YOU CAN'T ABORT REALITY.

It's possible, as Bulwark contributor William Saletan notes, that protecting access to abortion was a bigger deal for voters, particularly at the margin, than the people who were anticipating a massive repudiation of the Jarrett regency thought.

In reading exit polls, it’s common to look at the subset of voters who said abortion was their “most important” issue. That can be misleading, because a lot of voters who care about abortion also care about inflation, crime, and other competing issues. It’s more useful to look at the “major impact” group, which logically encompasses the “most important” subset and is relatively unaffected by other issues the voter cares about. In the VoteCast survey, 47 percent of respondents said the overturn of Roe was a major factor in which candidates they voted for. And this half of the electorate chose Democratic House candidates over Republican House candidates by a margin of about 30 points.

Apparently, many of those voters came out on Election Day, particularly in college towns. No surprise there, keeping Plan B and Plan C available for cavorting at South Padre and having taxpayers pick up the tab, that is, if the (unconstitutional?) student loan cancellations are still in place next spring.  Forty years ago, we had evidence of financial aid money leading to students spending on stereos and trips; these days it's probably gaming computers and trips, but the phenomenon is the same.

Note, though, that voter turnout on Election Day is the way things usually work.  Mr Saletan, again:

In Michigan, 68 percent of Democrats said the overturn of Roe had a major impact on which candidates they voted for. Only 40 percent of Republicans said the same. And Democrats were twice as likely as Republicans—59 percent compared to 30 percent—to say that the Supreme Court’s ruling had a major impact on their decision to vote at all.

I'm really getting tired of hearing about ballot harvesting and dubious absentee voting and all the rest: if the Party of Technocracy and Free Stuff turns out callow youngsters whose primary interests are in Being Concerned, why, that's how things work.

Note, further, that having the Party of Technocracy and Free Stuff still in control of the executive and part of the legislative branches, with no plans to change anything, because of some belief that there will be good things forthcoming from the porkulus bills that were passed earlier this year, is fine, because they will own what follows.

Here's the hope.  "'The more they know about what we're doing, the more support there is,' Biden said of voters during a nearly hour-long news conference after midterm election results exceeded expectations for Democrats."

Here, via Cathy Young, is the reality.  "I hope the unmarried women that voted en masse for the Left realize that having the right to kill your unborn babies won’t do you much good when you can’t afford to buy groceries or gas up your Prius."

The correlation of forces is not favorable to the Party of Technocracy and Free Stuff.  All this money printing has led to a cost of living increase in Social Security, which is currently paying out more from its so-called trust fund than current workers are paying in.  "Social Security is not depression-proof either. It uses current payroll taxes to support current retirees. A depression is a situation in which people are not working, which a fortiori means smaller payrolls to tax."

Touch wood, no depression yet.  On the other hand, there were the corona shutdowns, and labor force participation has not yet risen to pre-lockdown, Trumpian levels.  Neither has economic growth, which no less than Paul Krugman, out of Paul Samuelson, has noted is the way to continue to support past Social Security liabilities out of current payroll taxes.

Alas, economic growth might involve population growth, or it might involve continued development of fossil fuel or nuclear energy resources, leading to an earlier depletion of the former, or crashing into those Technocratic Hopes of an incredible transition to a greener economy in which we all live like it's 1822, complete with a Crimean War brewing.  That is, if the bond traders don't give up on funding the Jarrett regency first.  It isn't quite the coffin corner (as aviators understand it, a combination of altitude, airspeed, and attitude from which maintaining control requires a lot of skill) and yet the Party of Technocracy and Free Stuff is going to have to square its aspirations with the realities should things turn sour.

Until the airframe starts shaking, though, gridlock wins.

Democrats didn't win the midterms so much as fail to completely lose them, despite Biden's reality-defying post-election claim that "the overwhelming majority of the American people support the elements of my economic agenda." Polls of Americans strongly suggest otherwise, and successes by Ron DeSantis, New York Republicans, and non-crazy GOP candidates elsewhere demonstrate that there is a national appetite for a serious alternative. But Trump-ish populists didn't satisfy that appetite. Given a choice between hubristic Democratic incompetence and culty Republican lunacy, voters pretty much split the difference, giving neither party a clear advantage.

span>With a little luck, Republicans will claim a razor-thin majority in the House, giving Americans the respite from bad policies—either party's bad policies—offered by gridlock. Two years of stalled legislation leading up to the next round of elections won't actually resolve anything, especially given the executive authority wielded by an unrepentant White House. But a hobbled Congress has to be an improvement over what we've seen in recent years.

Yes, considering that even the Jarrett regency couldn't get regular order appropriations passed for the Cabinet departments, with the full gerontocracy in charge at the Capitol.  Is it too much to ask for regular order appropriations rather than more wishfully-titled special legislation?

Just for fun, is there some way to put together 218 Members of Congress not in the Progressive Caucus or the Freedom Caucus to agree on a Speaker of the House?  The Constitution only calls for a Speaker: the convention that the speaker be from a majority party is informal.