The U.S. House flipped in 2010, not because Republican voters necessarily turned out in even greater numbers than in 2008 (they didn't), but rather because huge swaths of the Democratic electorate decided for whatever their reasons to disengage and sit that particular election out. Why? Because "Hope and Change" didn't manifest itself immediately, and they get everything they wanted in 2009-10? Do you really expect politicians to pay attention to people who are so easily frustrated that they give up so quickly?

Reality check here: The only lesson Democratic politicians will ever draw from liberal and progressive no-shows at the polls is that they really can't depend upon many members of their own side for political support at key moments. (See 2012-13 Wisconsin and Colorado Recall Elections.) Therefore, it only naturally follows that they'll look elsewhere for that support, and the odds are better than even that as liberals and progressives, we probably won't like where they're looking.

As bat guano-crazy as the GOP's right-wing base is at present, their party establishment is compelled to listen to them because come hell or high water, those voters dutifully flock to the polls en masse at EVERY election cycle -- including both primary and special elections -- and don't only show up for the one that happens to fall on the second Tuesday of every fourth November during presidential years.

And because the GOP right is fully engaged in the political process, they've gained an inordinate amount of leverage given the corresponding disengagement of the other side. They know that they can effect desired outcomes by applying constant electoral pressure at ALL levels of government, not just at the top every four years. And they most definitely realize that in every election year ending in "0", gaining control of state legislatures is very important because in most states, it is the legislature that controls the decennial congressional redistricting process.

So while Democratic voters sat on their thumbs in 2009-10, Republican voters not only helped their party seize control of the U.S. House, but also delivered to the GOP the state legislatures in key battlegrounds like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina (and further elected Chris Christie as governor of New Jersey). Whereupon Republicans in those states -- not Democrats -- then proceeded to redraw congressional district lines to their own liking and benefit. Thus in 2012, even though 60% of Pennsylvania voters cast their ballots for a Democratic congressional candidate, Democrats managed to get only 25-30% of that state's congressional seats.

We have an important upcoming election in less than four months, and the inordinate amount of attention that too many people are devoting to the one 28 months hence is not only silly at this point, but also ultimately counterproductive. Because once again, they're standing at the plate with bat resting on shoulder, and wondering about the next inning rather than concentrating on the immediate task at hand. What do you think the likelihood is that they'll be caught looking and called out on strikes?

So, from Sen. Warren's standpoint, what's the point of her presidential candidacy, if the best she can hope for is continued stalemate assuming she wins, because she doesn't have an amenable Congress with which she could work to actually get things done?

I know people around here get annoyed when I talk about their levels of political engagement (or lack thereof), but the good Lord willing, I'm going to keep annoying them until the lesson finally takes hold that EVERY single election is important, not just the presidential one every four years. And if you truly want and desire change, then you must commit yourself to becoming an effective and reliable instrument of that change at the ballot box -- which you'll never accomplish by removing yourself from the electoral equation in a selfish fit of personal pique, and staying home.

She also has had some issues with legal practice/consulting fees in MA.

Elizabeth Warren and her supporters have mounted  an argument that what she did at her office in Cambridge for private litigants was not the practice of law.

Warren herself, when confronted by a reporter after it was revealed she had no Massachusetts law license, claimed she was not practicing law. Her campaign later clarified that she was not practicing law "in Massachusetts" when she practiced law at her Cambridge office.  Warren denies ever appearing in a Court located in Massachusetts.

That defense is becoming more and more comical as more facts come out showing that as far back as 1995 Warren used her Cambridge office to render legal services for which she was paid at least hundreds of thousands of dollars. Warren still refused to disclose the full extent of her legal practice, pretending that all she did was write a few briefs.

Yet Warren's legal practice from her Cambridge office clearly went beyond merely appearing as "Of counsel" or Counsel on Briefs.

Which reminds me, we are off to the Florida panhandle at the end of the week, where my father and 12 Dixie Dadlers (and one family friend) will be gathering together in one place for the first time ever, on some barrier island in the Gulf. I hate humidity, I am a mosquito filet mignon, and I will have to pray (to the god I don't believe in) that my balsa-wood spine holds up through five hours in a plane, then six hours in a car.

But pops is pushing 90 and lives on the other side of the country from me. So, all my whining aside, I am grateful for every extra day I get to spend with him. Every time we say goodbye to my dad at the end of a trip back east, I am convinced that I'll never see him again. Between my broken body and fractured family, the ache of mortal brevity is beating on me right now.

Interesting, I had not considered that angle of the Ohio pick for the convention site...just seemed like an obvious choice since they must win Ohio to win. They basically rotate the conventions through their 'must win' states.