That post was not concerned with the dollar amounts they willingly and without question paid the warmongers, the pig banks, and others drooling while lusting greedily after the public trough.
No, that post was concerned with the democrats finding themselves on the wrong end of the angry American voters, because the issue was stated as:
I mean in the upcoming elections, since they have shown, up until this point, that they will pay any amount for war, but very little for domestic needs.(How Much Will Democrats Pay For War?). The discourse in that post was downstream from a Dredd Blog reminder to the democrats about what had been rejected in the two elections that had given them control of the House, Senate, and the White House:
The people have polled against the wars for years now, to no avail. The people overwhelmingly voted the neoCon republican hawks out, to give the democrats a chance to do what the people want.
Nevertheless, the wars continue, now having lasted longer than WW I and WW II combined.
In the first article the critical issue of the campaign was mentioned, which was the fact that it was a rejection election. The people rejected something.(What Was Rejected In The Election). It seems that the cows have come home, if we take note of the usually extremely accurate 538 dot com musings:
That subject is all important to understanding what went down, so in the article we answered the question by saying that it was the Bush II status quo mentality and politics that was rejected.
The Bush II regime's despotic ideology does not sit well with Americans, and in fact it does not sit well with humane people across the globe. Not surprisingly then, it was soundly rejected.
Understanding and remembering that factor is equally important to understanding what will go down in various circumstances during the first term of the Obama Administration.
And what if, for example, the Rasmussen case comes into being? Rasmussen has the Democrats losing the generic ballot by 9 points (and has had similar numbers for awhile). A 9-point loss in the House popular vote would translate into a projected 65-seat loss for Democrats. Or, if we adjust the Rasmussen poll to account for the fact that the Democrats' performance in the popular vote tends to lag the generic ballot, it works out to a 12.4 - point loss in the popular vote, which implies a loss of 79 seats!(Generic Poll Points to 50+ Loss For Democrats). I cite to 538 because they were perfectly accurate in the last election.
The point is not necessarily that these are the most likely scenarios -- we certainly ought not to formulate a judgment based on Rasmussen polls alone, as the jury is still out on whether the substantial house effect they've displayed this cycle is a feature or a bug. But these sorts of scenarios are frankly on the table. If Democrats were to lose 50, 60, 70 or even more House seats, it would not totally shock me. Nor would it shock me if they merely lost 15, or 20. But their downside case could be very far down.
As I said in Yes They Can!, it would be totally insane, and a clear indicator that this nation has gone over the edge, but that also can happen.