Democratic strategists have realized there will be political capital to be had if the Republicans do not win the election by a mile. The comments could also have been trying to arouse the Democratic base, who are frightened by the idea of John Boehner (R-OH) as Speaker of the House.

We dare you to oppose this! No, not you, Ben Nelson..

On Monday night, the Democrats held the first of a series of test votes to attempt to bring the financial reform bill to the floor for debate and amendments. As expected, the Republicans voted against the motion to proceed as a bloc, setting the process back several days. They were joined by the conservative Democratic senator, Ben Nelson, who has been trying to appease his Nebraska voters since his vote for the health care bill in December. The Republicans have been claiming that their unified vote against the motion to proceed is because they want the bipartisan negotiations involving Bob Corker, Chris Dodd, and Richard Shelby to continue. These talks had previously collapsed after going on for several months in which the Republicans came back to the negotiating table more than three times.

Putting the politics of the financial bill aside, what the Republicans are doing here is completely hypocritical. In John Boehner's closing speech against the HCR bill, he frequently cited back room deals and closed negotiations in his opposition. By voting against the motion to debate and amend the financial reform bill, Republicans are essentially saying that they want to postpone debate on the bill in favor of closed door negotiations. What these senators do not seem to understand is that voting against a motion to begin debate is a vote against doing anything about the problem the bill is addressing. If you are really committed to solving the problem, the first step is to add your ideas through amendments on the senate floor.

I don't think I need to say this, a solid majority of Americans support this already.